Are We Losing Ourselves to AI (Artificial Intelligence)?
Questioner: Namaste, sir. Sir, you know we are a process and governed by certain principles. Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of news about AI, and one thing that strikes me is the fact that one AI process could be fed into another AI process. If the deep Turing test determines the sentient capability of consciousness, self-awareness, etc., of a machine, then one machine could inherently become far more capable—sort of superconscious—than the previous one. That's something human beings can't do; we cannot transfer the complete brain to another one.
So, my question is: in this whole notion of consciousness, self-awareness, volition, moral ethics, and conduct, etc., I see machines overpowering human beings, in the sense that human beings have created something, but in a way has created something more dangerous—kind of overpowering our own sense of belonging as human beings. I definitely see this tinkering with the laws of nature, Prakriti and everything, causing a lot of challenges to the world.
I just wanted to hear your views on where AI is taking the world today regarding humanity and whether it is leading to progress or a downward spiral.
Acharya Prashant: I do not think I’m very clear about the question. In what sense do you think AI is overpowering human consciousness?
Questioner: What I am looking for is to develop better consciousness—to become a more self-aware person. When I see a machine that is almost replicating my own sense of consciousness and self-awareness, I get perturbed. The machine itself appears more powerful than me in terms of its super-consciousness power.
Acharya Prashant: No, no. What do you mean by super-consciousness power? That’s where the haziness is.
Questioner: Super-consciousness as in: one machine is created, and then its capability is fed into another machine.
Acharya Prashant: Capability with respect to what?
Questioner: With respect to the initial learning or AI capabilities it has acquired.
Acharya Prashant: It can perform tasks, right?
Questioner: Yes, sir.
Acharya Prashant: So how is that challenging human consciousness?
Questioner: Because simulation of the Turing test itself suggests that, at a certain point, a machine can almost replicating a human being—fooling humans in the sense that….
Acharya Prashant: It is only replicating the part of human consciousness that is anyway mechanical and replicable. That which is replicable in you will be replicated. For example, a statue can be made that looks just like you because your body and physical features are replicable. So, somebody will replicate them. How does that threaten you?
You are not that which can be replicated. And if something can be replicated, that is not you. So let it be replicated—what’s the problem?
Somebody makes a statue, how does that threaten your existence? Somebody clicks a photograph, how does that threaten your existence? That looks like you, but it’s not you. Somebody downloads the entire content of your memory, that’s possible. Each passing day, that's becoming more and more possible, the entire content of your memory can be downloaded. But that’s not you. All your genetic material can be taken and a clone can be raised, that is still not you again. How does that threaten you?
So, go to Nirvaan Shatkam. When such doubts arise and worries, you need to know what you are not. That which you are not—let it be copied, substituted, or outsourced or whatever. Someone copies my voice, but how does that threaten me? Am I my voice?
So, Nirvan Shatkam. And when you can discount everything that you are not then, Chidanand rupa Shivoham Shivoham.
Mind you, nobody can halt the march of science and technology. All that science can do, it will do. There is no need to feel threatened. You will be cloned, replicated, duplicated, and substituted. Therefore, you must come to that within you which is alone, not transferable or available to be duplicated. What is that?
That’s who you are. All else is just stuff you are attached to, and stuff is stuff.
Questioner: Sir, you mentioned that there is a dance in Prakriti, that everything is entertainment and fun. But the ego is always in pursuit of sorrow. The whole existence of the ego is because of sorrow—if the sorrow dissolves, the ego dissolves, etc.
So my question was when I look at a liberated person, maybe, I mean, correct me—please, please correct me if I'm wrong. Normally, I see a sense of you know, not—not sort of an Anand or happiness in their face. It's always that there is some sort of sorrow in their face, as opposed to what Prakriti is indicating—that, you know, you have to rejoice, you have to be not in grief. But when I look at them, I mean, it's like—it’s kind of contradicting the message of what Prakriti is giving to them. So why is it so, sir? Is my understanding correct?
Acharya Prashant: Look at how the ego operates. It looks at everything from its own frame of reference. You go to a person who is rejoicing and you say, "This person is suffering." Now, what needs to change—the fact or the definition of suffering?
You go to a person, and as a fact, he's actually rejoicing. But from your own definition, you say he's suffering. And because all your definitions are distorted—they're coming from your own center—right?
Questioner: Right.
Acharya Prashant: When we rejoice, that's a kind of very sick celebration. That sick celebration we do not find in the liberated one. When we do not find that sick celebration—that maniac celebration—in the liberated one, we declare that that fellow is serious and suffering. But the fact is that he is rejoicing. And if you can push your ego aside, then you will say, "Oh, so this—from this—now I develop my definition of celebration." Instead, you say, "I already have a definition of celebration, and if his condition matches my definition, only then will I agree that he is rejoicing."
Why should his condition match your definition? You change your definition. If you find the liberated man serious, then change your definition to mean "seriousness is celebration." Instead, you want to stick to your definition, and your definition postulates, as I said, a very sick kind of celebration—in which you are excited, jumping, thumping, romping, inebriated—and that you call as partying.
That kind of celebration you usually do not find in a liberated one. So you say, "Oh no, that fellow, you know, he is quite serious, and something went wrong with him. He looks very pensive, probably mournful."
No! That's where the celebration is. You adjust your definition. Are you getting it?
If you find him weeping, then you change your definition—because that's celebration. That's the part of it that concerns his state. Now, there is another thing to it. How do you know his state when he's not in front of you?
Who are you with respect to him? With respect to him, you are a patient. You are a student. You are somebody to be taken care of. You are somebody to be shown the way, no? So it is quite possible that internally he is celebrating, but when he faces you, he has to pretend anger.
Who are you? You are his patient. He is the doctor. That's the relationship. Why will the doctor show his so-called real face to you? The doctor will show one particular face that you need to see.
Maybe you are of the type that you need to see his angry face. Maybe if he doesn't show you an angry face, you will not study or improve or attend. That does not mean that he is angry. That means that you need to see an angry face. Please get the difference. It's then not about his state—it's about your requirement.
He does not bother for his state—he is beyond botheration, right? But he bothers for your requirement. And your requirement is that you must see his angry face. That's what you require to see. So he will show you an angry face.
But that's the thing about the ego—it has very little capacity for self-observation. Instead, it wants to get into the mind of the liberated one.
It was Guru Nanak who said, "You may try as hard as you can, but you will never get to know the mind of the liberated one." That's from the Adi Granth.
You keep trying. You keep speculating. And the ego has a serious urge to know what is going on in the mind of the Buddha. But you'll never know what's there in the mind of the Buddha. Being who you are, how will you know the mind of the Buddha?
It's a part of essential humility to not even try. Instead, reflect on yourself. If you find him serious, do not judge him—look at yourself. If you find him weeping, do not judge him—look at the world around him. And if you find him scolding you, then look at your own state.
He has no need to scold. But you have a need to be scolded. So it's rather a judgment on you—not him.
Questioner: Understood Sir, thank you so much.
