Aleksandr Segal

IBM has created a supercomputer with enough processing power for “real-time cortical simulation that achieved more than 1 billion spiking neurons, as well as 10 trillion individual learning synapses” exceeding the capacity of a cat’s brain. The technology is predicted to come as close as ever to replicating the human brain by 2019. This, of course, is the foreshadowing of many marvelous possibilities such as the creation of sentient artificial intelligence or the ability to save a person’s mind within a computer system. All of these issues are clearly subject to debate and these arguments are too plenty and substantial for this blog entry but are definitely worthy of perusing.

One issue is especially interesting to me however. That is, the creative power of man over a potentially intelligent being. I think it is worthy of considering the ethical repercussions of being part of a creator-creation relationship. These supercomputers, assuming they are truly intelligent, are intended to be a useful gadget of mankind. Would this then be a slave-master relationship? Is it ethically allowable to create an intelligent agent, biologically present or not, with a specific intended use? First, and foremost, it should be explored whether a supercomputer such as the one built by IBM could actually be “intelligent”. Achieving a brain-like neuron system replication is clearly within reach but this offers little information on whether a computer could have the same mind-like states of a human. The capacity for memory, learning, and decision making is not necessarily tied to the experience of these traits. Perhaps experience is not essential for being a being in the same scope as humans. Other characteristics are also important including free will or emotion. A neural system reproduction is capable of learning and memory but it is not clear as to whether the computer will be able to transcend the user input of the programmer in its output.

These problems can be highlighted by examining the human brain and how a person makes decisions. When faced with a decision, such as what food to eat, a person will typically base his decision on past experience. For instance, if I were to find a mushroom that, in the past, has made me ill, I will probably avoid it. For a computer, decisions can, too, be based on past occurrences but will, ultimately, depend on the foundation of programming that the computer began with. This programming will be the basis for how the computer learns and how it interprets information. So, would a computer, even a supercomputer of near-human capabilities in neural networking, be free from the programmer’s directions?

To return to my original idea of the relationship between the creation and the creator, it is interesting to consider what it means to create an intelligent agent with intended use in mind prior to its existence. In some ways, people have done just this for quite some time with some-what intelligent animals for a wide variety of useful purposes. However, the dilemma of artificial intelligence is a more curious case since this would be the creation of a an entirely new type of being – a being that rises above and beyond the physical form and only depends on a stream of information.

It is said that for anything to be gained, something of equal value must be lost in exchange. Whether you believe this to be absolutely true in all scenarios does not necessarily mean that you do not use this philosophy in everyday life. People, in general, believe that effort spent will, in time, allow them to reap the rewards. People commit many acts based on similar idealist notions and often base some of their biggest decisions on the quixotic teachings of a religious or spiritual guidance or according to some philosophical canon. Ethics can be considered an exploration of this side of human activity to the fullest degree. If there is indeed a higher good; how one can come to better know the good; and how the good can help resolve the many issues s/he may face throughout his/her life, all of these issues are part of the journey of meditation in ethics. However, are these idealist notions of  a higher good something that should be a decisive agent in our lives?

When someone decided to cheat or lie, are they conscious of the deceitful nature of their actions? Are they ignoring a desire that lives within them, that yearns to be truthful, despite the gut feeling that it may be the “right thing to do”? Are they paying no attention to this hypothetical gesture of hesitation towards the socially vilified act of lying? If it is the former, they believe what they are doing is bad, but choose to commit the act regardless. (This may be due to the possibility of this heinous act resulting in a more genuine and altruistic effect.) If it is the latter, they refuse to believe in the idea that good and bad can be conjoined with a behavior.

Consider the possibility of someone being involved in a dilemma in which they truly want to help someone by being honest but may, in turn, cause physical or emotional pain to that very person. In other words, do I follow my belief that I should be honest with my friends despite the almost assured chance of making them unhappy or do I allow them to continue living without knowing the truth that is absolutely relevant to their interests? Does my idealistic subscription to a belief that values genuineness grant me the right to cause someone pain and suffering?

To return to a previous point, even this example can be argued to nullity. To recap: I may follow my belief that honesty is best or I may allow my friend to continue being happily ignorant; and the question I raised is whether I can use the real emotional states of a person as a means to fulfill the demands of my beliefs. However, is the dilemma here actually that I find that both causing harm to someone and lying to someone are both void of moral worth. Can all of our real-life decisions be based only on ethical arguments? If so, how can we act in any way without rejecting some form of a higher good? Is this not the dilemma that is at the root of ethical debate?

I have recently become a member of an online community of aficionados of  headphones and other sound oriented electronics. This, unsurprisingly, has led me to make several purchases that I would not have made without such inspiration. First, and foremost, are my Sony MDR-v6 headphones that are now in the process of being taken from me by ALliE. So impressed, I immediately bought another pair of headphones and a portable headphone amp – the Audio-Technica AD700 and the small Chinese made M5 amp. The last and most expensive dip into my wallet was the EMU 0404 external sound card for home use.

Why is this relavent? It isn’t. I just thought it was fascinating how one new pair of headphones could make me fall in love with music all over again. Once I had my hands on the Sony’s, I diligently began downloading music in FLAC format rather than in MP3; something that would supposedly heighten the audio quality and eventual listening pleasure. How different is any of this from just listening to simple mp3’s over cheap in-ear buds? To me, the difference is so bold in several different ways that I can’t even imagine going back to what I had previously enjoyed. “Enjoyed” is not even a word I think of when I consider the overall comfort and joy I receive from listening to Pendulum or Radiohead through my new gear.

Over the last few weeks (or maybe months?) I’ve lost all interest in the community that, at some point in the past, led me to where I am now. In fact, I’ve not only lost interest, I have also lost trust in the authenticity of the individuals who visit said community. In fact, I find no distinct difference from this board to a TV or internet commercial that, with enough investment, will eventually grapple more consumers and send them on their way to the nearest headphone supplier. Do I regret my purchases? No in the least but I still feel like some people could be taken advantage of as they know very little about this particular field of products and are willing to take advice from any self-declared expert.

However, this online community, if it is in fact just one big commercial for headphones and sound cards, is freaking genius. What better way to disguise a commercialist approach in the era of Facebook and Myspace and whatever other ridiculous nonsense is out there? One does not even need to own the site itself but merely needs an agent to act as an respectable member and spew relentless praises for a particular brand.

Either way, I’d like to acknowledge the wonder of paying attention to the music one listens to rather than just mindlessly hearing it. Something spectacular comes about when you can take a deeper look into the song not as just a hit of the week but as a piece of art with many complex and beautiful components that take time and effort to uncover.