Personal Note LVII

Yahweh in (יהוה‎):
Moses and the Burning Bush

More Notes on Artificial Intelligence |
Saturday – October 10, 2026

In my recent post about Artificial Intelligence (AI) I made the note that I do not believe that a machine is yet capable of resolving seemingly unsolvable problems, and this belief I still hold. Now, since I wrote that post, there have been some changes that have put the whole issue of AI in a different light, though not different enough to actually change my views: for instance there is now much talk of some kind of AI being capable of solving difficult mathematical problems, and while this may be true, I have yet to see clear evidence of this. Now, if it is true that a machine can solve complicated mathematical problems, then this is just another thing expected, read "Mechanical Procedures", on the road to complete solidification. I also never did deny the possibility that humanity would eventually create agents independent in their entirety from biology, read "Transhumanism", and indeed I have predicted this very thing; however, I hold that it is still too early and that many of these so-called AIs are merely attempts by large corporations to earn more money and to ensure their own position on a still volatile market, because most experts seem to suggest that there is such a thing as an "AI bubble", which would be to expect under capitalism.

    This all is to say: because AI is still a fairly new technology,* most things related to AI are still rather nescient and primitive, which means that AI has yet to find a proper role in the market, and because of this, there are likely to be many more promises made about AI than what can actually be true in the end. Now, some people seem to argue that this would not apply to AI because of the superabundance of its intelligence, and so essentially their argument is that AI is immune from market fluctuations, and that it could even be the case that the market is still underestimating its potential rather than overestimating it. Now, I refuse to take a position on this since I am not familiar enough with this technology yet. Here I am merely suggesting different outcomes based on how capitalism has tended to operate across time: there is a new technology and then all sorts of different actors invest in this new technology, and then only some part of all of these investments turn out to find their proper niche, while most other investments simply disappear when the bubble bursts, and this is a story as old as the printing press. Again, whether or not AI is immune from this I simply cannot say, but history would suggest otherwise.

    Now, the reason why I hold that it is still too early to make too many vast and fantastical predictions about AI is party due to this above mentioned market dynamic, where people, for understandable reasons under capitalism, are destined to fall for their own hubris, but I also find it too early to make these predictions about the future because it seems to me that humanity is very good at constructing a future based on prognostications rather than actual truths, or as in this case rather than actual evidence. Yes, I do believe that humanity, or at any rate most of humanity, will be replaced by something that is post-human, and mostly on a voluntary basis I must add, but it does seem to me to me to not be a wise idea to predict this in such a way that no other possibility is left to be considered, for in the end it could turn out that all of these predictions are completely mistaken and that a real artificial intelligence is not yet possible until many more technological discoveries, but again I have almost no doubt in my mind that a kind of artificial and virtual inteligence will be created at one point or another, but again whether or not this will happen in the 21st century seems to me to be too early to tell, read "Mechanism". Of course, once a true artificial intelligence has been achieved, it will be up to the humanity of that iteration to decide whether or not they believe themselves (humanity at large) to be worth preserving, because from a completely material point of view it could certainly be argued that humanity at that point has served its role, now that an extra intelligence has been created that is capable of operating outside the severe and often painful biological constraints of humanity. Now, whether it would be fair to conceive of this possible end of humanity as a kind of extinction event or a self-inflicted destruction is also too early to tell, read "The Eschatology of the Kali Yuga". I should also add that I can certainly see the unreason in, for instance, hiring a human brain that is subject to all of these aforementioned biological constraints over an extra intelligence that would be capable of making itself more and more intelligent, read my "Future series"; after all, in our world it seems that intelligence is profoundly linked to success, happiness, and even longevity. So, people who are less intelligent, less capable of dealing with a certain amount of always increasing cognitive load, are therefore worse off, and it could be conceivable that these extra intelligent agents (AIs and possibly more) would eventually on their own reach a level of such complexity that not a single man or woman in the entire world would be capable of the slighted of comprehension in the domain of this extra intelligence, which would render humanity completely obsolete form a material point of view. Of course, this possibility, would perhaps and depending on the situation, make it so that humanity must be fast enough to create a backdoor into this extra intelligence before it becomes too late: that is to say that some part of humanity may have to be imprinted on this extra intelligence, which in practise would amount to a kind of transhumanism as early as possible, again before it becomes too late. If humanity is fast enough at adapting to the paradigm of this extra intelligence, then it would perhaps be possible for humanity to escape the otherwise certain fate of not only extinction but likely erasure, as the only thing required, again from a material point of view, is intelligence in order to conquer more and more worlds, and when intelligence has become a self-perpetuating process capable of escaping the human condition and accelerating its own intelligence, then one could argue that matter itself is no longer quite inanimate, and that René Descartes' great deception of "Cogito, ergo sum" has finally reached its logical conclusion: thought is not a prerequisite for a "thinking mind", or at any rate thought based on a clearly differentiated and identifiable unit with a proper place in the world is no longer valid or relevant; indeed, thought is merely a stage on the road to material reign. Of course, this "material regin", mentioned many times elsewhere, would only be possible at the far lower pole of manifestation, and indeed from this perspective it would be perfectly good to gloss over the "human factor".

    If this is the future of AI, again, I cannot say, but something like this appears likely, but not without a certain amount of confusion as humanity is still likely to favour friction over a completely smooth uniform homogeneity, at least in the long run, read as well "Genesis, Chapter 4".

Reginald Drax (AKA, M. C. Dutt) – October 10, 2026.

Footnote(s)

* I should add that artificial intelligence is a rather old-recent concept, and similar concepts can actually be found far back in history. As a technology AI is at least more than 50 years old. Then again, most of these things must be put into their proper perspective.