We were searching Apple about three weeks ago for something to watch. We took a look at Kong, along with everything else, and eventually ended up saying “why not?”
We turned on Kong and, unlike the campy movie that I expected it to be, we saw a somewhat campy movie, but not nearly one devoid of merit. It was good stuff and worth watching.
This past weekend, we were coming back from our family vacation to British Columbia and, on-boarded the plane, I flipped to see what Delta had to offer. Lo and behold – there was Kong. I’m not sure I was prepared to actually see it again since I was listening to a podcast on my iPhone, but I didn’t mind visually watching it while I was listening to something else.
As I listened, this time without any sounds, screams, roars, or violence, something appeared to me self-evident that I am sure would have been self-evident if it had not been so loud the first time around.
In one scene, Kong looked down at Mason Weaver as she was attempting to help the Wildebeast, with a combination of bewilderment, compassion, observation of her obvious beauty, and recognition that she was actually a good person. He clearly perceived her as kind, gentle and generous.
In another scene, Mason Weaver was in trouble as she and Tom Hiddleston were attempting to save Kong from the massive reptilian beast. Kong, motivated to make sure that the reptilian beast was vanquished, but far more importantly, that Mason Weaver stayed alive, cradled Mason while simultaneously fighting for his life.
All of that was in fine narrative dramatic form.
But, from my standpoint, what was most relevant is the extent to which any of that translated into an intelligence that is embedded in organismic sensibility.
Why is that relevant after watching a movie like Kong? Probably not at all. But it is relevant when considering the extent to which artificial intelligence (AI) somehow runs with or can otherwise surpass human intelligence (HI).
There is no question that simple human observation of Mason attempting to extricate the Wildebeast from a position of being in pain would have elicited empathy. There is also no question that observing Mason attempting to assist Kong in overcoming his evil reptilian adversary, would have elicited empathy. At the human level, that was obvious.
The movie extrapolates those human perceptions, since they are, after all, humans who have bought tickets and are otherwise watching the movie, to buy into the premise that Kong gets it and understands who his real adversaries are and who his protagonists appear to be.
So, for the sake of a fiction, and otherwise relatively plausible narrative, we can all go with it fairly easily.
But when we then extrapolate human or higher quotient behaviors to that intelligence, the question becomes how much of that translates to AI, which may capture the behavior, although it is not totally clear as to whether it understands the inputs.
I continue to question the limits of AI, not because it is moving so rapidly, but because it appears to be inevitable. AI is and will be part and parcel of virtually all problem solving over the next 20 to 30 years.
Se, three questions emerge:
- Where do AI and HI travel together and where does one short of the other?
- What happens when AI mirrors HI to such an extent that it is not clear which is which? What happens then?
- What happens when AI is more astute than HI at problem-solving and even possibly rendering judgment as to problems which unfold?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but Kong made me realize that we were nano-seconds away from perceiving as humans in a way which we had originally perceived as primates and we are possibly nano-seconds away from perceiving through self-teaching algorithms, not as humans or primates, but as surrogates.
Image source: cbr.com