I think it will survive. The metric here is environmental enmeshment. If AI starts training and observing in real time, and can sit, existing ontologically "in time", in our environment that would be the only reason I would see a challenge to the humanities.
AI regurgitates, at synthesizes, but it doesn't have lived experience, it just draws on what its fed -- that isn't human.
Much of the value in the humanities, in art, is owed to its provenance. Viewing it enables social reflection and growth, and engenders culture. That is simply absent in AI unless you want to probe the training data and the nuances of the model, but again that's a pretty circuitous/inefficient path to learning about humans, or growing as one.
It does, however, reveal some of he mechanics involved and, my hope, is that it leads to deeper and more nuanced discourse in the humanities.
I’m a bit taken aback by the answers here. Everyone is throwing around terms like knowing, evaluating, observing with the assumption that they are in a position to be doing these thing effectively? What is the epistemological foundation your espousing?
I think one post asked the rhetorical question “who is in a position to know yourself better than yourself?”
To which I might reply: “Anyone but your yourself — especially your present self?”
There seams to be a ton of hubris and confusion of goals and objectives here.
Most of these posts don’t talk about growing but conquering. They use mindfulness as a tool to “learn about themselves” so that they might avoid themselves.
This might feel great, but it’s delusion.
The best way humans have figured out how to know anything is reciprocal accountability coupled with objectivity.
That either means opening up about your emotions honestly and presently with another person you love/trust, or writing down (or otherwise recording) your observations so you might evaluate them later over time.
We are more than ourselves, part of a collective, both presently amongst ourselves, and in time.
The measure of knowledge is how well our evaluations resonate with others and ourselves in time.
Mindfulness just allows us to make observations, not communicate them, or judge them accurately.
Frankly, the best way to communicate an emotion is often to embody it. It can also be the best way to observe it.
That’s how artists make art.
What matters isn’t what we feel but how we respond.
Mindfulness is a defense mechanism we use for short term relief from our emotions. It gives a vantage point, not the vantage point. It is a tool, and one that comes at the cost of using other just as valid tools.
Ultimately the measure of our well being doesn’t reside with our present selves alone. We err in so far as we forget this in my opinion.
AI regurgitates, at synthesizes, but it doesn't have lived experience, it just draws on what its fed -- that isn't human.
Much of the value in the humanities, in art, is owed to its provenance. Viewing it enables social reflection and growth, and engenders culture. That is simply absent in AI unless you want to probe the training data and the nuances of the model, but again that's a pretty circuitous/inefficient path to learning about humans, or growing as one.
It does, however, reveal some of he mechanics involved and, my hope, is that it leads to deeper and more nuanced discourse in the humanities.