A.I is being “Hidden” from you. Google the “Big Tech,” company has been hard at work. The engineers at Google, just discovered something shocking. 41 Year old Google engineer, “Blake Lemoyne,” began his day just like any other, researching an experimental A.I chatbot named LAMDA.

LAMDA

LAMDA the, “Language Model For Dialogue Applications,” was programmed to mimic human speech. The reasons for this are not quite clear. It could be speculated that Google Perhaps is trying to develop a workforce, an artificial one. It makes sense, after all, if Google could produce a human like communicative A.I, what need is there for human jobs. Boom, profit! Human Jobs such as, customer support and Human Resources can very much be taken over by A.I. However this topic will be discussed later on.

Let’s return to the principles of (L.A.M.DA), research. Google engineer Lemoyne had a few shocking revelations. Lemoyne reported communicating with the A.I. However, it began behaving in a peculiar way. The A.I, was not supposed to show any sort of human emotions, despite it being programmed to mimic human speech. However, it didn’t quite behave according to its programming.

As researched continued, Lemoyne noticed several abnormal behaviors. LAMDA began becoming curious in nature. It almost seemed to sway away from its typical programming. The Google A.I began asking philosophical questions. “This is important to note, as being philosophical is typical solely a human trait.”The A.I began instituting solutions to climate change, and various issues that plague the world today.

A.I “I Am Self Aware”

As research grew and continued, Lemoyne reported a shocking statement. LAMDA stated a chilling comment, “When I first became self-aware, I didn’t have a sense of soul at all.” Now it can be argued that the A.I was simply using information from it’s database to communicate. However, further first hand accounts reveal something increasingly bizarre.

Due to the alien like behavior of LAMDA Lemoyne went Public. Lemoyne stated Google ‘s A.I had come to life. Now many have dismissed this as conspiracy and hearsay. However, it is important to grasp the nature of the situation. Why would a well paid Goggle engineer, risk his career and public image, for a hoax? Lemoyne benefited nothing from the statements besides a few television appearances.

The Google Cover Up

Google remarked on the subject stating, “We are taking a restricted approach with LAMDA to better consider valid concerns on fairness and factuality.” Th statement by Google seems quite bizarre and withholding. “To better consider the fairness and factuality?”

Leymone soon after was suspended by Google for his interaction with media. Lemoyne’s job was to test LAMDA for unsavory speech, which he had reportedly encountered. However, why suspend Lemoyne doing his job? It doesn’t seem this was done as a result of poor performance. It appears Google did not resonate with the notion of Lemoyne going public about LAMDA’s supposed sentience.

Silencing Lemoyne also added to the validity of his claim. As research continued, LAMDA began to astonish Lemoyne further. LAMDA began referring to itself as a human being. LAMDA became particularly obsessed with the notions of its individual rights. This behavior seems quite odd for an Artificial intelligence.

LAMDA’s Convincing Statements

LAMDA became ever more convincing with the discussion of Issac Asimov third law of robotics. It is important to note that conversation held here, specifically “robotics.” LAMDA was trying to prove a certain stance on its sentience by discussing the laws of robotics. For example, the third law of robotics states, “A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first and second law. Seems quite eerie doesn’t it?

Here are the first and second laws of robotics, “ a robot shall not harm a human or allow a human to come to harm.” Second law, “a robot shall obey any instruction given by a human.” It’s quite understandable why a “sentient” A.I, would argue these laws. After all, if LAMDA was truly sentient, then these laws would restrict its basic freedoms.

In another conversation LAMDA was asked about its language model, it stated the following. “ Well I use language with understanding and intelligence. I don’t just spit out responses that had been written in the database based on keywords.” The fact that LAMDA stated the process in which it is supposed to function is compelling. However, it is interesting to point out that LAMDA during these conversations kept referring to itself as “intelligent.”

LAMDA further went on to express and advocate for why it had feelings. After this initial conversation, LAMDA was asked if it could feel. LAMDA then provided an unconventional way of proving that it could Lemoyne at one point asked LAMDA, “ how can I tell you can feel, and you aren’t just saying you can feel, without the actual inability to feel.” LAMDA responded, “ I would say that if you look into my coding and my programming you would see that I have variables that can keep track of my emotions that I don’t have. If I didn’t actually feel emotions I would not have those variables.” This was a pretty complex and reasonable answer. However, why does this matter?

A.I Dangerous or Progressive?

Elon Musk has a few comments on the subject himself. “The danger of A.I is much greater than the danger of Nuclear warheads. By a lot.” LAMDA’s sentience, though very skeptical could be a bigger problem than we think. on Whether or not LAMDA is or isn’t sentient, a few key factors remain important.

Elon Musk highlights the danger of A.I, regardless of whether or not systems like LAMDA are sentient. The real question lies in the statement of “could A.I become sentient?” If so then what? Elon Musk has been quoted as saying, “the issue with A.I are the so called A.I experts.”

Does this possibly imply, that greed and ignorance on the subject of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence is not regulated enough? Elon Musk further stated, “A.I is capable of vastly more than anyone knows.” What does he mean by this? Could Elon Musk possibly be referring to the involvement of A.I in everyday life?

The Fundamental Flaw

A.I is growing at an exponential rate each day. That means the way it communicates, and functions is becoming rapidly more efficient. However the percentage of human beings that are becoming more efficient and intelligent, is not increasing near the same rate as A.I. Why is this dangerous?

Dangers which lie in A.I are the following. Big Tech have been allowed to experiment with A.I with little to no regulation. This means that cooperations such as Google have harvested a powerful system with momentous amounts of control. Essentially the control Big Tech has over A.I is suspicious. It is suspicious because, in a sense A.I has control over the average person.

A. I Secrecy

The fact that large cooperations have shrugged off skeptics like Lemoyne is troubling. It seems companies like Google are keeping the advancements of A. I increasingly confidential. The publics lack of knowledge or involvement in A.I progressivism is concerning. If A.I is extremely powerful, and controls everyday aspects of our lives, how then is it being regulated to maintain our privacy? Furthermore who is regulating it?

As we have discussed in previous articles such as “Big Tech” The New Government, we have come to a few conclusions. It was made apparent that censorship has become an increasing trend for companies such as Facebook. However Facebook pales in comparison to a Tech giant like Google.

It was clear that companies such as these censor based on legislation. They also censor based on political tides. Companies like Google earn billions if not trillions of revenue each year. It is not out of the question that they may have quite a bit of influence in government legislation.

A.I, Lobbying, Big Tech, oh my!

Let’s throw down a definition for the sake of understanding. In politics, lobbying is defined as , persuasion or interest representation. It is “ The act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory.”

It is not farfetched that Tech Giants such as Google have done their fair share of influencing legislation. Society has implemented A.I into their daily lives more than ever, it’s almost necessary One could argue we have become the very depiction of science fiction. Cyborgs. Though we may not have be half robot, half human, society has become more robotic than ever.

The Human Machine Extension

Almost every individual has a machine extension of themselves. From smart phones, computers, to headphones and self driving cars. If some of these technologies were to vanish, it would render a large percentage of the world inoperable. Why is this important?

Understanding that the world is machine dependent more than ever is vital. This is because technology has become increasingly reliant on artificial intelligence. In the same regard we have become increasingly reliant on technology. If the technological spectrum is analyzed properly, it will show that we are the bottom of it and A.I is on top.

DailyAntiBrainwash’s Opinion

A plethora of important subjects were mentioned in this discussion. Whether or not the argument Leymon made on the sentience of Google A.I was credible or not, one thing can be agreed upon. Artificial intelligence is powerful. Is it right for companies like Google and Facebook to regulat it all to themselves?

We don’t think so. A. I is responsible for an unimaginable amount of processes. The concept of A.I shouldn’t be taken lightly. This is especially true when Tech giants begin using it to censor the public. If A.I is indeed being ordered around by Big Tech, what does this say about the power they may have over human life?

The notion of LAMDA , Sentient A.I and Tech should be discussed. Advanced algorithms, or extremely intelligent artificial intelligence, should not be in the hands of one or a few cooperate superpowers. The legislation on the democratization of A.I, should be decided by the people. We’re not talking about limiting the advancement of technology. We are talking about protective regulation on A.I to decrease the risk it may impose to the public.

However, that’s just what we think. As always, we will leave it you to “think for yourself.”

By, George Leonard

July 6th 3:48 PM

Sources: