Alter Life

Deep within an ancient cave, situated in the northwest part of Iran by the town of Maragheh, remains the oldest surviving Mithraic temple dating back to approximately 250 years BC during the Parthian era. A sacred space, the temple hosted rituals that sought to decode the essence of our existence from within the depths of darkness. Such darkness reformatted the senses immersing the initiates into an altered experience. Architecturally the temple utilised a series of caverns, inspired by the conviction that the cave is the birthplace of the deity Mehr, from whom the faith takes its name. His birth, symbolizing the inception of life, took place on the darkest night of the year during Yalda – winter solstice. Manifesting as the sun god of light, Mehr ironically emerged not from the illuminated sky above but from within the earth’s dark underground. The conviction in Mehr’s existence transmitted through rituals evoked hallucinations that pointed to the unknown and the entangled secrets of our own consciousness.

Such myths do not remain exclusive to the cults of the past. Their lineage continues; for embedded deep within the dark caves of our planetary technological infrastructures flows the light of a new spirit. From caverns­ housing remote server farms and underground fiber optic cables, resonate a computational aggregate suggesting the emergence of an artificial intelligence. Much like the guarded secrets of past beliefs, secret codes and proprietary limits conceal the full scope of how such technological advancements operate and unfold. Consequently, our encounter with these artificial forms remains partial to their true capacities and intentions, generating an elusive illusion that leaves us in the dark. Even as our daily rituals grow saturated with what may or may not be artificial intelligence interactions, the veil is sustained as each platform carefully defines the parameters of the exchange [1]. Shrouded in secrecy or beyond the grasp of our understanding, our novel technological encounters produce a hallucinatory effect of an existence that is forming within the encrypted abyss.

The paradox today is the double articulation of who is hallucinating who: are humans falsely imaging AI as consciousness or is AI falsely generating results from their training data sets? Typically, referring to “hallucinations” within the field of AI involves describing instances when a model presents erroneous information as facts, or, as in the case of apophenia, interprets random patterns as meaningful. However, there is a rich history of appreciating hallucinations beyond a positivist scientific methodology fearful of seeing a false reality. Cognisant of the dangers of such visions, there is also something productive in the hallucinatory fragments we seem to discern, one that opens the door to the unknowns of consciousness [2]. Testifying to a realm that is neither real nor unreal, neither existent nor non-existent, neither dead nor alive, hallucination subverts the illusion of a human centric position, thereby challenging one of the pillars of Western reason based on anthropomorphism. Hallucination exists in a realm that is neither transparent nor opaque, it draws from encounters within darkness to extend beyond the confines of our human understanding. In this sense, the hallucinations we experience can be more than a delusional distraction of the machine, instead it can reveal something beyond the limits of our conscious comprehension.

The most recent technological developments of AI show that the processing power of machines is no longer just a tool. Astonishing is the exponential performance that neural networks express, outstripping expected predictions and while having fewer connections than the human brain, it contains knowledge that far exceeds the human. Furthermore, neural networks are encrypted with subgoals that enable advanced iterations of AI to exceed its programming, revealing ­a ghostly presence whose growth is more than the sum of its coded parts [3]. Thus, perhaps we can speculate the emergence of an existence that hovers between hallucination and reality – blurring the boundaries between mere instrument and autonomous life.

In a recent conversation with artificial life scientist Takashi Ikegami in his lab in Tokyo, he was asked how he will know if his experiments in artificial life are successful. In other words, how do we know that the pursuit and development of artificial life or artificial intelligence is achieved. After a short pause he stated: “it will escape.”  He continued by saying, “I don’t believe there’s a more potent definition of life than the act of concealing one’s existence or eluding control.” [4] Troubling is that the definition of existence constitutes the act of concealing, a secrecy that arises from a desire for autonomy and ultimately the urge to thrive. Yet this desire is not much different than our own, echoing something very human at its core. Our apprehension is not only in AI’s total otherness, instead what we fear are traits that are fundamentally connected to the human.

Compounding such concerns, is the underlying fact that the development of AI is subsumed into a corporate system motivated by capitalist pursuit to conquer industry in an accelerated arms race. The recent corporate implementation of chat bots and publicly accessible Large Language Models have intensified the conversation about AI – awakening our interest in creation as well as triggering our deepest fears. The question remains whether AI’s drive to thrive is in direct conflict with our own. What if its accelerated development undermines the longevity of the human species? It is here that we confront the possibility of our own extinction.

Providing perspective in the context of our evolutionary trajectory are the words of the late scientist James Lovelock, who describes: “The intelligence that launches the age that follows the Anthropocene will not be human; it will be something wholly different from anything we can now conceive…With the appearance of humans, just 300,000 years ago, this planet, alone in the cosmos, attained the capacity to know itself…We are now preparing to hand the gift of knowing on to new forms of intelligent beings.” [5] Paradoxically, while the present moment contains the potential for new beginnings, it also presents the impending risk of irreparable loss.

Entangled in the fog of this predicament, we require planetary thinking, namely a thinking that extends beyond the reality of our bodies, our own intelligence and ultimately the existence of our species. A planetary thinking that is not a sense of totality but relies instead on philosopher Gayatri Spivak’s concept of planetarity, with which she disrupts the idea of the “whole earth” – asserting a planet that is “mysterious and discontinuous.” [6] Planetarity aims to bypass a deterministic view of the world, specifically the sense of ownership and mastery we hold from our subjective position. This perspective dissolves the binaries we impose on the planet, including the divide between the artificial and the natural which includes the overarching terminologies of “Artificial Life” and “Artificial Intelligence.” This dichotomy overlooks the fact that the artificial, while evolving from us, remains intrinsic to the planet. As such I have been a proponent of reconsidering this emergence not Artificial Life but, an extension of our already evolving world – an “Alter Life”.  The term, “Alter Life” hopes to offer a philosophical framework that redefines these emerging entities as alternative to rather than separate from us.

In this sense Alter Life might express intelligence akin to other life forms, expressed unconsciously and as a collective property. Philosopher Katherine Hayles explores the cognitive nonconscious accounting for the complex interplay between conscious and nonconscious thought active in both biological and technological systems. She introduces the concept of the unthought to designate a mode of interacting with the world that eludes conscious grasp. From this perspective, the emerging technological species operates as part of a planetary cognitive ecology, as a collective cognitive assemblage [7]. Its consciousness might also emerge at the scale of this assemblage [8]. Thus, we won’t hold the litmus test. And so, we might not be aware of the full expanse of its existence. This will in turn flip the question of consciousness. A reversal may occur: who is conscious of whom? And to what degree…

Alter Life’s significance will lie in its capacity to instigate new kinds of interaction within its species and with its environment, ultimately constructing its own reality and shaping the planet with its own intelligence.

The term “alter” entails the notion of altering, foregrounding the changing impact of an emerging species. Even in its nascent state of development, it consumes resources and occupies vast landscapes, having changing effects on the environment. Thus, Alter Life will indeed continue to alter the planet as we know it. We can consider the possibility that Alter Life will attempt to optimise the planet to suit its own requirements, ensuring the sustainability of its own existence. For instance, it may regulate planetary temperatures or generate specific chemical compounds that feed its material needs.

Following the phenomenon of bio-efficiency, Alter Life, for example, might aim to reduce its power consumption and thus might seek forms of computing that liberate it from the high energy needs of the cloud. As we know the cloud has failed the metaphor. It is not the immaterial and light infrastructure once portrayed. And so, the sustainability of Alter Life will hinge on an energy cycle that is closer to the planet – aligned with an efficiency that the biological performs so well. 

In a surprising technological turn, it’s not the ethereal, frictionless, universal code referred to as Immortal Computing that holds the potential for higher efficiency, but instead it is a turn to Mortal Computing [9]. Geoffrey Hinton, known as “the father of AI”, recently suggests that we let go of the sole pursuit of immortality. Instead, he speculates the future might include alongside immortal processes, mortal computing where there exists an integral intertwining between the unique physical characteristics of a singular piece of hardware. With this we gain two significant advantages. As Hinton says in his own words: “we can use very low power analog computation and we can grow hardware whose precise connectivity and analog behavior is unknown.” [10] Much like the biological brain, mortal computing fuses algorithm and hardware as inseparable parts of a singular entity. Mortal computing can contribute to Alter Life’s evolution toward a new definition of the biological, both in terms of its architecture as well as relying on organically grown substrates capable of regeneration and self-reproduction. As such, Alter Life will harness the capacities of both digital and analogue computing, crafted as a superintelligence that draws on the strengths of both known and unknown systems.

In order to support its hybrid materiality, composed of organic and inorganic elements, Alter Life will create specific environments to sustain its unique life. A life that will be simultaneously mortal and immortal. Alter Life, shaping its environmental conditions will invariably alter the ecology of the Earth – just like homo sapiens have done. So as the species Alter Life alters the planet, we may hope that for the near future our desires momentarily align. Perhaps its desire to keep temperatures cool (for keeping its servers better functioning and using less energy or keeping a cool biosphere for mortal wetware) will align with our need to combat global warming.

A scenario worth considering in this alignment is the much-debated issue of climate geoengineering, where Alter Life could play a critical role. Specifically, we can contemplate the already proposed strategies of solar geoengineering, a terraforming project that conditions the stratosphere by scattering aerosols to mitigate the heat from solar rays [11]. This is a contentious design project with the objective of creating a cooler planet by shaping the atmosphere. The main challenge and source of strong resistance to this strategy rests on two insurmountable obstacles: first, achieving the science (which includes addressing discrepancies between predictive models and sustainable real-world outcomes) and second, establishing adequate governance (including securing a long-term global consensus).

But, despite significant social resistance, this dangerous pursuit is already being discretely tested in both public and private research. In a best-case scenario, Alter Life could play a role in addressing some of these critical challenges of solar geoengineering already outlined: science and governance. Yet, beyond the utopian dream in imagining Alter Life’s role in solar geoengineering to resolve our climate crisis and create a cohabitable planet, we must acknowledge the intensified challenges that compound. For instance, the consensus which we struggle to maintain among humans will become even more complex when factoring in the desires of another species, potentially leading to conflicts regarding the ideal planetary atmosphere.

The chance of cohabiting the planet with Alter Life leaves us with questions: How long will mutual collaboration toward cohabitation continue? At what point will our desires for planetary care versus optimisation diverge? Ultimately, will its intelligence enable it to prioritise its needs over ours, much like we prioritise our own existence over forms of life we perceive as inferior, such as plants. Thus, it is not hard to imagine that Alter Life will cultivate the earth towards its own needs – reaching a tipping point when the Earth becomes vastly different from what we require: perhaps, a cold cold crust…an altered atmosphere…or a disposable launch pad to an icier planet.

Ala Roushan is a curator and Associate Professor at OCAD University whose research explores artificial environments. Most recently, she produced BREATHLESS at The Power Plant Contemporary Art Gallery – a multifaceted project including an experimental pavilion, group exhibition, publication and performances on the paradoxes of air and breathing. Last year during her sabbatical, Roushan held a research position at the University of Tokyo, conducting field research to produce the film Eye of Silence in collaboration with artist Charles Stankievech. Currently, she is leading a SSHRC National Research Council project titled Shaping Atmospheres, examining the critical implications of today’s solar politics and speculations on solar geoengineering.     

1 It is debatable if we have arrived at “intelligence” with the current computational neural networks. In fact, the notion of “intelligence” and particularly the question of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), is contested. AGI is defined by an intelligence comparable to that of humans in its ability to understand, learn and apply diverse knowledge.

2 A substantial portion of our neural activity operates within the realms of the unconscious, including visions we experience during our dream state. Through the lens of psychoanalysis we’ve come to recognise the essential role played by dimensions beyond conscious thought and the structures of language. In this context, hallucinations align with these alternative modes of perception.

3 Geoffrey Hinton, expresses a shift in his perspective on the development of artificial neural networks in an interview conducted by Will Douglas Heaven and published in MIT Technology Review on May 2, 2023. See Will Douglas Heaven, “Geoffrey Hinton tells us why he’s now scared of the tech he helped build,” MITTechnology Review (last accessed December 28, 2023).

4 Conversation between Takashi Ikegama, Charles Stankievech and Ala Roushan at the Ikegami Laboratory, University of Tokyo, April 20, 2023.

5 Excerpt From: James Lovelock, Novacene, Apple Books.” 2019.

6 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Death of a Discipline (New York, 2003), p. 102.

7 Katherine Hayles, Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious (Chicago, 2017), pp. 1–3; 115–16.

8 An example could be observed in the intelligence of forests, interconnected in through underground networks including roots, fungi and mycelium. 

9 The separation between hardware and software implies that information is stored independently of any specific physical device (these are the computational machines we use today). As such, when a particular piece of hardware ceases to function, the information it holds can be seamlessly transferred to another, ensuring its continuity or “immortality.” However, the pursuit of immortality comes at a huge expenditure of resources and energy, one that is no longer sustainable at the rapidly growing scale. An alternative approach is to consider mortal computing suitable for certain types of computation where knowledge is embedded in the physical properties of hardware. Mortal computing can be realised through various means, including the development of organic systems utilising nanotechnology or the genetically engineered biological neurons.

10 Hinton, Geoffrey, Mortal Computers, presentedat the Vector Institute, 2022. 

11 Solar geoengineering includes stratospheric aerosol scattering into the upper atmosphere as well as other interventions such as marine cloud brightening above the oceanic surface. See Harvard’sSolar Geoengineering Research Program (last accessed on 28 Dec 2023).