AI is a Nobody

It is often said that writers must read to become good writers. But if that is the case, then writers are the same as AI. Writers take data in, think, and spit data out. AI, the same. Is there any difference between AI and human writers? Not just writers, but all humans: Is there a difference between AI and humans?

Well, we experience things. I know that. And that is our nature as humans. Then, we write about our experiences, and think in new ways according to what we experience. If I put my hand onto a hot stove and burn myself, I learn not to do that anymore, because it was painful, and I want to minimize pain. I learned from my experience. What’s the difference between this and AI’s way of learning? Nothing. AI also learns through “feelings” of pain and pleasure. We receive dopamine and pain; AI receives good numbers and bad numbers. This is called reinforcement learning according to AI researchers.

So, it seems there is no difference in how humans and AI learn (i.e., gain intelligence). But, as most of us know, there is a difference between human-generated content and AI-generated content. Not just images—even in writing. Why is that? There must be a difference then. What is that difference?

Person. Every human has a person. Every AI does not and cannot have a person. The human person is a trinity of trinities: nous, flesh, and life. It is also named by others: soul, body, and spirit respectively. How did I come to this conclusion? Let us go back to the fact that AI writing is not the same as human writing.

In Stephen King’s memoir “On Writing”, he makes an interesting observation about writing. It is real telepathy. Through writing, our minds can communicate with one another across space and time. So then, the perceived difference we sense in AI writing versus our own writing points towards the nonexistence of AI’s mind. AI cannot write because we cannot meet with its mind—it has none. But this doesn’t make sense. Isn’t the way AI learns similar, if not the same, to how we learn? This is where I concluded that it’s not the mind per se that AI does not have, but rather the whole human person.

Before we dive into the implications of that, I want to address a concern that you may have had for a while now: “But AI is good at writing; look at it! It’s writing right there!” That is because AI is good at language, not writing. It looks good. Sounds good too. But there’s nothing there. There is no soul. There is no “there” there. We defined writing as the meeting of the minds and telepathy (thanks to Stephen King). Yet again: AI cannot do that—it cannot write—it has no mind and cannot meet with ours. In other words, AI is programmed to do all the things it does. It has no motive or intention to communicate with us. (This also means it cannot love, for you coomers out there. lol.)

Additionally, I also want to address the rebuttal that “AI is just a tool and we shouldn’t mistake the tool as the toolmaker.” There is a problem with this reasoning. You are supposing that writing, drawing—art—is just a product and nothing more. It should be obvious how ridiculous it is to say this. The whole point of writing and drawing and other methods of creative work is not just to enjoy it or create it, but also to communicate with other human beings. Therefore there is a metaphysical component to this. Art is transcendent of the human and of the material. Art is metaphysical and spiritual. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Julius Evola has wrote about this. I will leave this thread untied for those interested in tying it.

Anyway, let’s get back on track. Here is a short summary of what has been covered so far. Writing is the meeting of the minds. AI cannot write because it has no mind to meet. But we know that AI learns similar, if not the same, to how we learn—reinforcement learning—so why is AI writing different from our own writing? It’s not just the mind AI does not have, it’s the whole human person. AI has no nous, no flesh, no life.

The implications of this—that AI has no person—is that AI is evidence against atheism. The human soul exists as evidenced in the difference between AI writing and human writing, ergo the philosophy of atheism, which states that there is no spiritual world at all, is wrong. Indirectly, I am giving evidence towards a God. Notice this is not a “proof” of God’s existence, but only evidence, something that points towards an uncreated creator.

Also notice that since atheists say there is no spiritual world at all, they must agree that AI and human intelligence, in the way they are structured and in the way they learn, are the same. In short, the atheist must say we are the same as AI. Certainly, a sane human being would object to this. We are not the same as AI, not even in mind nor in any sense of intelligence. As I’ve stated before, AI doesn’t even have a mind. It seems, then, atheism is a flawed philosophy.

In conclusion, AI learns the same way as us, yet it has no complete person, because it cannot write, for there is no mind to meet with, which is why AI writing seems so empty compared to our own human writing. These two facts, that AI is different from humans and AI does not have a person, suggest that humans do have a person, which contains a soul. Therefore, atheism is wrong in saying that there is no spiritual world—there is, and AI is evidence for it. An interesting idea that popped up in the middle of all of this is the proposition that art and aesthetic (anything creative) is metaphysical. I am certain that something inspirational could come out of this, but I will not explore it here. I leave it up to you to explore.

A brilliant YouTube video that talks about how AI cannot write is linked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5wLQ-8eyQI
Title: You are a better writer than AI. (Yes, you.)
YouTuber: josh (with parentheses)

Thank you for reading.