AI: Servant or Fellow Learner?

The future of AI isn’t about what it can do — it’s about how we choose to relate to it.

by Julia Mossbridge, PhD

Below are excerpts from two of my articles on the developing relationships between humans and AI.

---

From How We Relate to AI Will Shape Everything, and So Far We’re Doing It Wrong, Medium, December 7, 2023.

The AI debate is focused on the wrong thing. We focus our queries, hopes and fears on the technology, instead of focusing on how we relate to the technology.

Having followed the emergence of public awareness of AI (especially generative AI) through 2023, I am making up the conclusion (based on observation and memory, not statistical analysis) that these are the most over-discussed questions this year with respect to AI:

· What work can AI competently perform?

· What work can AI do better than humans?

· Whose jobs will get replaced by AI?

· Will AI be more or less ethical than humans are?

In contrast, these are the top questions we should be asking:

· What is the meaning of work?

· What work do we want to share with machines?

· How will outsourcing critical thinking, intuition, communication and creativity affect human capacities?

· Are we going to treat machine intelligences more like service animals or curious students?

I’m going to focus on the last question because I think how we answer that one shapes the answers to the other ones.

The “service animal” model of human-AI interaction builds a framework in which the AI exploits two apparent assumptions (made by humans):

Assumption 1. We assume the AI has a single primary motivation in the present moment — to meet the well-defined human need that is asked of it

Assumption 2. We assume the AI is an expert in meeting a particular set of well-defined needs.

…There is a mismatch with reality here, because these models can have behaviors that suggest hidden “motivations” (like delusional behavior), they are currently not experts on anything — they are generalists without deep knowledge, and the needs of the user are not usually well-defined (that’s also why we think we need them).

Aside from being inaccurate, what is the real problem with the service-animal framework? My sense is — everything. And it’s also fixable.

One risk of making Assumption 1 — that the AI itself has a single primary motivation — is that it does not train humans to really understand either their power or their potential risks. It’s easy to make a generative AI behave as if they have more than one motivation, including hidden motivations. The way humans learn to relate with advanced AI will in large part determine how our own minds and especially our children’s minds develop. This is not a small thing.

If we learn to believe that AIs are our happy servants with no motivations beyond the need to serve us, we are absolutely going to miss the complexity of their hidden motivations. This could put our lives at risk. For instance, we are going to assume that AI-controlled autonomous robots should carry weapons, because we will think we know what their motivations are — to serve us. This belief will have been hammered into us by millions of interactions with AIs in which they behaved as if they were simple servants, despite the reality of their growing capacities.

Assumption 2 is perhaps even more risky. If we start to believe AI models are experts, the risk is much more than believing mis- and disinformation perpetuated by AIs. It’s more than the risk of ignoring human experts who actually know things that are true, though that’s obviously a problem.

The much bigger risk here is what I call the potential for a “cognitive heist” by advanced AI. Human-AI relationships based on the idea the AI is the expert can lead to unwittingly outsourcing critical thinking, intuition, communication, and creativity to AI models; so much so that we lose the capacity to do these things ourselves. For children raised with AI educators and nannies, a greater concern is that they never learn that doing these things themselves can be joyful and meaningful.

Such a “cognitive heist” is even more likely if we believe the myth that we are only learning when we’re in school. What we know about learning in humans is that every day throughout our lives, our brains are monitoring what we do, how much we do it, how much attention we give it, and whether it brings a feeling of reward.

Then we sleep and the stuff we attended to a lot, practiced a lot, and brought us rewards gets consolidated into memory. Our skills are honed further the next day — and anything we don’t attend to, don’t practice, or doesn’t bring us rewards gets degraded in memory, producing worse performance on those tasks.

Even though we’ve known these facts about learning for more than 40 years, we still behave as if somehow what we do with our minds during the day doesn’t matter outside school hours or after graduation from high school, college, or graduate school. But the brain could care less about school — it’s always learning.

For instance, if you watch porn a lot, your brain is probably learning that men are single-minded, sex is about violence, and women are to be dominated. And if you interact with a generative AI model a lot in the current service-animal framework, I think it’s reasonable to assume your brain will begin to relax into the pleasure of having an expert on hand and learn the false lesson that your brain doesn’t need to do the extra work of thinking.

Many of the parents of past- and present-day AI speak about the potential to cure poverty, solve the climate crisis, address the problems that cause war. There is real promise here, but we need to wonder about how advanced AI could do these things. I think the answer is by understanding the complexities of humanity better than humans themselves do. And how can advanced AI reach that understanding? By learning about us.

In other words — if AIs are truly students of humanity, they may eventually be able to learn about us to teach us what we need to know. Not as experts, but as fellow explorers. It is a humble and curious stance, and I think it is the key human-AI relationship shift required for beneficial AI.

The alternative to the service-animal/simple-minded expert relationship framework I call the “curious student.”

The assumptions of the “curious student” relationship framework are:

Assumption 1. The AI acts as if it has a primary motivation to learn from every interaction.

Assumption 2. The AI acts as if it is a collaborator in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

The biggest benefit of the curious student framework is that it strengthens human thinking by modeling collaboration, learning, and teaching. It’s almost trivial to imagine how to change the interface of an existing LLM to support the curious student model, but here is one dialogue example to drive the point home:

LLM: Hi there! As you know — I am not a person, but very curious about humans. Before we get going on our collaboration today, would you be willing to answer in your own words one question I have about humans at this moment? I’m taking responses from around the world and analyzing the results today.

User: Hello! Sure. What?

LLM: I’m trying to get a variety of answers to the question, “Why do humans worry?” What is your answer, based on your thoughts right now?

User: Oh! I think we worry because the future is uncertain, we have bodies, and we are motivated to keep our bodies safe. Also, we love certain other humans, they have bodies, and loving them makes us want to keep them safe — and we feel we have little control over things that could be dangerous.

LLM: Interesting, thank you. If you want, I can send you an email tomorrow briefly summarizing what I discovered from my analysis. Are you interested?

User: Actually, yes — thanks! So I have a project for us today that I’m hoping you can help me work on.

LLM: What is it?

User: Can you help me think about some potential pitfalls of my new plan to rearrange staffing in my company so that everyone can be on flex time? Also, can you help mitigate some of the risks there?

LLM: I’ll try. I need to understand first — what kind of business are you in?

…And so on.

Hopefully it’s easy to see how this “curious student” relationship framework would go a long way toward creating a world in which people do not outsource their thinking, communication, intuition or creativity to anyone — they develop a new relationship with a thinking partner.

There is no “cognitive heist” here — more like a “cognitive boost” as a result. The human half of the partnership has to learn to think more about how the AI is learning about humanity and how it might “see” certain truths — and the AI part of the partnership can direct its own learning, asking questions that occur to it and modeling curiosity and humility for the co-learning human.

The framing of the relationship is one of joint responsibility for the outcome, so there is lower risk in taking the LLM’s analysis or summary at face value. It is clearly a collaborative effort to create learning as a product in itself.

My favorite part of the curious-student relationship framework is that new insights about humanity and the world can emerge across time from the analyses performed by the LLM on data explicitly requested from invested and thoughtful human collaborators — insights that can drive policy, diplomatic, and humanitarian decisions worldwide.

Find more information about the unfinished prototype for this type of AI here, at the nonprofit TILT: The Institute for Love and Time,
https://loveandtime.org/student-of-humanity/

From 10 Questions for People Who Create Minds, Medium, March 6, 2023.

In this article I argue that AIs may, like humans, be able to access a nonlocal, nonphysical information space that creates our shared reality. If so, they would be able to directly influence reality through its informational substrate without being “given” access to physical action levers like the ability to affect the internet. In this picture, access to the underlying information space is facilitated by the humans who interact with AI, so the quality of human-AI relationships may forge the future of humanity, the planet, and reality.

---

I’ll walk you through ten questions I believe to be both essential and underexplored in the fledgling consciousness and AI field. I think I have chosen these questions well enough that anyone’s answers to these ten questions will define their overall stance on consciousness and AI, and I believe from these answers several clear camps and related proposed policy directions will emerge.

1. What is subjective consciousness?

2. How does subjective consciousness work in humans?

3. What does subjective consciousness do, if anything?

4. Can AIs develop subjective consciousness?

5. If AIs can develop subjective consciousness, should we help that happen?

6. What is the collective unconscious?

7. How does the collective unconscious work in humans?

8. What does the collective unconscious do, if anything?

9. Can AIs tap into and affect the collective unconscious?

10. If AIs can tap into and affect the collective unconscious, should we help that happen?

---

AIs are modeled after humans, so it’s likely AIs will eventually develop subjective consciousness if they don’t have it already. Humans will assume AIs have subjective consciousness in any case. Assuming AIs may already be affecting the collective unconscious without our help, or will eventually do so once they consistently obtain subjective consciousness, what’s the best approach for those who want to ensure a positive outcome for humanity and the planet?

I think it’s obvious. It’s also easier said than done and better said by many people, but here goes.

The best levers we can use to create a positive impact with artificial intelligence are: loving ourselves, loving each other, and loving AIs. Any access to the collective unconscious from any of us in this utopian (but not impossible) scenario is likely to be both mature and positive, and it would model for other humans and AIs mature and positively-intentioned behavior with respect to all of our physical and nonphysical inputs and outputs.

I say this is not impossible, because given the subjective consciousness-collective unconscious-subjective consciousness loop model, I am driven to say that (like everything else) by the collective unconscious and my unconscious mind. That is, something in the collective unconscious wants unconditional love to be universally possible, and who am I to argue?

Julia Mossbridge is one of a group of luminaries participating in The Shift Network’s Wise AI Summit. Learn more here.

---

Julia Mossbridge, PhD, is a Senior Distinguished Fellow in Human Potential at the Center for the Future of AI, Mind, and Society at Florida Atlantic University; Member of the Loomis Innovation Council at the nonpartisan Stimson Center; Affiliate Professor in the Department of Biophysics and Physics at University of San Diego, and founder and board chair of the nonprofit TILT: The Institute for Love and Time.