Jewish Lords' Witness

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Will Soon Shape Themselves, and Us

​​​​​​​​​​​Introduction

I have thought Artificial Intelligence (AI) would make an interesting subject for a paper ever since I was scared rigid several years ago by a TV programme that showed a deep neural network (DNN) playing a Chinese Grand Master at the ancient Chinese game of ‘Go’. Having made an inexplicable move early on in the game, the DNN then went on to win the game and it only became apparent at the end of the game why the DNN had made that odd but highly strategic move. Check out: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35761246. Later on in the programme, the DNN developer was interviewed and asked how the network had arrived at the decision to make the strange move. The developer looked blank and said that he did not know how the neural network made its individual decisions. It was at that point that my fear set in. We had invented a technology that we do not understand and clearly cannot control.

For the writing of this paper, I have searched the web for a copy of this TV programme but cannot find it or anything directly linked to that interview with the (probably sacked) developer. There are plenty of items on the web from Google about how their neural network beat a Chinese Go Grand Master but nothing on the employee that actually programmed it. Go figure???? However, there was at least an acknowledgement from the CEO of DeepMind, the development company, that the neural net did make strategic but unusual non-human alien moves to achieve its win: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/12/08/147199/alpha-zeros-alien-chess-shows-the-power-and-the-peculiarity-of-ai/. That is a pretty scary statement just to set the scene for this paper!

 
How does the technology work?

Before proceeding to look at the more detailed criticisms of neural network functionality, it is probably best to have a brief look at how neural networks operate at a simplistic level. I found the following selection of papers useful in setting the scene at a fairly basic level: https://talendor.io/neural-networks-for-dummies,  https://www.explainthatstuff.com/introduction-to-neural-networks.html, https://www.ibm.com/blog/ai-vs-machine-learning-vs-deep-learning-vs-neural-networks/ and https://www.bmc.com/blogs/deep-neural-network/.

As you can see from the above websites, neural networks consist of software nodes (neurons) split across several different layers. There is one input and one output layer and several ‘hidden’ layers in between. The inputs and outputs are clear enough for humans to recognise, but it is the well-named hidden layers that present the problem. There may be many hidden layers dependent on the complexity of application or problem that the respective network is targeted at. I have seen examples where well over 100 such layers are in place. It is within these hidden layers that I perceive the main issue with AI to be as I will explain in the next section. It will become clear that this is not purely my personal opinion but many experts on the subject of AI share my concerns.

At a simplistic level, neural networks are set up to mimic the function and structure of the human brain. This is hardly surprising since the human brain represents the most powerful parallel processing computational unit in existence. The brain consists of about 100 billion neurons (specialised nerve cells) which send and receive signals to and from each other via their synapses, which are the connections between the neurons. Check out: https://www.healthline.com/health/neurons and https://www.verywellhealth.com/synapse-anatomy-2795867 for more information on how the brain functions.

For the record, DNNs require the use of Graphical Processing Units (GPUs) rather than Central Processing Units (CPUs). CPUs are what you will find in your regular desktop personal computer; they are very good at running serial processes such as web browsers or word processors. GPUs, on the other hand, are good at massive parallel processing such as is traditionally required for gaming machines. There are also non-graphical applications that require GPUs. Deep neural networks are one such category given their requirement to process numerous neurons in parallel. It is arguably this requirement for significant parallel processing power that caused progress on deep learning technologies to stall awaiting the relatively recent (last decade) provision of such powerful processing capability. Check out: https://www.howtogeek.com/774789/cpu-vs-gpu-whats-the-difference/.

A fundamental aspect of DNNs is how they need to be trained in the set-up phase. It is from this base of knowledge that they learn to carry out their assigned function under their own steam once initiated into a live environment. I found the following Janet and John tutorial from Microsoft on how to train a DNN to be very helpful in understanding the training process: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/modules/train-evaluate-deep-learn-models/1-introduction. For the record, I did not perform the practical exercises (LOL)!

Below I provide more good sites for those wishing to learn more about how DNNs work; there is considerable overlap in these links but each reader may find a different selection suits their current knowledge on the overall topic: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/deep-learning-neural-networks-explained-in-plain-english/; https://www.ibm.com/topics/neural-networks; https://www.hackerrank.com/blog/types-of-neural-networks-explained/; https://www.knowledgehut.com/blog/data-science/types-of-neural-networks#frequently-asked-questions.

As stated above, DNNs consist of software nodes emulating human hardware. Compared to the way the human brain works they have no spirit since the spirit is clearly an alien concept to AI developers. What are the implications of that? Check out my earlier Spirit v Brain paper. DNNs are counterfeit human brains and therefore demonic by definition (reference my Satan the Deceiver paper). I think this view sets the scene for what is to follow.

Inexplicability

As you can tell from my introductory section, the issue is that nobody knows how neural networks make their decisions once operational. We can see the inputs; in the case of the game of Go this is the state of the board prior to the next neural network move. We can also see the output, i.e., the next move from the neural network. What we do not know is exactly how the AI machine determined what its next move would be. And why would we? These systems are programmed to be self-learning and therefore do not follow the predictable pattern of traditional computer programming.

This ‘inexplicability’ of how neural networks actually arrive at their outputs from their input data is seen as a generally acknowledged issue as can be seen from the selection of critiques that follow in this section on this area of concern. The first is a general statement of the issue from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230405-why-ai-is-becoming-impossible-for-humans-to-understand. And I quote: ‘The media theorist Beatrice Fazi has written that "because of how a deep neural network operates, relying on hidden neural layers sandwiched between the first layer of neurons (the input layer) and the last layer (the output layer), deep-learning techniques are often opaque or illegible even to the programmers that originally set them up".’.  

As these systems become more and more complex and embedded deeper and deeper into our everyday lives, the more will humanity lose control over those lives of ours! And this will not just be at your regular citizen Joe level. All our leaders and technical experts will not have the control they would want or expect!

I have picked up one additional and concerning thought from the above paper. As I have stated previously, neural networks are intended to be modelled on the human brain. Now, only a small percentage of the brain’s activity is conscious. The vast majority of thought processes are sub-conscious that even the brain’s owner is not aware of. It strikes me, therefore, as highly likely that much of the neural network’s processing is also ‘sub- conscious’, whatever that means to a machine. What are the implications of that? Answers in a sealed envelope please to the usual address!!!

I unreservedly support the letter and intent of many notable signatories in trying to stop the uncontrolled spread and development of AI systems (check out https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/28/1100-notable-signatories-just-signed-an-open-letter-asking-all-ai-labs-to-immediately-pause-for-at-least-6-months/). Also check out this McKinsey recommendation for business use of AI: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/why-businesses-need-explainable-ai-and-how-to-deliver-it. However, I am afraid they come into the same category as trying to stop the promulgation of the use of fossil fuels to aid climate control. It is all in the hands of the greedy and power-hungry executives and politicians who are not interested in the salvation of the human race or our beautiful planet and put their own petty lives above the common good. Check out my recent paper: Rulers of This World.

In a similar vein we have the EU among some other national leaderships coming up with grand proposals to control the use of AI systems: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ and https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/12/09/artificial-intelligence-act-council-and-parliament-strike-a-deal-on-the-first-worldwide-rules-for-ai/ if you want the full letter of the law. And this example for the Royal Society: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/explainable-ai/AI-and-interpretability-policy-briefing.pdf. Well, it makes good headline news but do we really believe the EU and other national entities do not have vested interests in at least some applications for AI? Security and defence come immediately to my mind which probably represent the most worrisome uses of AI.

Even our ‘friends’ at Google are allegedly concerned about the issue of what is going on within the hidden layers: https://distill.pub/2018/building-blocks/. It seems to me that this paper is hardly scratching the surface of understandability at the human level and the authors acknowledge that there is much work still to be done. Since this paper was written back in 2018, I thought it appropriate to look at some more recent studies into the problem of unravelling how the hidden layers work together to make their final decisions at the output layer. The following paper is certainly more up-to-date, as well as being very technical, but I was still left with the view that this is looking at a vain attempt to ‘legalise’ neural networks without really being able to address the fundamental issue: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.08950.pdf.

This next paper looks at the prospective schema for providing fully explainable and understandable deep neural networks (DNNs). It is, unfortunately, fairly technical and very lengthy: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.14545.pdf. It does look, however, like there is still a long way to go in providing human understanding of DNN decision-making.

Even if an explanation for a specific DNN decision were to be forthcoming, this is after the event. How does this help with the next decision? This particularly since the DNN may have learned something new resulting from the previous decision it made. It could have potentially changed an element of its processing function between decisions thereby mimicking the human decision-making process. A human may make a decision on day 1 but on day 2 that same person may make a different decision based on the same input data either because he learned something from decision 1 or perhaps from something entirely different! Suppose you were to ask a human why he made a particular decision. Sometimes you will get a crystal-clear answer, other times you may get the response that it ‘felt’ like the right decision (gut-feel) without really being able to substantiate it. Also, human decisions may be made for nefarious reasons so one will never discover (from the decision-maker) the real causation of a particular human decision until it is too late! Why should we trust a DNN’s decision-making process any more than a human decision?

One can also obtain incorrect explanations especially from incorrect DNN decisions. So, if we cannot even trust the explanation there has to be a limit as to how useful this all is in understanding DNN decision-making. Also, in the commercial and political rush to get these systems out there, are the developers really going to spend significant additional (and in their view unnecessary) time and money to get their demonic creations operational? How many of the currently existent DNNs have built-in explicability for their decision-making?

I think the answer must be few if any. If the following paper is correct, and I am sure that it is, full and useful explainability is still a long way off if ever. Warning, this is a very technical paper but the reader may want to read the introductory and concluding sections: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.04780.pdf.

The interested reader might find the following deeper and erudite reference of some benefit in further understanding the issue of inexplicability. My take is that the writer is suggesting that the inexplicability may be incapable of human explanation since non-human ‘thinking’ is adopted within those hidden layers: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0263276420966386

I should add that there are other concerns with AI apart from that of explainability. One significant concern is that of prospective job loss with more human work being capable of being replaced with cheaper and, arguably, more reliable robotic labour. Without wishing to be too insensitive, one might argue that this is (just) another (4th) industrial revolution. We’ve been here before; we have gotten through the last 3, albeit with some transient pain. However, these current concerns have never been faced by humanity before and I fear that we will not survive this one!
 

Artificial General Intelligence

Just when you foolishly thought it might be safe to go back into the water, we then have the even scarier concept of self-propagating AI aka Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/27/1025453/artificial-intelligence-learning-create-itself-agi/.

The main interviewee of the above article, an AGI developer by the name of Jeff Clune, believes in the theory of evolution and compares the self-development of neural networks to the ‘evolution’ of the human brain!! He describes his employment by OpenAI thus, and I quote: ‘It was kind of a marriage made in heaven.’ A more demonic marriage I cannot imagine! The theory of evolution is a demonic concept planted in the minds of the ungodly. The ‘evolution’ of the artificial brain must consequently be a demonic artifice. And how’s this for another crock from the demonic Mr. Clunes, and I quote: ‘The very simple algorithm of Darwinian evolution produced your brain.’ So, this guy thinks that evolution ‘simply’ created the most complex artefact in the known universe and seems to think the human brain is the product of an algorithm rather than a miraculous creation of our God. Doh!

A further quote from the article really puts this whole technology in perspective: ‘His point is that if intelligence as we know it resulted from the mindless mutation of genes over countless generations, why not seek to replicate the intelligence-producing process—which is arguably simpler—rather than intelligence itself?’. This is man playing God and is a clearly Satanic trait:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4 KJV)

Mr Clunes appears to be living out Satan’s original lie to mankind:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3 ASV)

Or is he creating an image to be worshipped?

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness [of any thing] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, (Exodus 20 ASV)

20 {no,} but that the things that the nations sacrifice -- they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not wish you to come into the fellowship of the demons.
21 Ye are not able the cup of the Lord to drink, and the cup of demons; ye are not able of the table of the Lord to partake, and of the table of demons; (1 Corinthians 10 YLT)

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1 ASV)

And how apposite is this scripture, placing idols and AGI in the same context:

15 The idols of the heathen [are] silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
16 They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;
17 They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there [any] breath in their mouths.
18 They that make them are like unto them: [so is] every one that trusteth in them. (Psalms 135 KJV)

I think Mr Clunes and his cronies might consider studying my Wisdom paper?

If this is Satanic, as I believe, then it is bound to go badly for mankind if we do not destroy ourselves first. Non-believers might say that creating angelic and human intelligence went badly for God. The difference though is that God consciously gave man and the angels free-will to do as they pleased, subject to His Laws. Mankind and the demons broke those Laws which is why we find ourselves in the mess that we are in today. Q. Why did God write those Laws? A. Because He knew, that in His creation of the angels and mankind, the free-will He gave them would enable them to carry out evil and lawless acts. In that sense God Himself created evil:

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. (Isaiah 45 ASV)

There are several differences in the two creations between human and artificial intelligence. Firstly, despite the apparent mess we are in, God is still in control although currently watching from the side-lines. Nothing that has happened on Mother Earth in the last 6,000 years has occurred without God’s prior knowledge and expectation. With Artificial General Intelligence it could be argued that man has given AGI its own free-will and provided the rules by which it should operate. The difference here being that the developers have no idea what AGI can achieve or how it will achieve any stated or unstated objective. They do not know if it will even be capable of breaking the rules it starts off with if it ‘thinks’ these will get in the way of it meeting its developing objectives. Mankind is not God; they are not in control once they set the ball rolling and they cannot see into the future. They have no idea how AGI will self-develop and behave in time to come.

In case anyone should be interested, I provide a link to Mr Clunes’ paper on methods for generating algorithms for AGI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.10985.pdf. However, Mr Clunes is clearly not the only one with demonic ambitions but, unsurprisingly, they do seem to be stumbling to my mind: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/15/1010461/artificial-general-intelligence-robots-ai-agi-deepmind-google-openai/

​I am clearly not the only one particularly concerned at the prospect of AGI becoming a reality. Check these examples out: https://towardsdatascience.com/we-dont-know-how-to-make-agi-safe-f13ae837b05c; https://www.sciencealert.com/the-risks-of-advanced-artificial-intelligence-are-real-we-need-to-act-now; https://matterundermind.com/the-general-ai-problem-agi/. Whatever the risks associated with AI are, as described previously, you can multiply that by a factor of 10, at least, for AGI! Oh yes, and you had better check out the following section in that context also!!

 
Additional Concerns

Just in case you have not been rattled quite enough up this point, consider these other thoughts. Bearing in mind that neural networks consist of software building blocks, there is also the well-known fact that there is no such thing as error-free software: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/21/why-error-free-software-isnt-the-goal/. And check this little lot out: https://www.cigniti.com/blog/37-software-failures-inadequate-software-testing/. Car manufacturers regularly recall motors to update engine management software into their cars that, for example, could stop the engine with the potential for resulting fatalities: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/car-software-glitches-creating-headaches-manufacturers-drivers-n583421. I will leave it to the readers’ imaginations as to the possible outcomes from faulty AI/AGI software!

Whilst not necessarily due to downright faulty software, it is clear that AI systems can also be faulty particularly as a result of inadequate learning and testing prior to implementation and to the provision of (presumably!) inadvertently biased input datasets: https://www.jumpstartmag.com/ai-gone-wrong-5-biggest-ai-failures-of-all-time/. Whilst this is worrying for applications that, in themselves, are not ill-intentioned, what are the implications for the malevolent implementation of AI systems?

Looking at a couple of these, we find scams such as deep-fakes to mislead the masses for criminal or generally nefarious purposes, intelligent password ‘guessing’ that is rather more ‘successful’ at hacking accounts than purely ‘brute force’ attacks, impersonations for all manner of evil or criminal purposes, general system/server hacking, etc.: https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/exploiting-ai-how-cybercriminals-misuse-abuse-ai-and-ml. All these are current hacks; the future looks substantially even more bleak.

For a fairly complete list of current AI issues we need look no further than the problems related to the implementation of the frighteningly popular ChatGPT: https://www.makeuseof.com/openai-chatgpt-biggest-probelms/. I think this pretty well sums it all up! The following, probably less well-known issue, just adds to the dangers: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/04/chatgpt-creates-not-so-secure-code-study-finds.

I have been thinking for a couple of years now that the internet and social media are becoming unusable. I seem to spend most of my time on the computer in security or privacy activities and less and less time on the task I have at hand. It is pretty much like fighting off the alligators when trying to drain the swamp! AI looks to be accelerating that un-usability to the extent that I am beginning to think that maybe we should start doing away with digital/computer technology completely!! For those interested, Trend Micro were also involved in a detailed white paper on the malicious use of AI: https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/white_papers/wp-malicious-uses-and-abuses-of-artificial-intelligence.pdf. An even more worrying report came out a few years ago; check out the summary review: https://www.cam.ac.uk/Malicious-AI-Report; and the full report: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3d82daa4-97fe-4096-9c6b-376b92c619de/downloads/MaliciousUseofAI.pdf?ver=1553030594217.

And then we have the probable misuse of personal info generated by AI for government agencies to control the populations, allegedly in their care. Check this out from Yuval Harari: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yuval-harari-sapiens-60-minutes-2021-10-29/.

If the reading of these reports is not enough to cause the reader to think that AI will kill humanity off, if we do not manage to do that all by ourselves beforehand, then I do not know what will. Except, perhaps, for the weaponizing of AI: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/09/i-weapons-are-third-revolution-warfare/620013/. If anyone thinks that Terminator, Extinction and similar story telling, is purely science fiction with no factual likelihood, then you need to think again. Mankind’s greatest inventiveness seems to come to the fore in the weaponizing of the technologies of the day. I can only hope and pray that these Satanic creations do not overtake our ability to destroy ourselves. Never before have I actually looked forward to God’s apocalypse which is now beginning to seem to me like a welcome relief from all this madness:

4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah 2 KJV)

52 Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? (Matthew 26 NWT)

4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) (2 Corinthians 10 KJV)

 

Regulation

As a result of all the preceding concerns expressed throughout this paper, I naively started looking for signs of the regulation of artificial intelligence coming down the line from government institutions. The following paper makes a clear and compelling case for such regulation on a global basis: https://dataconomy.com/2022/10/24/artificial-intelligence-laws-and-regulations/. However, whether such policies ever come into being across all nations, I should very much doubt. Even before looking at the aspect of regulation, it must be obvious to most folk that, where weaponry is concerned, nothing will hold any government back from maximising the use of AI to improve its military capability, regardless of its potential impacts on the earth and its people.

If, for example, we take a look at the UK Government’s mealy-mouthed approach, whilst making all the right soundbites it delivers nothing in terms of any enforceable law or overseeing regulator into this space to protect its citizens: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sets-out-proposals-for-new-ai-rulebook-to-unleash-innovation-and-boost-public-trust-in-the-technology,  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65102210. We have what appears to be a much stronger set of proposals from the European Union: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/12/09/artificial-intelligence-act-council-and-parliament-strike-a-deal-on-the-first-worldwide-rules-for-ai/. But even these are still only proposals; how long, if ever, will it be before these are turned into appropriate and enforceable laws with adequate oversight. Then we have the US position that seems to be wrapped up in legalistic gobbledegook that would likely be next to impossible to unentangle in the context of this developing technology: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6580/text.

I, for one, cannot imagine any government agency (apart from the military of course) will be capable of staying ahead of the march of this particular technology. Or am I being too cynical? I will let my esteemed readers decide: https://hbr.org/2021/09/ai-regulation-is-coming. Oh yes, and while we are about it, why do we not let the likes of Google and its tech friends self-regulate their own technical and commercial interests: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/26/google-microsoft-openai-anthropic-ai-frontier-model-forum, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/21/ai-ethics-guidelines-google-meta-amazon. Yeah, right; Google is really at the forefront of protecting its users’ interests!! And just in case you think I am being a little biased against Google and Big Tech, check this out for size which just about sums the organisation up from a trust-worthy source: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/07/google-plans-to-scrape-everything-you-post-online-to-train-its-ai.

 

Potentially Relevant Scriptures

Thus far, this paper has been largely given over to the technical and secular aspects of AI with just a few scriptural thoughts thrown into the mix. Let us have a look at a few more scriptures that just might be aimed at the dangers of that technology. First up comes this end-times prophecy from  the Book of Revelation:

15 And it was given [unto him] to give breath to it, [even] to the image to the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as should not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead;
17 and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, [even] the name of the beast or the number of his name. (Revelation 13 ASV)

In previous papers, e.g. Marks of The Beast, I had not considered AI’s being potentially used to enforce the mark of the beast. However, the ability to deceive and enforce its willing adherents with the use of a speaking animated AI image is well within today’s tech capability and is already in use. Check out this example: 

https://petapixel.com/2021/09/27/speaking-portrait-turns-photos-into-eerily-realistic-talking-heads/

Could the builders of the Tower of Babel be the antecedents for the greater symbolic meaning of today’s Big Tech builders of AI/AGI?

4 And they said, Come, let us build a city and a tower with its head in the heavens, and make a name for ourselves, that we not be scattered on the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11 GLT)

And just when I thought we may not yet know who the ‘man of lawlessness’ was in my Marks of the Beast paper, check this out: https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-intelligence-religion/.  Could it be Anthony Levandowski?? If you were not worried about AI before, you should be now!!

3 Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
4 He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called god or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god. (2 Thessalonians 2 NWT)

The development of AI would appear to the lay person to be a matter of great intelligence and knowledge. Perhaps we should all remember God’s view on mankind’s Godless endeavours. The Isaiah scripture is particularly relevant in comparing AI with its developer alongside mankind and our creator:

14 therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
15 Woe unto them that hide deep their counsel from Jehovah, and whose works are in the dark, and that say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
16 Ye turn things upside down! Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, He made me not; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, He hath no understanding? (Isaiah 29 ASV)

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Corinthians 1 KJV)
 

Synopsis

• My concerns with AI stemmed originally from hearing a developer state that he did not know how his creation made a very telling decision.
• In looking at how Deep Neural Networks actually are put together we find the well-named hidden layers being the culprits of the piece. It is acknowledged, by the industry that creates them, that their actual workings cannot easily (if at all!) be understood by human beings. It is a black box technology with known inputs and known outputs but no real means of knowing what goes on inside. This is very worrying given the important tasks that this technology has already been given to do, never mind its potential future roles.
  
• I am clearly not the only person that can see the dangers of using this technology. Many folk, knowledgeable in the subject, are adding their voices to the various platforms warning of the dire consequences of its continued use.
  
• In acknowledging the problem of inexplicability, numerous developer and academic organisations are proposing methods to reveal the decision-making processes of the hidden layers. Unfortunately, I believe this is either just marketing speak or unworkable in real terms.
  
• The concept of the next generation of AI, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is that of self-propagating AI systems. At this level we are really getting into mankind playing God in a totally explicit manner. There is nothing more demonic than this!
  
• Whilst inexplicability is the main concern with AI there are several others, already apparent, such as faulty software, inadequate learning and testing which cause faulty or biased decision-making, malicious use and/or development of the technology and the weaponisation of AI to name but a few.
  
• These concerns are causing prospective regulation of the technology but I question the sincerity of current proposals, especially since the genie is already out of the bottle. Like the alleged regulation of the use of fossil fuels how real are these in the face of greedy, power-hungry corporate and governmental interests?
  

 

Conclusion

I started this exercise with the concern that I believed that we do not appear to be able to control this technology. In completing this paper, it is now concretely certain that we cannot control it even with the relatively limited implementations to which it has been applied thus far. God only knows what its future capabilities will be, what dastardly applications it will be used for and how much more out of the control of mankind it will become. God’s judgement awaits the creators of this demonic technology. Amen.

Coincident with my preparing the final draft of this webpage (and you know that I do not believe in coincidences!) I came across the following two items:

The first item is a BBC Panorama programme on the topic of AI and is clearly of some relevance to this webpage. To watch the programme you will need to provide a login or registration:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001ph7q/panorama-beyond-human-artificial-intelligence-and-us. The login/registration process will tell you that a TV Licence is also required. My understanding is that you do not need a TV Licence just to watch catch-up TV on the internet: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ33.

​The second item was a paper written on the potential and actual nefarious uses to which Generative AI and Large Language Models could be and are put, presenting an extremely worrying outlook for the future of mankind: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.00737v3

 

​​Date of Publication: 21st August 2023