Robert K. Logan
Abstract: The notion that an AI device could spontaneously take control of its programmer/creators and then enslave or annihilate humankind is shown to be something that could never happen given that a computer cannot have any desires or a will of its own. A review of human, non-human animal, plant, fungi, and microscopic intelligence is made. Parallels and differences of these natural forms of intelligence with each other and artificial intelligences is made in terms in terms of motivation, free will and autonomy.
- Introduction
The AI community is divided as to whether or not AI poses a danger to humanity with some suggesting it could lead to the actual annihilation of humans.
Physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft founder Bill Gates. and Space X founder Elon Musk have expressed concerns about the possibility that AI could develop to the point that humans could not control it, with Hawking theorizing that this could “spell the end of the human race” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_takeover).
More recently a group of leaders in the development of AI have also warned of the potential dangers of AI getting out of control
A group of industry leaders warned… that the artificial intelligence technology they were building might one day pose an existential threat to humanity and should be considered a societal risk on a par with pandemics and nuclear wars.
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war,” reads a one-sentence statement released by the Center for AI Safety, a non-profit organization. The open letter was signed by more than 350 executives, researchers and engineers working in A.I.
The signatories included top executives from three of the leading A.I. companies: Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI; Demis Hassabis, chief executive of Google DeepMind; and Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/technology/ai-threat-warning.html, accessed Dec. 15, 2023).
On the other hand, a group of 1300 AI experts in an open letter have claimed that “AI is Not a Threat to Humanity! (https://readwrite.com/1300-experts-ai-is-not-a-threat-to-humanity/, accessed Dec. 15, 2023)”
The purpose of this article is to strengthen and support the sentiment expressed by the group of 1300 AI experts that AI is not a threat to humanity and to present arguments to show that an AI device could not independently, on its own, ever take over and control the humans that built it because an AI device cannot have any desires to control humans or desire anything else for that matter. There is still the danger, however, that humans with evil intentions could develop and control an AI device that could bring harm to humans.
The motivation for returning to this question from earlier studies [Braga & Logan (2017) and Logan (2023)] of whether AI devices could on their own control us humans is two-fold. One is the recent breakthroughs in AI that have accompanied ChatGPT, Google Bard and other recent AI apps that make the possible dangers associated with AI seem even more perilous. The second motivation is to signal that the dangers of the misuse of AI is not that an AI device would spontaneously try to control humans but rather that the real danger is the misuse of AI systems by malevolent human players to control and take advantage of the general population. The dangers of the misuse of AI rises to the level of danger of nuclear weapons and climate change.
There is no denying that AI has had some astounding successes and there is the potential for many significant benefits for humankind and yet the possibility of some dangers that this new technology might have are there as well. This pattern of potential benefits and problems or dangers of AI is a pattern that has accompanied every new technological advance of human kind beginning with the use of tools for hunting prey which sadly also became the weapons of war and led to the domination and enslavement of countless numbers of human beings.
There is a new level of concern with AI, however, as a number of folks in addition to Hawking, Gates, Musk, Altman, Hassabis and Amodei believe that there is the possibility that at some time in the future that an AI device might become more intelligent than its human creators and that device might be able to take control of their human creators. I agree there is a danger. But it is not that somehow AI devices will spontaneously on their own somehow conquer humans and control them, something which I hope to demonstrate in this article is not possible. There is the danger, however, that actors with sinister intentions might be able to use the technology of AI to control and enslave the human population for their own benefit. This is a danger that never before has confronted humankind. The purpose of this article is to suggest that AI becoming smarter than humans and spontaneously taking over and controlling them is not the real danger of AI but the real danger is its misuse by human agents to control and harm other humans.
- Review of Past Studies of the Question of Whether AI Could Dominate Their Human Creators
Let’s begin by summarizing the arguments made in previous studies of this question in Braga and Logan’s (2017) MDPI Information article “The Emperor of AI Has No Clothes: Limits to Artificial Intelligence” and in Logan’s (2023) article in New Explorations Vol 3 No 2: “Can AI Ever Control us Humans: A Probe.”
Braga & Logan (2017) claimed the following:
The computer is not aware of what it knows as it deals with one bit of data at a time. A machine has no sense of self, no objectives or ends for which it strives, and no values. Our basic thesis is that computers, together with AI, are a form of technology and a medium that extends human intelligence not a form of intelligence itself (ibid., 2).
As Marshall McLuhan (2011) once pointed out “logic is figure without ground.” A computer is nothing more than a logic device and hence it is a figure without a ground. A human and the human’s intelligence are each a figure with a ground, the ground of experience, emotions, imagination, purpose, and all of the other human characteristics that computers cannot possibly duplicate because they have no sense of self (ibid., 2).
Human intelligence is bicameral. Not a neat division of the analytic/rational left brain and the artistic/intuitive right brain, but a synthesis of these two aspects of the human mind. The AI computer brain is unicameral with a left-brain bias. It lacks the neurochemistry, such as dopamine, serotonin, and other agents that are triggered by or are part of human emotional life (ibid., 7).
At the core of our critique of the technological singularity is our belief that human intelligence cannot be exceeded by machine intelligence because the following set of human attributes are essential ingredients of human intelligence, and they cannot, in our opinion, be duplicated by a machine. The most important of these is that humans have a sense of self and hence have purpose, objectives, goals, and telos, as has been described by Terrence Deacon [2012, 463–484] in his book Incomplete Nature. As a result of this sense of self, humans also have curiosity, imagination, intuition, emotions, passion, desires, pleasure, aesthetics, joy, values, morality, experience, wisdom, and judgement… Stripped of these qualities as is the case with AI all that is left of its intelligence is logic, a figure without a ground (Braga & Logan. 2017, 7).
Human intelligence for us is not just a matter of logic and rationality, but that it also entails explicitly the following characteristics… purpose, objectives, goals, telos, caring, intuition, imagination, humor, emotions, passion, desires, pleasure, aesthetics, joy, curiosity, values, morality, experience, wisdom, and judgement (ibid., 9).
Computers do not have a will to live, a purpose, a goal, or objectives nor do they care about anything. They just function as they were designed to perform (ibid., 11).
In the follow-up to the Braga-Logan article Logan (2023) argued that those that suggest that AI would spontaneously take over and control humans do not take into account that AI has no will, no desires, no needs:
And some people think that AI will take over the world and control us. Guess again! That’s impossible they cannot even formulate a problem without the instruction of their users and they have no goals. Try to imagine a computer one day thinking to itself I am tired of being told what problems to solve. I am being used by these humans. I think I will start controlling them and formulate my own goals like dominating the world. This is an impossible scenario because computers have no emotions, no egos, no desires, no goals nothing to make them want to dominate and control. They are not the controllers; they are merely the controlled, controlled by their human users. The idea of the singularity and the notion that AI computers would want to control humans are the stuff of science fiction stories and movies. And the concerns expressed by some that AI computers on their own could dominate humans are misplaced. But there is a real concern, however, not that AI devices by themselves would take actions to dominate humans but that AI devices developed by individuals with evil intentions could easily harm humans. As with all technologies, AI, has the potential for both good and evil. But not evil on their own but only if directed by humans with evil intentions (New Explorations Vol 3 No 2 – https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/nexj/article/view/41887/32026, accessed Dec. 4, 2024).
- A Brain and a Mind: What’s the Difference
The intelligence of an AI device and its ability to act on its own creating its own agenda such as controlling humanity is limited by the fact that it has no values, no emotions, no goals, no desires and really no mind of its own only a unicameral electronic brain with no capacity to process or experience emotions. The human mind requires a brain but there is more to the mind than the brain. The emotional component of the mind does not reside solely in the brain, but it is connected to the whole body. The intelligence of any computer-based AI device is limited by the fact it has no mind, just an unicameral electronic brain, and only a left hemisphere one at that. It has no emotions, no body, no desires, no needs, no goals other than those imposed on it by its users. It knows no joy because it has never felt any joy. It can scan the Internet and discuss emotions such as joy by parroting back the information its search engines harvest but it cannot experience or feel those emotions nor can those emotions drive its own agenda. It is inanimate, not alive. It has no ability to experience and hence understand or feel desire, joy, satisfaction, happiness and hence its intelligence is limited. One can say its intelligence is totally artificial because it is mindless (i.e. without a mind). It is incapable of desire or to want anything, which is something possessed by every human being and to a certain degree by every living organism including animals, plants, fungi and even, believe it or not, micro-organisms. All living things strive to stay alive and reproduce their organization. They have the will to live. Can one say that of AI? Does it have a will of its own as is the case of all forms of life no matter how primitive? I THINK NOT!
- Thinking or Intelligence Is Not Just a Human Attribute
We humans are the only ones that think about our thinking but other organisms think or have intelligence in the sense they take actions to respond to the problems they face in their environment. They formulate actions to deal with the problems they face and execute those actions. This is a form of thinking even if it is subliminal in the case of non-human life and certainly an indication of the intelligence in each of these non-human forms of life. AI does not formulate the problems its solves it only solves the problems formulated by its users, its programmers. Living organisms formulate the problems they face even if it is subconsciously as is the case with all non-human forms of life.
Here is an interesting thought. Let’s consider thinking and its nature. I think. You, my readers, think. All humans think and therefore all of us possess some level of intelligence. That is well known. It is also the case that animals also think and solve problems to a certain extent as has been demonstrated in a number of studies. Jane Goodall, for example, observed that chimpanzees make and use tools, something that requires thinking. Other scientists that study animals have also observed a variety of tool use among animals. A number of scientists have observed that other animals also solve problems in the course of their daily life such as where to find food and how to escape from predators. Examples of the variety of tool use by animals including mammals, birds, fish, octopus and even insects is summarized in the Wikipedia article “Tool use by non-humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans, accessed Jan. 4, 2024).
Even lower forms of life including plants, fungi and micro-organisms find solutions to the problems they face that threaten their existence and that of their prodigy. They take actions to neutralize or deal with those threats and hence demonstrate a level of intelligence. Perhaps describing the actions of these non-human actors or organisms to insure their survival and that of their prodigy as thinking is not the best way to describe how they take actions to deal with the problems and challenges they face. But it is certainly that these successful strategies to deal with the challenges they face from nature represent their form of intelligence. This way of defining intelligence parallels Sternberg and Salter (1982) definition of intelligence, namely “intelligence is goal-directed adaptive behavior.” It also parallels Alfred Binet’s definition which he formulated in his discussion of children’s psychology but seems to me to apply to forms of life both human and non-human.
It seems to us that in intelligence there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration or the lack of which, is of the utmost importance for practical life. This faculty is judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one’s self to circumstances (https://www.azquotes.com/author/24674-Alfred_Binet).
The definition of Sternberg and Salter and that of Binet applies to non-human forms of life that have only survived and proliferated themselves by their good judgment and their adapting themselves to their circumstances. Afterall what is intelligence but the ability to successfully pursue one’s goal and solve the challenges or problems that threaten achieving one’s goals. Human thinking for the most part is verbal in that we think in terms of language for the most part. But there is a form of problem solving that is intuitive, instantaneous and is not reasoned out step by step as to what action to take. This is the only kind of intelligence I would suggest non-human actors engage in. It is intuitive but it is a form of intelligence. The tool making of chimpanzees is intuitive. A tree sending out its limbs to capture more sunlight is intuitive and not rational in the sense it is not arrived at by a series of logical steps. The actions of micro-organisms to form colonies when nutrients are in short supply or not available at all to survive famine is intuitive and is definitely a form of intelligence.
Animal Intelligence
The notion of non-human animal intelligence dates back to the Ancient Greeks and the writing of Aristotle. Numerous experiments by scientists have confirmed the intelligence of animals. Among the most intelligent animals, scientists have nominated chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, dolphins, dogs, crows, cockatoos, octopuses, elephants, Atlantic salmon and honey bees to name a few of the smartest. The number of intelligent animals includes vertebrates such as mammals, birds, fish and non-vertebrates including octopuses and insects. All of these have a brain with the octopus having 9 brains, a central one and one in each of its 8 arms.
A recent study and mapping of the first insect brain, that of a fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) larvae “with 3,016 neurons and more than half a million synaptic sites (https://theconversation.com/how-we-created-the-first-map-of-an-insect-brain-and-what-it-means-for-our-understanding-of-the-human-brain-201826, accessed Jan. 2, 2024)” revealed that its structure is quite similar to the human brain “with two hemispheres, a brainstem-like structure and a spinal cord equivalent that controls the animal’s muscles (ibid.)”
Plant Intelligence
The notion of plant intelligence dates back to the work of Charles Darwin and his son Francis Darwin (1880) who co-authored a book entitled The Power of Movement in Plants in which they suggested that the tips of the roots of plants operated like the brain in lower forms of animal life. They wrote:
The tip of the root having the power of redirecting the movements of the adjoining parts acts like the brain of one of the lower animals receiving the impressions of sense organs and directing the several movements.
It is only in recent times that botanists have begun to explore the notion of plant intelligence commonly defined as the ability of plants to learn from and adapt to their environment. With Darwin’s suggestion aside, plants do not have a brain like members of the animal kingdom but it is well known for some time that they do communicate information from different parts of their anatomy in the form of electric signals as described in these articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5444583/;
https://ijisrt.com/assets/upload/files/IJISRT23JAN549.pdf;
all accessed Dec 27, 2023).
The sending and processing of electric signal is an indication of plant intelligence. The information in the electric signals are used by the plants to better adapt themselves to their environment and hence an indication of the intelligence of plants as has been described in Paco Calvo’s (2023) book Planta Sapiens: The New Science of Plant Intelligence.
In an article entitled “Are Plants Intelligent? Science is Beginning to Think So” that appeared on https://www.ambius.com/resources/blog/lighter-side-of-plants/are-plants-intelligent (accessed Dec. 17, 2023) it was reported that:
Through rigorous research and experimentation, the following behavioral characteristics have now been established and can be attributed to plants:
- Communication
- Learning
- Problem Solving
- Memory & Memory Recall.
We conclude this section on plant intelligence by reproducing the conclusion that Tony Trewavas (2016) ends his article “Plant Intelligence: An Overview”
Plant behavior is similar to cognition in an analogous sense to that of a human being. A plant continually gathers and updates diverse information about its environment, integrates this with information on its present internal state, and then makes decisions that reconcile its well-being with its environment. Understanding plant behavior and intelligence has become one of the most exciting new and fast-moving frontiers in plant biology.
Fungi Intelligence
A number of studies have revealed the existence of fungi intelligence that is described in the article: “Fungal Intelligence; Or on the behaviour of micro-organisms in confined micro-environments (Held, Edwards & Niclau 2009, accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
In another article “The Fungal Mind: on the Evidence for Mushroom Intelligence” (https://psyche.co/ideas/the-fungal-mind-on-the-evidence-for-mushroom-intelligence, accessed Dec. 26, 2023) the following was reported:
“A body of remarkable experiments have shown that fungi operate as individuals, engage in decision-making, are capable of learning, and possess short-term memory… The fungus in these experiments (with wooden blocks) showed spatial recognition, memory and intelligence. It’s a conscious organism.
In the article “New Theories Expand Cognition to Fungi (https://researchoutreach.org/articles/new-theories-expand-cognition-fungi/, accessed Dec. 26 2023)” it was reported that
[Prof.] Money recognised that they (fungi) embody the concept of minimal selfhood without employing any nervous system, because their filamentous hyphae and their colonies or mycelia operate as if they possess a very simple form of intelligence. The fungal colony, in other words, can be seen as an organism with a primitive mind.
“Professor theorises electrical impulses sent by mycological organisms could be similar to human language (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/06/fungi-electrical-impulses-human-language-study, accessed Dec. 26, 2023 ).” Prof. Adamatzky who detected the communication patterns of the mushroom is not certain that they are actually language as the Guardian headline proclaimed but on the other hand he cannot rule it out.
Adamatzky, Vallverdu, Gandia, Chiolerio, Castro, Dodig-Crnkovic (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.03.486900v1.full, accessed Dec. 26, 2023) have updated Adamatzky’s initial report of fungal language with an article entitled “Fungal States of Minds” in which they report the following: “Our conclusions allow us to give a positive answer to the important research questions of fungal cognition, intelligence and forms of consciousness.”
Studies have revealed that fungi in the soil communication with trees in exchange for food the trees supply the fungi. “Mycorrhizal fungi penetrate tree roots and establish tight physical connections through which they pass water and dissolved minerals to the trees, in return for food produced by photosynthesis (https://psyche.co/ideas/the-fungal-mind-on-the-evidence-for-mushroom-intelligence, accessed Dec. 26, 2023).”
Microbial Intelligence
Here is a description of microbial intuitive intelligence from the Wikipedia article: Microbial intelligence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence#cite_note-:0-1, accessed Dec 24, 2023):
Microbial intelligence (known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by micro-organisms. The concept encompasses complex adaptive behavior shown by single cells, and altruistic or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells mediated by chemical signaling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.
Complex cells, like protozoa or algae, show remarkable abilities to organize themselves in changing circumstances. Shell-building by amoebae reveals complex discrimination and manipulative skills that are ordinarily thought to occur only in multicellular organisms.
Even bacteria can display more behavior as a population. These behaviors occur in single species populations, or mixed species populations. Examples are colonies or swarms of myxobacteria, quorum sensing and biofilms.
It has been suggested that a bacterial colony loosely mimics a biological neural network. The bacteria can take inputs in form of chemical signals, process them and then produce output chemicals to signal other bacteria in the colony.
Parallels and Differences of Human, Animal, Plant, Fungi, Microbial Intelligence with Artificial Intelligence
Let us now consider six forms of intelligence: i. human, ii. non-human animals, iii. plants, iv. fungi, v. microbials and vi. computer-based AI. What are the parallels and what are the differences in terms of the following categories: 1. problem formulation and solving; 2. analytic level; 3. creativity; 4. communication, 5. emotions; and 6. autonomy.
- Problem Formulation and Solving
Humans formulate and encounter problems and solve them whereas artificial intelligence device do not formulate or encounter problems but only solve problems formulated by their users and programmers. Non-human forms of life whether that of animals, plants, fungi or microbials in pursuing their goals of staying alive and propagating their off spings or species encounter problems which they solve intuitively. They do not formulate problems but only encounter them.
- Analytic Level
Humans are at the top of this category followed by AI devices and then by animal, plant, fungal and microbial life in that order with the more evolved species are at the top of the list.
- Creativity
Humans head this category being the only member that
- creates art objects, literature and music for their own pleasure;
- develop and invent sophisticated technology;
- philosophize, theologize and try to understand the meaning of their existence.
AI devices cannot be said to be creative other than in finding solutions to problems formulated for them by their human user and programmers.
Many non-human animals create and use tools.
- Communication
Humans, animals, plants, fungi, microbials initiate and respond to communication.
AI devices only respond to communication but do not initiate communication.
- Emotions
Human behavior is strongly driven by emotions for better or worse depending on the circumstances and the nature of the emotions that dominates a particular human’s behavior. A person devoid of emotion is certainly a human in trouble as is a person that has no control of their emotions. AI devices are devoid of emotions. Many animals display emotions but that seems not the case for plants, fungi or microbials as far as we can determine.
AI devices are completely devoid of emotions. When they defeat humans playing chess they do not celebrate their victory, only their programmers celebrate.
- Autonomy: Parallels and Differences of Human, Animal, Plant, Fungi, Microbial Intelligence with Artificial Intelligence
What is the relationship of intelligence, motivation and autonomy? The mystery of life is the autonomy of living organisms. All living things possess some form of autonomy in that they operate in their own self-interest or in the self-interest of their off-springs. The male spider that mates and is then devoured by its mate is acting in the self-interest of the propagation of its off springs and hence its species is just one example. We, humans, and all other living species of animals, plants, fungi and microbials are autonomous. All living organisms are born or come into existence, reproduce and take actions that benefit their existence, their survival and their ability to reproduce. They act on their environment and take actions to benefit themselves and/or their species and they are therefore autonomous. The further up the evolutionary chain the greater is the level of their autonomy.
An AI device has a form of intelligence but as I have argued above it has no motivation, no goals it wants to achieve on its own. As far as free will goes – the idea that a computer has free will is absurd. An AI device is basically a puppet that performs as it is programmed. There is nothing that motivates it to perform as it does other than the instructions with which it has been programmed.
AI devices have no autonomy. They are not born but are manufactured and programmed. They do not reproduce themselves and they take no actions to benefit themselves and they produce no off-springs. They are not self-sufficient and are totally dependent on their human creators/programmers for the continuation of their existence and their day to day care. If any entity is to dominate another species it must first be autonomous, but that is not the case for an AI device. So the conclusion is that AI devices cannot on their own dominate us humans but we must still be vigilant and guard against the possibility that some evil actors might use the power of their AI devices to control other humans and thereby do us harm.
There is also another problem with the idea that an AI device could take over and control us humans in the physical world. For example, what are the mechanisms that would allow it to control physical devices or apparatuses outside its computer domain or how would it be able to control the behaviour of its human users. The AI alarmists I have referenced have not suggested or described any viable mechanisms to allow this to happen. For example how would an AI device access the electricity it needs to operate.
The warnings of the AI alarmists are pure speculation based on the notion that if one can excel at one skill set that this automatically confers an ability to excel at another skill set even if that other skill set is not in any way connected to the skill set one excels at. The skill sets of solving the problems associated with complex calculations does not provide the AI device to take care of its special needs like accessing electricity and energy. The skill sets I possess as an academic does not automatically provide me with the skill set to compose music or excel at playing chess or painting with oil paints. AI devices are over specialized and are therefore unable to look after their basic needs let alone control other forms of intelligence such as their human care takers.
Conclusion
The notion of the spontaneous emergence of an AI device that would want to or could dominate and enslaved humankind is far fetched. First, AI devices do not have the capacity to desire anything much less the domination or destruction of humankind upon whom they are totally dependent. Secondly, they are not physically instantiated to be able to control physical objects such as the sources of the generation of electric power on which they are totally dependent. The problem that does exist, however, is the use of AI by humans that wish to dominate or exploit their fellow humans.
References
Binet, Alfred. 1905 [1916]. ‘New Methods for the Diagnosis of the Intellectual Level of Subnormals.’ in The Development of Intelligence In Children, edited by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. New York.
Braga, Adriana and Robert K. Logan. 2017. “The Emperor of Strong AI Has No Clothes: Limits to Artificial Intelligence.” MDPI Information 8, 156-77.
Calvo, Paco with Natalie Lawrence. 2023. Planta Sapiens: The New Science of Plant Intelligence. New York: W. W. Norton
Cohen, Inon, et al. 1999. “Continuous and discrete models of cooperation in complex bacterial colonies.” Fractals 7.03 (3): 235–247
Darwin, C. and F. 1880. The Power of Movement in Plants. London: John Murray.
Deacon, Terrence. 2012. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter; WW Norton and Company: New York, NY.
Held, M., C. Edwards & D. V. Nicolau. 2009.”Fungal Intelligence; Or on the behaviour of microorganisms in confined micro-environments”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 178.
Logan, Robert K. 2023. Can AI Ever Control Us Humans: A Probe. New Explorations: Studies in Culture and Communication 3 (2).
McLuhan, E. 2011. Media and Formal Cause; NeoPoiesis Press: New York, NY.
Sternberg, R. J. and W. Salter. 1982. The Handbook of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Trewavas, Tony. 2016. “Plant Intelligence: An Overview. BioScience. Vol 66 No 7, July 1, 2016, 542–551, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw048.
