Column 006｜半導体を見に行って、AIの目的を持ち帰った日
The day I went to study semiconductors and came home questioning the purpose of AI I went to DMP’s “Physical AI: From Proven to Intelligent” seminar, featuring leade
The day I went to study semiconductors and came home questioning the purpose of AI
I went to DMP’s “Physical AI: From Proven to Intelligent” seminar, featuring leaders of Indian drone and surveillance-camera companies to learn about semiconductors, edge processing and the companies using them. As I listened to talks about drones, cameras and autonomous systems, the technologies I usually encountered in corporate reports began to take shape through real-world applications. There was something unsettling about it, too. More capable systems can even decide whom and what to watch closely. I had not yet thought enough about what follows from that.
What stayed with me most was not any of the presentations, but a conversation with a young AI researcher who happened to be sitting next to me. He spoke passionately about the AI he was building, the ideal AI he hoped to create one day and the world of AI today. His face lit up with hope. I could hear and see how much the research meant to him.
He wanted AI capable of independent judgment and action to serve people. Our conversation reached into philosophy and religion, too. What I took from it was more than an explanation of his research. It was his hope for the future he saw beyond it. I wanted to know more. I wanted to learn more, and then think about it. His enthusiasm had awakened a new curiosity in me, too.
A question opened up that I had not yet placed at the heart of my semiconductor research: not just what makes intelligence possible, but what that intelligence ought to be for. That chance conversation between neighbouring seats became the beginning of a new line of research.
I also heard about a founder who had kept asking, as an investor, why share prices rise and what a share price is in the first place, before going on to build an AI research company. This is my recollection of a story told there, not an independently verified account of the company’s history. Still, that path from questions about the market to questions about intelligence and judgment left a strong impression on me.
We exchanged contact details, and I headed home without staying for the networking reception: I had found myself wanting books. I reserved a copy of 人工知能のための哲学塾 未来社会篇 by Yoichiro Miyake and Takumi Oyama, and chose the Kindle edition of Miyake’s first volume. Encouraged by that conversation, this is where I begin my reading.
Foucault, whom I studied at university. Adorno and Simone Weil, whom I still read. Now a question from another direction puts those readings in a new light: when we say “AI for humanity,” who defines that humanity, and how?
I want to turn this curiosity into careful research. Read books, compare ideas, check them against sources. I might even try flying a drone named after a philosopher. That conversation gave me a starting point and the joy of pursuing the inquiry further.
So I will keep studying AI and philosophy. Perception, embodiment, purpose, conflicts of values and the right to challenge a judgment. My semiconductor research continues. Now I want to follow computation beyond the point where it becomes action.
I want to thank that young researcher once again for speaking so vividly about his work and ideals, and for sharing them with me. He gave me more than an enjoyable conversation. He gave me a question I want to keep thinking about.
I think of it as a stroke of good fortune that AI brought my way.
This is a personal column, written in my own words and based on my recollection of that day’s experiences and conversation.
