Author's Introduction
- The science of our age is computational. Without models, simulations, statistical analysis, data storage and so on, our knowledge of the world would grow far more slowly. For decades, our fundamental human curiosity has been sated, in part, by silicon and software.
- The late philosopher Paul Humphreys called this the ‘hybrid scenario’ of science: where parts of the scientific process are outsourced to computers. However, he also suggested that this could change. Even though he began writing about these ideas more than a decade ago, long before the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI), Humphreys had the foresight to recognise that the days of humans leading the scientific process may be numbered. He identified a later phase of science – what he called the ‘automated scenario’, where computers take over science completely. In this future, the computational capacities for scientific reasoning, data processing, model-making and theorising would far surpass our own abilities to the point that we humans are no longer needed. The machines would carry on the scientific work we once started, taking our theories to new and unforeseen heights.
- According to some sources, the end of human epistemic dominance over science is on the horizon. A recent survey of AI researchers offered a 50 per cent chance that, within a century, AI could feasibly replace us in every job (even if there are some we’d rather reserve for ourselves, like being a jury member). You may have a different view about whether or when such a world is possible, but I’d ask you to suspend these views for a moment and imagine that such artificial superintelligences could be possible eventually. Their development would mean that we could pass over the work of science to our epistemically superior artificial progeny who would do it faster and better than we could ever dream.
- This would be a strange world indeed. For one thing, AI may decide to explore scientific interests that human scientists are unincentivised or unmotivated to pursue, creating whole new avenues of discovery. They might even gain knowledge about the world that lies beyond what our brains are capable of understanding. Where will that leave us humans, and how should we respond? I believe we need to start asking these questions now, because within a matter of decades, science as we know it could transform profoundly.
Author's Conclusion
- So, what will we do? In his original presentation of the automated scenario, Humphreys suggested that the automated scenario would replace human science. I disagree. Since our desires for understanding, explanation, knowledge and control will remain, we cannot help but take actions to address those desires – to continue to do science. We humans create beautiful things, pursue interhuman connection in friendship and romance, and find and construct meaning in life. The same holds true for our motivations for science. We will be stuck with our curiosity to understand and explain the natural world around us.
- If the automated scenario comes to pass, it seems that it will have to be as some new, alternative, secondary path – not a replacement, but an addition. Two species, pursuing science side by side, with different motivations, interests, frameworks and theories. Perhaps there will also be parts of science that artificial superintelligence is simply less interested in, such as the human quest to better understand our own minds, choices, relationships and health.
- Indeed, if we are to remain human (and I cannot but hope that we will), we must continue to pursue science. What are we, really, if we are not beauty-seeking, friendship-making, meaning-constructing, hopelessly curious animals? Perhaps it is my limited powers of imagination that prevent me from conceiving of a future world in which we have abandoned these human desires. There are plenty of transhumanists who may think so. But I do not count it as a lack of creativity to see the goodness in beauty, in love, in meaning, and in science. Quite the contrary. I, for one, take hope in our hopeless curiosity.
Author Narrative
- Brandon Boesch is associate professor of philosophy at Morningside University, Iowa. He lives in Omaha, Nebraska.
Notes
- Interesting but probably inaccurate? The paper probably deserves a second reading.
- It’s true that – at least ultimately – the computing resources available to an AI will vastly exceed that of a human brain. Maybe even exceeding the billions of human brains acting in cooperation (given that the cooperation is imperfect and most of the brains aren’t up to much in the scientific sphere).
- The author is probably right that the AI would be able to make connections that are beyond the human brain because of the amount of data to hand. But, at least currently, the information the AI has is derivative and often not even true (and likely to get worse).
- Also, the AI is fundamentally cut off from the world and – in the absence of Functionalism (and maybe even assuming functionalism if the isomorphism is imperfect) – may never be sentient. The AI won’t know what it’s like to be one of us (though it’ll know what we write about ourselves). Unless, of course, it solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
- I suppose – ultimately – it would be able to design investigative tools for us to build that would provide it with new data relevant to its investigations.
- There would need to be some constraints on its investigations on the grounds of power-consumption.
- I might add that some of the fundamental problems of physics are forever beyond our – or the AI’s – grasp because of the energies, timescales or distances – not to mention costs – involved. This was raised in "de Sutter (Adrien) - The stagnation of physics".
- There are numerous references (some of which are not listed below as I’ve not had time to follow them up):-
→ "Humphreys (Paul) - The Philosophical Novelty of Computer Simulation Methods"
→ Aeon: Video - On Wittgenstein
→ Grace, Etc - Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
→ Aeon - AI Co-ordination Page (a useful summary)
- There are no Aeon Comments.
- This relates – just about – to my notes on Naturalism, Functionalism, Fictionalism, Intelligence, Computers, Wittgenstein, Consciousness and Transhumanism.
Comment:
- Sub-Title: "When AI takes over the practice of science we will likely find the results strange and incomprehensible. Should we worry?"
- For the full text see Aeon: Boesch - More-than-human science.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2025
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)