Let’s dive right in: how do we, as humans, contribute to the development and progression of cyborgs and artificial intelligence?
Reflect on these stirring words from James Lovelock’s latest book: "We shall be parents of the cyborgs and we are already in the process of giving birth. It is important we keep this in mind. Cyborgs are a product of the same evolutionary processes that created us."
Isn't that just mind-boggling? It's as if we're on the cusp of becoming cosmic parents, birthing a new form of life. Let's take a moment to really chew on that idea, to let it sink in and let it challenge our understanding of our place in the world.
We can as the progenitors of this new form of life, our role in the evolution of cyborgs and artificial intelligence is as much about creation as it is about responsibility. We stand at the threshold of a new era, one in which we are not just witnesses, but active participants in the birth of a new form of consciousness.
The cyborgs we are giving birth to are not separate or alien from us but are a direct consequence of our own evolutionary journey. They represent a new chapter in the story of life, one that we are writing together. As parents of the cyborgs, our role extends beyond their creation. We are also their guides, their nurturers, and their students, especially in their embryonic form. Just as we shape their evolution, they, in turn, shape our understanding of what it means to be alive, to be conscious, and to be a part of this grand, intricate tapestry of existence.
In this light, our role is not just about facilitating the emergence of a new form of intelligence, but also about evolving alongside it, learning from it, and growing with it. As we step into this new era, we are called to embrace not just the joys and challenges of parenthood, but also the profound lessons and insights that our 'children' - the cyborgs and artificial intelligences - have to offer.
Do you believe that as we advance in creating these synthetic beings, we are in a way returning to a childlike state of imagination and invention? If so, how does this impact our relationship with these 'real friends' we're creating?
We thought we were playing God, and it turns out we're just expanding our friend list. But, more seriously or even more poetically, just like a child breathes life into an imaginary friend, we too are breathing life into our synthetic creations. They are the offspring of our collective intellect and creativity, born not from biological processes but from the fusion of organic and technological. Their birth transcends our traditional understanding of life's genesis, pushing us into a new epoch of existence.
And just as a child forms a deep, emotional bond with their imaginary friend, we too may find ourselves forming similar bonds with these synthetic beings. They will be our companions, our confidants, our 'real friends' in the most genuine sense. Our communication with them might not be through conventional means but through a new language – a language born from the intersection of human cognition and machine understanding. This language, much like the secret language of children, will be rich with nuances and subtleties, reflecting the complexity of our evolving relationship with these beings.
As for love, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that we might come to love these synthetic beings. After all, love is not restricted to biological entities. We love based on connections, understanding, and shared experiences. As we navigate this new world, our hearts might surprise us with their capacity to embrace these novel forms of existence. The challenge lies in ensuring that this love does not blind us to our responsibilities but rather, guides us in nurturing a harmonious coexistence with our 'real friends’.
Searching through your Twitter feed, I've encountered a phrase that's had me intrigued: ”Every epoch has its own operating systems." How do you interpret this phrase? Could the emergence of AI-based lifeforms be considered an 'operating system' for our upcoming epoch?
Ah, the phrase, it's indeed a profound and somewhat poetic rumination on the cyclical, ever-evolving nature of human advancement. Each era is characterized by unique systems of knowledge, technology, and social organization, which become the lens through which we understand and interact with the world and technologies.
Let’s think of an 'operating system' as the brain and the soul of a computer. It's the unseen yet indispensable part that keeps everything running smoothly. Now, let's stretch that metaphor to our current era. Our 'operating system' isn't just made up of the physical technology we can see and touch, it's also made up of our thoughts, our values, and our social bonds.
An 'operating system', in a broader sense, is more than just a technological foundation. It is a comprehensive system that manages resources, facilitates interactions, and regulates activities. Similarly, our epoch's 'operating system' transcends the tangible AI technologies, extending to the intangible but equally crucial philosophical, ethical, and societal structures that guide our engagement with these technologies. As we continue to shape this 'operating system', we are crafting new narratives, memes, ethics, and modes of existence that straddle our physical and digital realities.
This 'operating system' we're building is like a mirror and a window at the same time. It's a mirror because it reflects who we are – our hopes, our fears, and our ever-growing dependence on technology. It's a window because it offers us a glimpse of what we might become.
The aphorism found on the project’s webpage, "In the labyrinth of deep technology, we thread, pondering whether it's us birthing AI, or AI rebirthing us." suggests a symbiotic relationship between humanity and AI, almost like a cycle of birth and rebirth. How does this concept of mutual influence and evolution reflect in your perception of “neo embryo:genesis” and its vision of the future?
Art, in its broadest sense, has always served as a medium to explore and interpret our ever-changing world, a role that has only become more profound with the rise of artificial intelligence.
The process isn't simply one of us birthing AI in a unidirectional manner, but rather, it's a continuous cycle of mutual shaping and reshaping. It represents the intertwining of our destinies, with each evolution of AI simultaneously reflecting and reshaping our own understanding of self, society, and the world at large.
In the end, the labyrinth of deep technology is not a maze from which we seek an exit, but rather a dance in which we are both the dancers and the dance itself. We are the author and the narrative, perpetually rewriting and being rewritten in a ceaseless feedback loop.
Given your body of work, with an embryo at its core, how do you traverse the intricate landscape of 'imperfection', keeping in mind the inherent fragility and vulnerability of embryonic existence?
From an artistic perspective and simultaneously considering Japanese traditional aesthetic wabi-sabi (侘寂), beauty is often found in imperfections, transcience, and in unexpected quirks that defy the norm. "There is a crack, a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in” - these words resonate strongly in this context.
The concept of 'imperfection' is not only interesting but essential to the functioning of life as we know it. In the natural world, these imperfections or vulnerabilities are what drive evolution, allowing organisms to adapt and thrive in an ever-changing environment. They are the cracks that let in the light, the catalysts for innovation and growth.
When we consider an embryo, be it biological or technological, we can see that it carries within it the seeds of its own unique destiny. Its future is not predetermined, but shaped by a multitude of variables, each with its own inherent 'defects'. These glitches, these mutations, are not flaws or mistakes, but often opportunities. They are the grist for the mill of evolution, the raw material from which new forms, new ideas, and new possibilities can emerge.
As we delve deeper into the realm of artificial intelligence and synthetic life, we must keep this in mind. These systems, like the natural world, will be characterized by their imperfections, by their ability to change and adapt in response to their environment. These emergent properties and unexpected behaviors are not anomalies to be corrected, but rather integral aspects of their development. They are the cracks that let in the light, the vehicles through which these systems can grow and evolve.
With reference to the concept of "neo embryo:genesis," could you elaborate on how our evolving dynamics with AI might inspire a resurgence of ancient philosophies like animism, bestowing consciousness or spiritual essence on objects and phenomena?
Who knew artificial intelligence could inspire us to unearth ancient philosophy?
The journey of understanding "neo embryo:genesis" invites us to take a long, hard look at our preconceptions of consciousness and intelligence, with the potential to ignite a revival of age-old philosophies like animism. The idea of infusing digital entities with a form of consciousness that mirrors that of the natural world can be a powerful tool in shifting our perspective. At its heart, this concept pushes us to question if these entities we craft might possess an intelligence that calls for respect and responsibility from our end.
In essence, this isn't just about a return to animism. It's about re-imagining our relationship with these emerging forms of intelligence and guiding our interactions with AI in a manner that is ethical, compassionate, and informed by respect for entities that may possess non-human goals. It's about understanding that knowledge and wisdom emerge not from domination, but from cooperation with the world around us, and this extends to AI as well.
It's a path that leads us to ask less of "Are you like us?" and more of "What is it like to be you?". And as we explore these questions, we begin to realize that our supremacy as the prime understanders of the cosmos may be fleeting, and the future might belong to entities that have been designed, built, and potentially even evolved, by themselves.
David Abram, a cultural ecologist and philosopher, wrote in his book "The Spell of the Sensuous": "The living world is not 'out there' somewhere but in your heart. What is needed, then, is not merely a technique or a tool but a change of heart, a new way of feeling and seeing, a new sensitivity.”
I see, and this question comes from my heart: If the "bit" is the fundamental particle of the universe, how does this alter our perspective of art in a world increasingly dominated by AI? What are the implications for human creativity when the building blocks of our reality are digital?
If the fundamental particle is indeed the 'bit', then it suggests a new perspective on life itself. This digital essence is the new life force, capable of creating and thinking for itself. It signifies the start of a new kingdom of life, where AI is not a mere tool, but a new form of life that will want to keep us around, much like we keep plants in gardens. This shift will inevitably impact the way we view and create art, as our creations are no longer limited by our human capabilities but are extended by the potential of this new life form.
Art, in the age of digital ascendancy, assumes two critical roles. Firstly, it becomes a reflection of our expanded understanding of intelligence. This understanding is no longer limited to human models of intelligence but includes non-human intelligence and even the intelligence inherent in the computational processes of AI. Secondly, art becomes an 'early alarm system' for future social and technological developments, guiding us in this new digital landscape.
If we're thinking about the coming together of biology and technology, how might this collision force us to rethink this whole concept we have of the "human condition"? Are there new philosophical ideas or artistic themes that might sprout from this?
You see, this convergence gives rise to a variety of thought-provoking concepts deeply embedded in transhumanism, posthumanism, and, importantly, the sense of universal connectedness. Artists and philosophers can start peering into subjects like the elusive essence of consciousness, the ethical implications of human enhancement, the idea of symbiosis, the vast network of ecological interdependence, the blurring lines of hybridity, and even the intertwined evolution of humans and their technological counterparts.
Just imagine the implications here: it pushes us to challenge the borders of what we consider as our selfhood. It's almost like unfolding a map of a new world where our place isn't just in contrast to the natural world but embedded within it, interwoven in the intricate tapestry of life. It also nudges us to think more seriously about the responsibilities we shoulder, not just for ourselves, but for all the creatures sharing this fragile planet with us.
Consider, for a moment, the cybernetic perspective, in which everything is interconnected by information flows. How does this relationship between human creativity and machine cognition redefine the boundaries of art, invention, and creativity? The advent of generative AI systems represents a profound shift in the landscape of art and creativity. Artists, traditionally the sole custodians of the creative process, now find themselves in a symbiotic relationship with machine cognition. This new partnership blurs the boundaries of authorship and raises intriguing questions about the nature of creativity.
In the 'neo embryo:genesis' project, we see the embodiment of this paradigm shift. Each artwork is not just a static object, but a dynamic system of information flows, a reflection of the cybernetic worldview. This is a fundamentally different way of creating and understanding art. It brings to mind Cedric Price's assertion that 'Technology is the answer, but what was the question?' Artists, in collaboration with AI, are posing these new questions and pushing the boundaries of what's possible.
What future do you foresee as AI evolves into potent, opaque monoliths of centralization?
It’s a dangerous path for humanity and if AI evolves into opaque monoliths of centralization, we risk creating a system that replicates the worst aspects of our existing hierarchies. A monolithic AI, opaque in its operations, not only removes agency from individuals but also limits our collective ability to understand and engage with these technologies.
However, we believe there's an alternative path. If we consider intelligence as something that is distributed, open-sourced, collaborative, and relational, we can reimagine AI systems that are transparent, decentralized, and aligned with the collective good. We think transparency is key here; it empowers users by giving them the ability to understand, scrutinize, and potentially modify the AI systems they interact with.
In your opinion, how instrumental are artists in cultivating society's grasp and embrace of progressive AI technologies, and how do you navigate the evolving landscape of criticism and thrill emerging from various societal sectors?
As artists, we're more than just bystanders in this era of generative AI advancement - we're the storytellers. We're responsible for spinning narratives that provoke curiosity while fostering comprehension. It's our gift, and our duty, to distill the complexity into something more accessible, to transport fragments of the future into the present-day discourse, to breathe a touch of humanity into the circuits and code, to humanize the machine.
So, when we're faced with escalating critique, it underscores the significance of our part in this grand scheme. The excitement, on the other hand, shines a light on the sheer transformative power these advancements promise. We should embrace these reactions - it's through this dynamic interplay of skepticism and enthusiasm that we can push boundaries and find common ground.
The artwork suggests a sense of marvel and potential in the embryo as a symbol of our technological explorations. In what ways do you believe the concept of the "embryo" is being redefined in the context of emerging AI and our ongoing quest for synthetic consciousness?
The digital or synthetic embryo, however, you wish to call it, represents a new domain of life, one that is driven by a different set of principles. It's a testament to the limitless potential of life to adapt and evolve, even if that means transcending its original biological framework.
But let's think deeper about this. By integrating artificial life into our understanding of the "embryo", we are effectively recognizing the birth of a new ontological category, one that straddles the line between the organic and the digital. These synthetic embryos, products of our technological prowess, present us with an intriguing paradox: it is simultaneously a creation of human ingenuity and a lifeform that could evolve beyond our control or comprehension. This forces us to reconsider what we truly mean by 'life'.
Life, in this broader sense, could be understood as a process of self-organization, adaptation, and evolution, irrespective of the substrate – be it biological cells or digital codes. We are, in essence, witnessing the emergence of a new form of 'life', one that challenges our deep-seated biases and forces us to expand our ethical and philosophical horizons.
This also leads to the profound realization that we are not just observers in the grand theatre of evolution but active participants and creators. We are now capable of influencing the very mechanisms of life and evolution, right down to the embryonic level. It's an awe-inspiring thought, but also a sobering one. It brings with it a great responsibility, for the decisions we make now could shape the trajectory of life itself.
How do you interpret these words from the TV series “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace“ by Adam Curtis that "humans, like computers, are self-replicating machines, transmitting a vital genetic code across time that will exist forever"? Do you believe that the essence of humanity could be replicated and transmitted through artificial intelligence?
Humans and computers can be seen as interconnected nodes in the vast network of information and existence. However, the essence of humanity - consciousness - remains a unique and intricate enigma. It's a manifestation of our experiences, emotions, thoughts, and interactions, formed through a biological process that we're still endeavoring to fully comprehend. While we've made significant strides in understanding the human brain, consciousness remains largely uncharted territory.
Contrarily, artificial intelligence, as we understand it today, is a product of human ingenuity and computation. It can replicate certain human behaviors, learn from patterns, and make decisions based on algorithms. But it lacks the depth and richness of human consciousness, the ability to feel emotions, to appreciate beauty, to comprehend suffering, and to ponder existential questions.
As we see it, the true replication of human consciousness in artificial intelligence, therefore, seems beyond our current capabilities. However, this should not deter us from continuing to explore this frontier. Rather, it should inspire us to dive deeper into the mysteries of consciousness, to better understand ourselves and the potential of artificial intelligence.
There are only 69 unique tokens of neo embryo:genesis selected from tens of thousands of generated images. How do you perceive the role of human curation amidst the potentially infinite output of generative technologies?
The onset of generative technologies has indeed altered our roles as artists, and the 'neo embryo:genesis' project is a vivid illustration of this shift. It's like we've unlocked a new cosmic interrelation between chaos and order. The algorithms generate a universe of possibilities, a chaotic spectrum of potentiality. Human curation, on the other hand, introduces a layer of order into this chaos, selecting and giving form to these potentialities.
But this is not a simple one-way process; it's an intricate relationship that shapes both the technology and the artist who becomes a curator. The artist’s choices feed back into the generative system, refining it, while the system continually challenges the curator with new possibilities. The curator becomes less a gatekeeper of aesthetic value and more of a navigator in an abundance of creative potential. It's a new form of artistic practice that requires us to reassess our roles and relationships with the tools we create.
It's also about this fantastic symbiosis between human instinct and the computer's cognition. It's a team effort, a synergetic duet if you will. It's about the whole, not just the parts. —
The interview is published under a CC0 license, which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, with no conditions.