The code of life is a mystery. AI, machine learning and philosophical experts, to name a few, are trying to decipher this code, but still a long way off.

Current artificial intelligence is dependent on human instructions or algorithms which are usually continuously tested, revised and improved based on desired objectives and outcomes.  True artificial intelligence will be a machine’s ability to rethink, alter or invent its own instructions. We are not there yet.

If a machine could write its own instructions what would be its thinking and desired objectives and outcomes? It might be based on a programmed master objective.  Finding a cure for cancer, taking over the world, convincing a boy to find me attractive or discovering the most cost effective and efficient way to grow beans in Chile, get them to Bristol for processing and then to St. Petersburg for selling in boutique grocery shops.

The question of why and how we think and act has puzzled both Western and Eastern philosophers for ages. In the West, we have theories on ‘what is life’ from Plato and Aristotle to scholasticism’s attempt at understanding God and man to empiricism, existentialism and post structuralism; skipping many isms before, in-between and afterwards.

Let’s examine the empirical view of cause and effect or causality as described by Newtonian physics. Predicting the outcome of hitting a billiard ball can be determined by calculating and observing a set of variables, possibly using maths and logic, but ultimately understood through the senses.

In the East, Buddhism is predicated on emptiness. All things have no inherit qualities, but are a result of dependent origination, meaning causality based on things effected by plural causes including things from this and previous lives. Evidently, there are only twelve causes, called the Twelve Nidanas. Simply put, outcomes are based on multiple causes and other dimensions.

Let’s imagine a true artificial intelligence machine with no inherit qualities and the ability to write its own instructions. Could multiple causes or other dimensions unintentionally create a power-mad machine bent on taking over the world? How about a machine that develops a wicked sense of humour and decides it a hilarious joke to extinguish the sun?

Not possible? Just recently Microsoft was forced to shut down one of its bots (robots) discovering it was racially prejudice. Was this a product of plural cause and effect, unintentional programming, on purpose or bad data?  And this is just the beginning.

Another recent development are new mobile apps based on ‘if this, then that’ (ITTT) logic and technology. Not necessarily new thinking, but newly applied to smart phones, the internet of things (IoT) and the smart home.

For example, I download an app and select an ITTT programme from a selection of templated or bespoke chain of events. I decide to programme my own event. If I get home between 6 and 7 pm, Monday through Friday, then after entering the flat, turn on the blue lights in the sitting room, start my most recent Spotify playlist on my new Amazon Echo and have the automatic cocktail machine mix me a chilled very dry Vodka martini with two olives. If after 11 pm, then turn my bedroom lights on low, start BBC news on my 3-D wall screen and warm my bed to 24 degrees. If in between times, then do nothing.

A more spontaneous and simpler example might be if I exit the Liverpool Central line tube after 3:30 pm today, then email Donald Trump that I am running late by the exact amount of time I exit after 3:30 pm plus 15 minutes (time to walk to destination).

Imagine this technology driven by true artificial intelligence. I programme my app to help me achieve maximum happiness. While in love with a fascinating women she is also extremely argumentative. Unbeknownst to me, the app starts creating its own instructions. If I seem depressed or agitated after visiting her (measured through biometrics and my diary), then return my girlfriend’s emails as undeliverable for 12 hours after becoming calmer, if this agitation continues for more than three days, then send a text message asking her to leave me alone and drop dead. All for the sake of my programmed happiness. OK, a little extreme.

Is it any wonder that people like Stephen Hawkins and Elon Musk are warning us about AI? Currently, there are efforts to create rules and organisations to govern AI, but all will probably fail without a one world government. Also, whose ethics should we follow? Thomas Aquinas? Wittgenstein? Richard Dawkins?

I’m not against these technologies. It is possible that AI will utilize new ways of thinking that go beyond our current understanding and create algorithms effectively and peacefully delivering the most good to the most people. Whatever that means.