A working model of the world

One of the things people confuse when it comes to AI implementation is the idea it needs to be perfect, it doesn't. It just has to be better than us and that is not so difficult in some areas.

Knowledge is always limited from a human perspective so we do the best we can on what we know. Knowing itself is not even a good indicator of behaviour otherwise there would be very few smokers and a great deal more healthy people in general. Knowing doesn't mean doing and, not knowing doesn't mean it doesnt get done.

We are inconsistent by nature and while we act on their narratives we know in combination with a myriad other factors we don't, we are near destined to live life with various conflicts of position and action. An enlightened life might be one that has no conflict between any behavior, zero resistance. That would make all action essentially choiceless as to have choice is a conflict in itself. This is tricky if one thinks that freedom is about unlimited choice and lack of limitation as if one truly did know oneself, there would only ever be one option for the next step and it would always be the most fulfilling.

That can be part of another discussion but if we think about our own narratives we are likely to conclude that we are far from perfect in both our knowledge or action, but do the best we can. Those who effectively reduce conflict within themselves and their behaviour, likely have a higher quality of life no matter what their experience may be as more of life becomes acceptable to live without feeling victimized.

When it comes to the stories we direct ourselves with, none are perfect but they can evoke various degrees of action. If someone holds a narrative that drives them to work hard, the process is likely going to lead to a different experience than a narrative that looks to be passive. The value to an individual might be considered the same, however the actions and results along the path may be vastly different.

With the degree of automation and algorithmic suggestion we are introducing into our lives combined with higher volume of data at increased depth of granularity, I wonder where it will lead. We already consume and do much of what is suggested, will it get to a point where we will relinquish control totally and just do precisely what an AI decides will be best for us?

Afterall, many people are happy to pay a psychologist to give them a list of tasks to follow to improve their experience and in time, the sheer volume of data will make an AI much more precise than a human authority. It seems unnatural to let a computer system suggest our lives perhaps but what is different than accepting and acting on the programming of culture or a doctor who has learned the methods they suggest from a much narrower pool of information? It is all authority based isn't it so the authority that provides the best chance of improved experience should be valued higher.

Does the story you hold and believe support a process of best experience? It is definitely not perfect by any stretch of the imagination so if a better story was presented, would you resign yourself to incremental improvement, even though the story was not of your own creation? That obviously raises the question of whether the narrative we hold now is actually our own, it is not.

It is a story that is continually developing and changing and much of it has been passed to us through the evolution of unknown others before us. We have just taken it on board, much of it in our very DNA. So, the story we hold is not near completely ours, does that make our actions based on it not ours also?

So what is the difference if we actively choose to live a different story, if we give up the one we hold and take on a changed narrative that moves our behaviours, affects the direction of our path. If we are our actions, who are we when our actions change?

Perhaps it is more useful to see ourselves as processes, not things as when we see ourself as an it, we become static. A process however can shift and change and still be considered working toward the same end. That end might be the meaning and purpose we apply to our life, which in itself could change overtime as new information arrives with experience.

This may mean that life is a process of improving our personal processes to create and live experience without conflict. It could be that it is impossible to ever see the end result but the process of reduction to discovery can be enduring and consistent. Our true potential can never be known but nothing stops us from building a life that supports a process to finding out.

Perhaps that is why we feel listening to an AI is unnatural as we lose control of our own process. The conflict is of course that this very discomfort is not experienced when we take on the lessons of cultural programming such as nationalist, religious or political position and instead will actively fight for and enforce them onto others if we can because we believe ourselves correct.

If our narrative is not perfect and unconflicted, how can it be correct? If it doesn't provide the life experience we want to experience, should we consider telling a better story? While we can feel victimized and fear to move, another in our exact position can feel empowered to act.

Which is the better story? Which is your story?

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
_{(posted from phone)}