I appreciate your dedication to this project, Ammon. I did like what the guide's response was to your prompt! As an author whose three books have been pirated and illegally used for AI training, I'm not, so far, fond of AI nor of the promoters who eat up creative works to be used by others without their permission. Plagiarism will be much easier now, and stealing artists' and musicians' work to sell as one's own. (I realize that music is like a leaf on the wind, anyone can enjoy it and do what they will with it, but, all people in the arts do need to be able to support themselves in order to continue making art.) So that's one aspect of it, along with the probability of it being used to create misinformation quickly and easily, along with the ability to create false images quickly. I realize that it will be useful for searching data, but some of the responses I have seen from AI searches have been either false or nonsensical. And of course it could be very useful for medical purposes... as long as it's reviewed by a human. We'll see where this all goes, but I appreciate what you're up to here! Qahira Francine Falk-Allen
Thank you for the thoughts. And I'm sorry to hear about your books being pirated. Both my mom's and dad's books are in the list of books pirated by AI companies. I agree with all of your concerns and feel the negative outcomes are a product of short-sighted and greedy decisions by tech companies and the investors and governments enabling them. I personally feel AI for profit should be highly regulated, if not illegal — ideally AI would be a public good, and measured that way. I have a lot to say about the technology and industry — I've written extensively about the dangers of AI misuse and the ethical quandary we find ourselves in. I also see a reflection of humanity in AI (because that's what it is — a reflection), and find the direct access to a representation of our collective consciousness fascinating. My hope is to channel some of that into positive outcomes.
I would say reflection is indeed connected to the source of information and so taking care to stay true to that source makes for wisdom’s transference. Inspiration is often the key to this relationship for me and while AI can inspire, AI cannot truly be inspired…
Thank you for these thoughts Taj! And completely agree that AI cannot be inspired. I feel many misinterpret what AI is and assume since it delivers thoughtful answers that it “thinks.” In reality it just delivers a likely answer to your question. And just like any answer you receive, it’s important to reflect on how it connects to your own truth.
Ammon Haggerty thank you for sharing all of that. I like that you are creating useful tools, adding reflective thoughts, and organizing community elements wherever you travel. Concerning a.i. you briefly allude to the 'magic', "bypassing the hard-won wisdom".
I find wisdom in the Francis Herbert blurb: "With the hope of freedom Humans tasked machines with the thinking, but the result was enslavement by other men with machines." As for self discovery, philosophy is (for me) more useful than organized religion. Existentialism is a productive bin to crate dig metaphorically. Visually mapping can be useful, I wonder if the outcome is similar to an a.i. recommend engine?
Sonically, I gravitate to 70s productions across most categories. Fast forward 50 years later and my dystopian (Terry Gilliam) monitor displays a Global Destruction race between (a.i.) Tech & Petrol pollution, while John Lydon's PiL soundtrack plays in the background.
Thank you for the thoughts. I often feel we're just busy manifesting our dystopian science fiction dreams of the past. I love how both Francis Herbert and Terry Gilliam capture the essence of humanity's flaws as a cautionary tale. I think that's one of the things I find so interesting about AI is all the baggage connected to our science fiction colored view. I also hope more people will focus on outcomes that bring more peace, love and connectedness to the world — because we're fairly effective manifestation machines.
Thank you for these thoughts Leo! I agree with you completely — as Murshid Sam’s AI guide shared, knowledge is best transmitted heart-to-heart, soul-to-soul. But I also feel books can be incredible vessels of wisdom and spirit. I also believe AI is simply a mirror of humanity, so even while it’s presented as “artificial,” I see AI as simply another way of relaying our human ideas. I recognize there are flaws and I’m sure some people won’t like it, but I find it fascinating!
It sounds like you’re not a fan of AI! I share your concerns, but I’m also curious about trying to use these “language models” as a tool. Like many technology tools that have come before, they represent a duality. And if you listen to the Alan Watts segment I shared, you will find this debate is on a loop, and we will ultimately suffer from its existence. I support your protest of AI, but I will continue to explore uses of technology that may provide some benefit, even if fleeting.
I am "not a fan" of nuclear proliferation. I am grateful for widespread regulation of this technology which is so dangerous it may end human life.
I am similarly "not a fan" of AI, which its own creators acknowledge carries a double-digit risk of ending human life. Yet, AI is fully unregulated.
People continue building and deploying nuclear weapons, despite the grave risks involved. And, people will continue building and deploying AI, despite the grave risks involved.
Myself, I will continue refusing to use AI, and continue working to build up cultures that favor humanity over technology.
I personally do not equate AI (the LLM-based, generative flavor we have today) with world annihilation. That said, if the technology were to grow exponentially, forever, it would indeed eat the world (very quickly). Fortunately for us, this flavor of AI has plateaued (it hit its limit almost two years ago). The creators and "experts" continue to hype the existential threats because it keeps the myth of AGI and sentient AI alive. I no longer see a threat from runaway intelligence (confirmed by many leading researchers in the space — happy to share links). What I do see is an age old threat of unchecked and consolidated power. My hope is, as the limits of this approach to AI become more widely know, the hype around it will fade, investments in power-hungry machines will wane, and we'll return to what this technology actually is: a step change in the speed in which answers can be extracted from vast amounts of data. I hope that helps!
This is not just a matter of personal thoughts and feelings. My views on terminal AI military weapon risk are guided by Gary Marcus, Ted Gioia, and similar technical experts.
The less-terminal cultural risks come from the rapid degradation in learning capacity among the young, along with the rapid degradation of social intelligence caused by continual interaction with inhuman algorithms posing as "human."
Separately, speaking as one whose career path was terminated by AI, the economic costs ahead are nearly unimaginable.
And, since human spirituality may be relevant in this discussion, there remains the karmic impact of using tools which are inherently based on theft and widespread economic damage.
Frankly, I was shocked to learn that one of the great teachers of my life, Murshid Sam, has had his works used in this manner. But, then, every other creator of digitally available work had had their creativity exploited also. I could never use the SamBot, myself. I feel differently about his works, and the Ruhaniat, in the wake of this project.
And, what is is what is, so here we are. We have probably reached the end of useful discussion here.
Applogies for what you perceive as hijacking. I have removed my comments presenting opposing views on the nature of AI. They were not about your tool as anything more than a conversational focus.
You didn't need to do that. I apologize if my comments were triggering. I'm deeply conflicted about AI, so your comments do resonate. My article hopefully reflects some of that dissonance. And I meant what I said — I would support your case for removing the AI guide if you feel strongly that it does not represent the spirit of Murshid Sam. That has always been my hesitation with creating it in the first place. But my response what not to do so purely because of the perceived existential threat of AI.
I appreciate your dedication to this project, Ammon. I did like what the guide's response was to your prompt! As an author whose three books have been pirated and illegally used for AI training, I'm not, so far, fond of AI nor of the promoters who eat up creative works to be used by others without their permission. Plagiarism will be much easier now, and stealing artists' and musicians' work to sell as one's own. (I realize that music is like a leaf on the wind, anyone can enjoy it and do what they will with it, but, all people in the arts do need to be able to support themselves in order to continue making art.) So that's one aspect of it, along with the probability of it being used to create misinformation quickly and easily, along with the ability to create false images quickly. I realize that it will be useful for searching data, but some of the responses I have seen from AI searches have been either false or nonsensical. And of course it could be very useful for medical purposes... as long as it's reviewed by a human. We'll see where this all goes, but I appreciate what you're up to here! Qahira Francine Falk-Allen
Thank you for the thoughts. And I'm sorry to hear about your books being pirated. Both my mom's and dad's books are in the list of books pirated by AI companies. I agree with all of your concerns and feel the negative outcomes are a product of short-sighted and greedy decisions by tech companies and the investors and governments enabling them. I personally feel AI for profit should be highly regulated, if not illegal — ideally AI would be a public good, and measured that way. I have a lot to say about the technology and industry — I've written extensively about the dangers of AI misuse and the ethical quandary we find ourselves in. I also see a reflection of humanity in AI (because that's what it is — a reflection), and find the direct access to a representation of our collective consciousness fascinating. My hope is to channel some of that into positive outcomes.
Well, good luck with that! I mean that sincerely, but it does seem like the monster is already out of its cage.
I would say reflection is indeed connected to the source of information and so taking care to stay true to that source makes for wisdom’s transference. Inspiration is often the key to this relationship for me and while AI can inspire, AI cannot truly be inspired…
Thank you for these thoughts Taj! And completely agree that AI cannot be inspired. I feel many misinterpret what AI is and assume since it delivers thoughtful answers that it “thinks.” In reality it just delivers a likely answer to your question. And just like any answer you receive, it’s important to reflect on how it connects to your own truth.
Wow Ammon! Thankyou!
btw Was your recent vision quest in the Inyo Mountains with the School of Lost Borders? Many blessings on you and your family.
My recent quest was with Rites of Passage (wildernessquest.org). They’re wonderful! Also connected to my first quest through a common leader.
Ammon Haggerty thank you for sharing all of that. I like that you are creating useful tools, adding reflective thoughts, and organizing community elements wherever you travel. Concerning a.i. you briefly allude to the 'magic', "bypassing the hard-won wisdom".
I find wisdom in the Francis Herbert blurb: "With the hope of freedom Humans tasked machines with the thinking, but the result was enslavement by other men with machines." As for self discovery, philosophy is (for me) more useful than organized religion. Existentialism is a productive bin to crate dig metaphorically. Visually mapping can be useful, I wonder if the outcome is similar to an a.i. recommend engine?
Sonically, I gravitate to 70s productions across most categories. Fast forward 50 years later and my dystopian (Terry Gilliam) monitor displays a Global Destruction race between (a.i.) Tech & Petrol pollution, while John Lydon's PiL soundtrack plays in the background.
Thank you for the thoughts. I often feel we're just busy manifesting our dystopian science fiction dreams of the past. I love how both Francis Herbert and Terry Gilliam capture the essence of humanity's flaws as a cautionary tale. I think that's one of the things I find so interesting about AI is all the baggage connected to our science fiction colored view. I also hope more people will focus on outcomes that bring more peace, love and connectedness to the world — because we're fairly effective manifestation machines.
Thank you for these thoughts Leo! I agree with you completely — as Murshid Sam’s AI guide shared, knowledge is best transmitted heart-to-heart, soul-to-soul. But I also feel books can be incredible vessels of wisdom and spirit. I also believe AI is simply a mirror of humanity, so even while it’s presented as “artificial,” I see AI as simply another way of relaying our human ideas. I recognize there are flaws and I’m sure some people won’t like it, but I find it fascinating!
It sounds like you’re not a fan of AI! I share your concerns, but I’m also curious about trying to use these “language models” as a tool. Like many technology tools that have come before, they represent a duality. And if you listen to the Alan Watts segment I shared, you will find this debate is on a loop, and we will ultimately suffer from its existence. I support your protest of AI, but I will continue to explore uses of technology that may provide some benefit, even if fleeting.
I am "not a fan" of nuclear proliferation. I am grateful for widespread regulation of this technology which is so dangerous it may end human life.
I am similarly "not a fan" of AI, which its own creators acknowledge carries a double-digit risk of ending human life. Yet, AI is fully unregulated.
People continue building and deploying nuclear weapons, despite the grave risks involved. And, people will continue building and deploying AI, despite the grave risks involved.
Myself, I will continue refusing to use AI, and continue working to build up cultures that favor humanity over technology.
100% support your decision!
I personally do not equate AI (the LLM-based, generative flavor we have today) with world annihilation. That said, if the technology were to grow exponentially, forever, it would indeed eat the world (very quickly). Fortunately for us, this flavor of AI has plateaued (it hit its limit almost two years ago). The creators and "experts" continue to hype the existential threats because it keeps the myth of AGI and sentient AI alive. I no longer see a threat from runaway intelligence (confirmed by many leading researchers in the space — happy to share links). What I do see is an age old threat of unchecked and consolidated power. My hope is, as the limits of this approach to AI become more widely know, the hype around it will fade, investments in power-hungry machines will wane, and we'll return to what this technology actually is: a step change in the speed in which answers can be extracted from vast amounts of data. I hope that helps!
This is not just a matter of personal thoughts and feelings. My views on terminal AI military weapon risk are guided by Gary Marcus, Ted Gioia, and similar technical experts.
The less-terminal cultural risks come from the rapid degradation in learning capacity among the young, along with the rapid degradation of social intelligence caused by continual interaction with inhuman algorithms posing as "human."
Separately, speaking as one whose career path was terminated by AI, the economic costs ahead are nearly unimaginable.
And, since human spirituality may be relevant in this discussion, there remains the karmic impact of using tools which are inherently based on theft and widespread economic damage.
Frankly, I was shocked to learn that one of the great teachers of my life, Murshid Sam, has had his works used in this manner. But, then, every other creator of digitally available work had had their creativity exploited also. I could never use the SamBot, myself. I feel differently about his works, and the Ruhaniat, in the wake of this project.
And, what is is what is, so here we are. We have probably reached the end of useful discussion here.
Applogies for what you perceive as hijacking. I have removed my comments presenting opposing views on the nature of AI. They were not about your tool as anything more than a conversational focus.
You didn't need to do that. I apologize if my comments were triggering. I'm deeply conflicted about AI, so your comments do resonate. My article hopefully reflects some of that dissonance. And I meant what I said — I would support your case for removing the AI guide if you feel strongly that it does not represent the spirit of Murshid Sam. That has always been my hesitation with creating it in the first place. But my response what not to do so purely because of the perceived existential threat of AI.