D

The science of our age is computational. Without models, simulations (模拟), statistical analysis, data storage and so on, our knowledge of the world would grow far more slowly. The late philosopher Paul Humphreys called this the “hybrid scenario” of science, where parts of the scientific process are assigned to computers. He also identified an “automated scenario”, where computers take over science completely.

If such a scenario ever arrives, we would see a strange world indeed — the computational capacities for scientific reasoning, data processing, model-making and theorizing would far surpass our own abilities to the point that we humans are no longer needed. AI or artificial superintelligences may decide to explore scientific interests that human scientists are unmotivated to pursue, creating whole new paths of discovery. They might even gain knowledge about the world that lies beyond what our brains are capable of understanding.

If the results of the completely automated scenario are beyond our comprehension, then why would we want to devote economic resources and intellectual talent towards its development? One reason may be that we think positive advancements will follow. A different reason would be aesthetic (美学的). There is something aesthetically pleasing in knowing that the world is being known, studied and understood. Alternatively, humanity might pursue the automated scenario out of beneficence: We think it would be good for the artificial superintelligences to pursue their own advanced science.

Equally as many are those reasons why we might decide not to pursue the automated scenario. Perhaps, the discoveries the artificial superintelligence makes would generate new and terrible weapons. Perhaps, it’s simply the concern that some of the superintelligences will begin to experiment in ways that are dangerous, immoral or contrary to humanity’s shared values.

So, what will we do? In Humphreys’s original presentation of the automated scenario, he suggested that the automated scenario would replace human science. Broader considerations point elsewhere. Our desires for understanding, explanation, knowledge and control will remain, and we cannot help but take action 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. Indeed, if we are to remain human, we must continue to pursue science. What are we, really, if we are not beauty-seeking, friendship-making, meaning-constructing, hopelessly curious animals?