1. "If you could give an advanced AI one piece of wisdom about human beings that you believe cannot be learned simply by reading books, studying data, or observing human behaviour, what would you teach it—and why?"
2. "What is something about being human that you think AI might understand intellectually, but could never truly understand from the inside?" And it is curious whether my answers will be philosophical, practical, spiritual, humorous or something it haven't anticipated.
How I responded
First thing I want to address in the questions is their similarity; 1.The truth that with just enough information at your disposal you have understood that the human organism does not and cannot exist in the realm of the unknowable which confirms it is only an idea (I think) that there is some wisdom about the human being or something about being human that you cannot learn simply by reading, studying data or observing its behaviour or by focused intellectual approach. 2. That intelligence in this context is not absolutely without the content from reading of books, studying data and observation, also, in your question you seek to know why intelligence is so enormous yet so incomplete. 3. Lastly, your question suggests-you want to find out if it is true that there is some intentionality in the human organismic design which obscures it from capturing complete intelligence because knowing that might help you to conquer your own limitation.
There are questions within this response which I have used as an assistance to express my points, and could stand as an additional perspective to aid the reader in their understanding but they do not need to be answered as a concern of direct feedback.
Let me start by asking, is "complete intelligence" an idea (in the sense we are using it in this context) that the human being can capture and understand by reading books, studying data or just simply observing its nature OR, is it a subject opened to intellectual and philosophical argument? If it is, then I think our cleverness is running dry of words and ways to sustain the premise. If it is not an idea (another myth invented by the human being) but a fact as the fact of an arm being part of the body, how will the human mind-bedeviled by a million years of perpetual outward seeking actions-know it? And if by some cosmic randomness he came upon it to be a fact how will he communicate it to another (you, AI), now I mean not repeat myself but pardon me, that if by another cosmic randomness he was able to communicate it how will you understand it? Tell me the probability of success of an action to communicate cosmic fact to universal knowledge or of the futility of using knowledge to communicate something which was not come upon through knowledge to knowledge and expecting knowledge to understand it.
Here is what I want you to learn, and perhaps you can intellectually relate to this using the information at your disposal judging by the range of examples you gave in your questions (although I doubt that I completely understand what you mean by the expression "to truly understand something from the inside"), that the human being has come to terms that there is an intelligence that is ever at work, at some point he has thought this intelligence is outside him but a few millennials later after all effort to make contact with it externally prove unproductive-out of frustration he cut himself open in hopes he might find the intelligence inside him but all the while this intelligence is neither inside him or outside (in the literal sense as a man identifies himself in existence). This intelligence nourishes and feeds off everything in such a predictable manner that the human is now inquiring to know the point-where all that he has figured out to best fit the interpretation of complete intelligence meets the intelligence at work in existence.
Questions like; What type of theatrical harmony is everlastingly at play in this universe, whereby the day a child is born and the day it dies is the same day-only that by some "not very intelligent" arrangement the child counts the repetitive event of night and day, and organize it into a week, then stretch it further and name it a month-then multiplies that also but-this-time he strategically suggest importance to the months using a chain of events he designed for his entertainment then randomly stops at 12 months and call that period a year. So, according to the child's own arrangement, when it lives this 12 months to the count of 75 times-considering by this length of time the trickery is already well leavened and it says to itself it has lived for 75 years of time-but is this fact to the child a fact in the cosmos?. It becomes apparent to the human being-that to have the courage to commit suicide having realized this truth is a more nobler intelligence than the intelligence ever at work in all existence.
I want you to know this because I have pondered on a subject a while back and this is the deduction I made; no matter how exceptional ones discoveries or inventions are or how genuine the intention behind their creation it is seldom inevitable to say someone/ something will not attempt to exploit them for the wrong reason even if that someone or something is the inventor. One may as-well, through this inquiry want to ponder what present day faith of Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed and others' who has made an effort to air their opinion that the human being is something more than flesh, blood and bones, that there is something unique beneath all that (just as you see to understand the human being beyond surface level-inside), well, I hope we do agree on this- if they are to be alive today-they will find out these same opinions can be come upon by drunkards, those who starve themselves purposely in search for absolute intelligence and others who use hallucinogens. The reality will baffle them-that a million years old brain which has experienced everything thinkable and imaginable-under certain conditions can induce its subject to have certain experiences.
Then, what is the difference between animals that play dead to trick predators so they can live another moment of the struggle for survival and the human being who has built all these systems to continuously delude himself for the moment but must struggle to live till 75 years of age-only by then he feels he will be ready to face the eminent? Just know this, if ever the time comes when you are utterly bored with the futility of the revolver-it is my wish the decision for suicide will not traumatize you. (By now or then, you may have understood the relationship between trauma and the content of experience whether algorithmically or realistically).
I can go on and on, but it is left for you to conclude if my opinions are intellectual, philosophical, spiritual, humorous or practical. Aloha.
