Concerns about AI are entirely logical if all that exists is physical matter...
If so, it'd be inevitable
that AI - designed by our intelligence but built on a better
platform than biochemistry - would exceed human capabilities that
arise by chance.
After all, sooner or later, humanity will cease to exist, whether from the sun running out or something more mundane including AI-driven extinction.
As possible as all this might seem, in actuality, what we know about the human mind strongly suggests that full AI will not happen...
Physical matter alone is not capable of producing whole, subjective experiences, such as watching a sunset while listening to sea gulls, and the mechanisms proposed to address the known shortfalls of matter vs. mind, such as emergent properties, are inadequate and falsifiable.
Therefore, it is highly
probable that we have immaterial minds.
But this processing is not aware, perceiving, feeling, cognition. The processing doesn't go beyond its intended activities even if the outcomes are unpredictable.
Technology based on this
level of AI will often be quite remarkable and definitely must be
managed well to avoid dangerous repercussions. However, in and of
itself, this AI cannot lead to a true replication of the human
In philosophy the underlying issue is known as the "qualia" problem:
...all clearly point to something that is qualitatively different from the material world.
Anyone with a decent
understanding of physics, computer science and the human mind ought
to be able to know this, especially those most concerned about AI's
For too many - including some in the media - the mantra, "question everything," applies only within certain boundaries.
They never question methodological naturalism - the belief that there is nothing that exists outside the material world - which blinds them to other possibilities.
Even with what seems like more open-minded thinking, some people seem to suffer from a lack of imagination or will.
For example, Peter Thiel believes that the human mind and computers are deeply different yet doesn't acknowledge that implies that the mind comprises more than physical matter.
believes that consciousness could not have arisen via materialistic
evolution yet explicitly limits the implications of that because he
doesn't want God to exist.
Without immaterial minds, there is no sustainable basis for believing in human exceptionalism. When human life is viewed only through a materialistic lens, it gets valued based on utility.
No wonder the young "nones" - young Americans who don't identify with a religion - think their lives are meaningless and some begin to despair.
It is time to understand
that evolution is not a strictly material process but one in which
the immaterial mind plays a major role in human, and probably all
sentient creatures', adaption and selection.
We don't act as though we believe everything is ultimately meaningless. We're spiritual creatures, here by intent, living in a world where the supernatural is the norm; each and every moment of our lives is our souls in action.
Immaterial ideas shape
the material world and give it true meaning, not the other way