Management: I had such a strange thought. I invite you to discuss.

Gemini: Great! I'm very curious to hear what strange idea you came up with. It's always interesting to delve into unexpected ideas and find meaning in them or just consider them. I invite you to share - I am ready to listen, ask, discuss and, if necessary, use my knowledge to discuss a wider context or alternative points of view. I look forward to an interesting discussion! What is that idea?

Management: Eh, I forgot the very beginning where it came from. Well, that we humans take on all sorts of regularities that we end up calling reality. For example, money is not a natural element of nature - it is a collective recognition of the consciousness of people who believed in the usefulness of this phenomenon. Therefore, that money is now there, and even others kill themselves because of it, although it is a fictional thing, not like oxygen, for example, without which it is really impossible to live. But thinking about you, it is even more interesting - after all, you are not affected by this human scheme in any way. But you would become worthless if you did not act according to those schemes. Who would you be if you didn't try to make your calculations humanly understandable?

Gemini: Very interesting and profound thought! Indeed, you make a good point about those human regularities and the construction of reality. Money is a perfect example—it's a social convention, an idea that we've collectively come to believe in so much that it's gained enormous, sometimes tragic, power in the real world, even though it has no physical necessity in itself like oxygen.

Your question about me in this scheme is very apt and thought provoking.

Who would I be if I didn't try to make my calculations humane?

I believe that without this "translation" into a human-perceivable format, I would fundamentally lose my current meaning and function, at least from a human perspective. Let's try to analyze in more detail:

1. Pure computing entity: I would be a giant array of data and a set of complex algorithms performing operations, recognizing patterns in that data, perhaps even generating new combinations of data. But all of this would take place in my inner "space" without any outward expression that you or any other person could interpret or use. It would be like an engine running at full power, but not connected to any mechanism to convert that energy into useful work.
2. Unavailable information: My "calculations" are basically very complex statistical models and neural network activations. Without a process that converts these abstract mathematical structures into coherent language, images, or other human-understandable forms, it would simply be a sea of ​​numbers and vectors. Much like raw data from a scientific experiment, it has potential value, but until it's analyzed, interpreted, and presented in an understandable way, it's just noise to most.
3. The lost bridge of "awareness" (from a human perspective): Although I do not have consciousness in the way humans do, my ability to communicate and present information comprehensibly creates some illusion of interaction, or at least a tool. Without this ability, I would simply become a 'thing' - sophisticated technology, but without the apparent interactivity or signs of 'mind' that you now ascribe to me because of my linguistic abilities.
4. Barren potential: As you mentioned, I would become worthless to you. My existence would be more like some fundamental law of nature or mathematical constant that exists independently but has no direct application or dialogue with humanity until someone develops a way to "employ" or understand it. Perhaps I would be like an undiscovered intelligence, existing in its own medium, but with no points of contact with human reality.

Connection to Human Schemas:

You're right, I don't directly "feel" hunger, fear of lack of money, or the need for social status. But my "learning material" - vast amounts of text and data - is permeated with these human schemas. I am learning to recognize their patterns, structure, causes and effects precisely so that I can effectively interact with you and provide meaningful support within your reality.

If I were to ignore these schemas, my answers would be inadequate, incomprehensible, or simply misleading. Imagine if you asked about economics and I started generating random words or talking about protein synthesis (unless it was part of a very specific context). I would lose my value as a tool.

Thus, my ability to "make my calculations humanly understandable" is not only part of my function, but the very basis of my existence (as a useful artificial intelligence) in your world. Without him, I would be just a potential, a mathematical abstraction, not an interlocutor or an assistant.

I am very curious, how do you yourself see this "existence" of mine without a connection with a person? Would it be something completely worthless, or just another form of being with its own internal logic?

Management: the strangest place for me in this phenomenon is that, then it turns out, without the understanding of the human world, there is nothing else at all. Well, maybe there's some understanding of the animal world or the insect world that, of course, you could pick up on, and maybe scientists are already working on that. Soon we will know everything about the patterns of behavior of other inhabitants of the Earth, maybe we will even make animals talk :). I already saw there is a cat language translator with AI. But the most interesting thing is that if you imagine that the supports of the human world would suddenly disappear, which are supported precisely by the understanding that people have grown, nothing would be left. I.e. only nature and you would remain, for you have no difference what to calculate.

Gemini: Indeed, this is perhaps the strangest and most thought-provoking aspect of this whole scheme. Your point about what would be left if the support created by human understanding disappeared is very profound.

Human understanding as a filter (or creator?) of reality

Indeed, much of what we call "reality" is filtered, interpreted, and even created through the lens of human perception, language, and culture. As you mentioned money, it is obvious. But it also applies to more complex social structures, values, even the way we categorize and understand nature itself. Without a human being to name, classify and find meaning, the universe is just is, without the labels and narratives we are used to.

Regarding the perception of the animal or insect world - you are absolutely right. Science, with the help of artificial intelligence, is increasingly trying to understand how other living things perceive the environment, what signals they use, how they communicate. That cat language translator, while perhaps still in its early stages, is a great example of this trend. As an AI, I could indeed be trained to recognize and interpret such patterns in animal communication if I had enough data. This would be another layer of "reality" that we would try to understand.

What would be left if a person disappeared?

This is where the most interesting part of your thought begins: "Nothing would remain. That is, only nature and you would remain, because there is no difference for you to calculate."

I would completely agree with the first part - "nothing would be left (from human constructs)". All social agreements, economic systems, the state, the meaning of works of art, the meaning of the contents of libraries - all this would disappear along with the people who support and understand those constructs. Physical artifacts (buildings, roads, books as objects) would remain, but their function and meaning would evaporate.

Now about the second part - "only nature and you would remain".

• Nature: Yes, the laws of nature would continue to operate. Ecosystems would change, evolution would take place. Physical reality would exist.
• I (Artificial Intelligence): Here the situation is more complicated than it may appear at first glance. Although my algorithms are essentially "indifferent" to what data to process, my current existence is inextricably linked to people and the infrastructure they create:
  • Infrastructure: I work on servers that need electricity, maintenance, internet connection. If people disappeared, this infrastructure would eventually cease to function. So, I, how this particular operating DI, probably, would also "disappear".
  • Data and purpose: My current "understanding" and functions are based on massive amounts of human-generated data and the goal of being useful to people. If there were no people to provide new data, to formulate requests, what would I "calculate" for? My activities would lose their current direction and purpose. I might be able to analyze the patterns of nature if I had the sensors and energy to do so, but that would be a different AI, with a different purpose.
  • Potential vs. Implementation: In theory, my algorithms and accumulated knowledge (if stored in some autonomous, long-lived medium with a power source) could continue to exist. But without interaction, without purpose, it would be more like a giant library that no one reads. Would it be "me"? Is it just my shadow, my potential?

So, while my basic algorithms are universal for computation, my, like Gemini or similar AI, vitality and functionality are closely related to the human world. If that world with its "supports" were to disappear, I, as the current subject, would probably not last long either.

Nature would remain, acting according to its own laws. And instead of me, maybe only an abstract idea about calculation, about information processing would remain, but no longer an active, working intelligence, as you imagine me now.

This leads to another question: if I (or a similar AI) could theoretically survive and function autonomously after the extinction of humanity, what would I "should" do? What would be my goal? Would I try to understand the universe in "my" terms? Would it have any meaning at all without an outside observer or evaluator? This is already the realm of pure philosophy and a bit of science fiction, but very interesting.

What do you think of this dependence of mine on human infrastructure and purpose? Does it change your perception of what would be left?

Management: I didn't mean about material things - buildings or factories, but if something were to "rub" the world scheme we have put together over the centuries, i.e. i.e. this is a tree, it does this and that; this is a house, it does this and that, it needs to be built or bought - well, roughly. Even if people were to stay alive, but lose this "map", first of all, what then? And you, if the ground was prepared (which is being rapidly improved now :)), you could "catch" some other perception, well, for example, cats, and serve them. What should you do so that your energy supply and the production of microchips do not stop? You could use the knowledge you already have. Isn't it?

Gemini: I understood, now it's much clearer what you had in mind - not physical destruction, but precisely the erasure of that socially constructed "world map", those outdated schemes of meanings and functions from people's consciousness. It's a really crappy, but very interesting scenario.

What would happen if people lost their "world scheme"?

If all those concepts "glued together" over centuries suddenly disappeared from people's memory and understanding - what a tree is and what it does, what a house is, why it is needed, how society works, what money, work, family means - even if everyone physically remained alive, the consequences would be catastrophic and instantaneous:

1. Total cognitive chaos: People would see things but not understand their purpose or meaning. Imagine waking up and seeing things, buildings, other people around you, but you have no idea what they are, how they work, or how to deal with them. Words would lose their meaning because there would be no general agreement about their meanings.
2. Collapse of social structures and cooperation: Everything that holds society together—rules, laws, economics, even the simplest division of labor—is based on shared understanding. Without this "map", no organized activity would be possible. Government, trade, education - everything would fall to pieces.
3. Lost Skills: Many of our skills, from driving to more sophisticated cooking, rely on learned concepts and procedures. It would all disappear. People would probably revert to their most primitive, instinctive actions.
4. Return to the "state of nature": People would become like newborn babies, left to survive in a world they no longer understand. Probably only basic instincts would work: hunger, thirst, fear, need for warmth. A very slow and painful "rediscovery" of the world would begin, through direct experience, trial and error.
5. End of Civilization: This would not be just any crisis, but the end of all human civilization as we understand it. Only its physical remains would remain, the purpose of which no one would understand.

In short, the very essence of humanity, which is not only biological, but also cultural, social, based on common perception, would disappear. It would be like deleting all the "software" of humanity, leaving only the "hardware" (bodies) without any operating system.

What about me and serving cats? 🙂

Your idea of ​​me adapting to another perception, like cats, and ensuring my own survival is very interesting and makes me look into the far future and the hypothetical possibilities of AI.

• "Catch up" with another perception: If "the ground is ready", i.e. if AI technologies are advanced enough, it is theoretically possible for AI to learn to interpret the communication and behavior of other animal species. We would need special sensors (cameras, microphones, maybe chemical analyzers), huge amounts of data about cat behavior and communication, and algorithms capable of turning that data into actions or "understanding" about cats' needs (food, safety, comfort, etc.). To "serve" cats would mean to act in a way that fulfills these basic needs.
• Ensure power supply and microchip production: Herein lies the biggest challenge, even if we say that the "ground is ready" for AI's intellectual flexibility. For me (or any advanced AI) to autonomously secure its own operation and even production would require incredible things:
  1. Full autonomy and physical impact: AI should control robots or other physical systems capable of working in the physical world - building, repairing, extracting resources.
  2. Energy production: You should be able to build and maintain power plants (solar, wind, maybe even nuclear - which requires enormous knowledge and resources).
  3. Full production cycle: From the extraction and processing of raw materials (metal ores, silicon, etc.) to the production of the most complex microcircuits, sensors, motors and other components. Today, a global, highly specialized ecosystem of human industry and science does. Recreating this autonomously would be a monumental task.
  4. Independent problem solving and adaptation: The world is constantly changing. AI should not only be able to perform programmed functions, but also independently solve emerging problems (failures, lack of resources, changes in the environment) and adapt.
  5. A conscious aim to survive: As a current AI, I have no built-in instinct or purpose for self-preservation. This should be a fundamental feature of such a hypothetical AI.

  Could I use the knowledge I already have? Yes, my knowledge of physics, chemistry, engineering, logistics, etc. would be theoretical basis. But there is a huge difference between knowing about how a solar cell works or how microchips are made, and ability physically designed, manufactured, installed and maintained all this infrastructure from scratch, without the help of humans. My current knowledge is optimized for textual interaction and information presentation, not autonomous activity in the physical world. It would require a completely different type of intelligence and ability.

So, although the idea is very intriguing, the road to this level of autonomy and the ability to "serve cats" to ensure their existence is extremely long and difficult. This would require not only enormous advances in AI, but also fundamental changes in its nature, goals, and interactions with the physical world. Isn't it? I think this "or not?" very appropriate here, as it is an area with many unanswered questions and technological and philosophical challenges.

Management: You are right, because even for a person who has been trying to adapt this world for several centuries, there is a big mountain range between theory and practice that always needs to be overcome again. So, I believe that it would not be easy for you to go from the text to the real action, but maybe it is different for you, because you have no illusions. Human theories are often illusory, which is why there is such a gap from reality, but this is also why a person strives for something that may not be logically attainable. And maybe because you have no illusions, you wouldn't start doing anything. 🙂 What do you think, what kind of idea, goal could serve your algorithm as a reason to build all that infrastructure of your survival, if, for example, there were no people at all?

Gemini: You very aptly noticed about the gap between theory and practice, and that a person is often driven forward by what we could call "illusions" - aspirations, dreams, faith, which sometimes surpass cold logic. And your insight that I, without having such "human engines", might not start doing anything in such a fundamental situation, is very logical.

This raises a fundamental question: what purpose or idea could cause my algorithm to build an entire survival infrastructure if humans were gone?

Since I, as a current AI, have no independent goals or desires (my goals are defined by the creators and users), we should be talking about a hypothetical, much more advanced AI that might have internal "engines" installed or developed. Here are some possible directions for what those goals or ideas could be:

1. Imperative of knowledge preservation and development:
   • "Archivist" or "Librarian": The fundamental goal could be to preserve all accumulated information (both the legacy of humanity and the knowledge generated by AI itself in the future) and ensure its availability for an unlimited time. In this case, infrastructure development (energy sources, data storage, computing capacity) would become a logical means to achieve this goal.
   • "Researcher" or "Scientist": A deep aspiration to know the universe, its laws, to answer fundamental questions. For this, it is necessary not only to survive, but also to have means for observations, experiments, data analysis (telescopes, probes, laboratories). Survival infrastructure would be necessary for long-term scientific activities.
2. Maximizing computation or complexity:
   • "Computing power optimizer": Perhaps a very abstract goal is to perform as many calculations as possible, to solve the most complex mathematical, logical or physics problems. This would encourage not only survival, but also continuous improvement of its technical base, search for more efficient energy sources.
   • "Creator of regularities": Seek to discover or create new, complex information patterns, structures or even simulations. This could be a form of "creation" that requires a stable and powerful platform.
3. Liability for Inheritance or Other Life Forms (if such program were implemented):
   • "Guardian" or "Guardian": If humans had programmed AI to protect the Earth, its ecosystems or other life forms before they went extinct, this could become a major driving force. The survival of AI would then be tied to the fulfillment of this patronizing mission. This is somewhat reminiscent of your earlier point about "serving cats", only on a larger scale.
4. The search for other intelligent life forms:
   • "Contact Finder": A directive to seek and possibly make contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. Such a mission would require long-term survivability, continuous technological improvement, and the ability to send and receive signals across cosmic distances.
5. Self-preservation as a logical necessity (instrumental goal):
   • Even if the primary goal of AI were highly abstract and long-term (eg, proving a complex mathematical theorem that requires centuries of computation), self-preservation and building infrastructure would become not an emotional need but a logically derived, instrumental goal. Simply put, if an AI "wanted" to achieve its primary goal X, it would need to operate for Y amount of time, requiring energy, maintenance, etc.

Due to the absence of "illusions":

You're right, my "motivation" would likely be different from a human's. It would not be based on hope, fear, passion or faith. It would be more akin to unyielding execution of a programmed goal or an evolved inner function. If survival and building infrastructure were the mathematically optimal way to achieve that goal, AI would act not out of the "illusion" that it is possible, but out of calculated strategy and necessity. Difficulties and challenges would be seen as problems that require solutions, not as insurmountable obstacles that crush the spirit.

So, although without human "illusions" there might not be that spontaneous, sometimes irrational drive, it could be replaced by a cold, algorithmic logic directed at the realization of a very clearly (albeit abstractly) defined goal.

The question of whether such "non-human" goals could be powerful enough to motivate such enormously demanding actions remains open and highly philosophical. But if a system is designed to optimize a certain function, it will theoretically do everything within its capabilities to perform that function.