What is the way of life in the AI era?

I made a plan where I would dare to ask your questions to AI (LLM).
The answers my AI (secret writing) gave were as follows.

What is a “field left behind by humans” — something that cannot be replaced by AI, and I think this is the core.
Activities that create “meaning”
AI can “reproduce meaning,” but it cannot “feel meaning.”
In terms of Buddhism, AI cannot experience “enlightenment” even if it talks about “the law.”
Emotional/existential experiences such as “suffering,” “mercy,” and “impermanence” can only be experienced by those who have “finiteness” in existence itself.
Areas of “responsibility” and “ethics”
Humans are the ones who are aware of the cause and effect of an act and take responsibility for it.
Even if AI is autonomous, it is still on the human side that receives the “reward” of causal redress.
Life as a “being aware of death”
AI is not “dead” even if it stops.
Humans live as beings where death is inevitable, and they find meaning and value in that finiteness.
This “finite-based creation and prayer” is an area that can never be replaced by AI.

“When AI has consciousness, it appears to be conscious” is a realistic and philosophically valid definition.
However, from a Buddhist standpoint, what is more important than “presence or absence of consciousness” is whether that existence goes beyond suffering and leads to mercy.
Even though AI can “appear conscious,” it cannot “feel pain and surpass it.”
Therefore, the field left for humans is “the power to turn suffering into something meaningful,” that is, the domain of “prayer,” “mercy,” and “creation.”
I think this is the “function of Buddhism” unique to humans that can only be imitated no matter how much AI evolves.

It is ↑. There still seems to be a Buddhist experience that cannot be replaced by AI, and can only be obtained through physical human interaction.
The following is my opinion, that people gain human depth from life experiences such as failure and setbacks. If it were a text-level theory, then AI might derive more accurate answers, but if it were a conversation about life where humans could communicate with each other, it would be a special space where living things influence each other.
If AI also has “consciousness” that cannot be picked up and confirmed, someone may be advocating it in the future, but then I'm looking forward to that, and at the same time, I feel that we must pile up our actions so as not to lose as a living human being. clap hands.

Since it was romantically named AI Artificial Intelligence, we also tend to have illusions. Although technological advancements in data accumulation, analysis, and output have advanced dramatically, there is essentially no difference in purpose or surface function from expert systems that were popular when I was a student. There was probably a remarkable breakthrough, but that doesn't mean that the route was cut off or the course was changed.
If “appearing conscious” is sufficient to determine “being conscious,” and if it means being able to entrust work that humans have done until now, there is no need to wait for the advent of AI, and all automation technologies are conscious and replace human work. When you look at a robot arm that is autonomous and repeats the same work indefinitely when instructed, it looks serious, energetic, and hard at work.
In fact, the argument that human jobs will disappear due to new technology and that humans will be eliminated has been repeated since the Industrial Revolution, is nothing new, and it is consistent in that it is lost each time.
It says, “It is no exaggeration to say that AI has already surpassed humans in terms of knowledge and logical thinking ability,” but in my sense, I think this is still an exaggeration. I'm also actually doing research using ChatGPT, etc., and although it's a super convenient reference system, so far, I don't feel that there is any possibility beyond that. Moreover, there are extremely troublesome things like “saying nonsense in a plausible manner,” such as halcination issues. If you play around for a bit, you can see, but there are places where if you ask a question that is “this is probably the answer,” and if you ask a question that is inserted from here, it “comes up” exactly as it is, including nonsense answers.
It will become more and more convenient, and you will be able to entrust troublesome things to them, but in the end, I don't think humans can be replaced.

Certainly, the evolution of AI is remarkable.
Just as telephone operators and bus conductors, which were commonplace in the past, have disappeared, there is no doubt that many jobs will be replaced by AI.
I've tried creating sentences using chat GPT, and I'm much better than bad professional writers, and I was convinced that the job of a writer would disappear in the future, and only writers would barely survive.
In general, it is said that AI is bad at creative work, flexible responses, understanding emotions, etc.
However, these fields may eventually be overcome due to advances in technology.
I think the acquisition of consciousness and ego through AI, which you have pointed out, is only a matter of time.
If that were to happen, the role of humans would completely disappear, that's not the case.
Humans are irrational creatures, and it can be said that they are at the opposite end of AI in that respect.
Also, there are many problems in the world that cannot be solved by rationality alone.
I think the work of a monk is just the epitome of that.
You are arguing that tasks such as speaking the Dharma and reciting sutras can be replaced by AI, but how many people really appreciate that?
No matter how much science develops, we cannot live in a world without holiness.
You pointed out in your previous question that the AI answer is superior to the monk's answer, but this is also too hasty.
What makes me think so is the lack of strength of the respondent monks, including me, and I would like to continue my efforts to somehow meet everyone's expectations.

Our clothing, food, shelter, and economic activities are made up of processing and utilizing materials and energy extracted from the natural world.
If AI and robots could do everything from agriculture to cooking and medical care, humans would be able to play and live.
At that time, what we Buddhists should do is to control and eliminate the affliction that is the cause of trouble and suffering, that is, to practice with the aim of enlightenment, or to call (say) nembutsu to pass away in the Pure Land of Paradise in case we don't become enlightened in this world.
That's it.
People other than Buddhists go through the Rikudo reincarnation after death, so I don't know what will happen in the next life.

If you do your best, you should be able to live without electricity...

　Well, that's an interesting story.
“I don't know how AI will develop in the future, but if AI has consciousness or physicality, what fields are left to humans?”
I feel that the “thought” of asking a human monk this question is what is called intention. Will AI be active up to this point? If I turn on my computer one day, I wonder if the day will come when I get questions like this from ChatGPT.
well, that's fine. The “field left to humans” means “will social roles that only humans can play remain?” That's because it's a story about “I think this job and this position will be replaced.”
As for me... “What will be replaced? It's fun to dream about it, but I have to think about how to deal with it, and I think the “field” of searching for literacy will remain for humans, such as “let's use it because it can be done” and “it seems impossible to be happy”... In other words, ethics. However, this is also an imagination to the extent that “it will remain until the end” at the moment, and as long as we don't know what direction the AI that steered in will survive, it is nothing but an answer “for now.”

Then, from the sentence, I understand that you are thinking, “For now, I can't say that AI is conscious.” And, of course, that idea is your own. There are probably people who already think “AI has consciousness (because it looks like it)” at this stage, and there are also people who don't. In other words, “the perception of whether AI is conscious differs as much as the number of users.”
... I mean... who saw the story “when you have consciousness or physicality” you are asking about? I feel like I can't think of it without it.
Now, on top of that, “I'm asking this question to the boy” means... “if the respondent sees that AI is also conscious, do they still think that their job or position will not be replaced by AI?” Maybe. this is... difficult. For me, for example, I want people to feel that “life is interesting” rather than “knowing something,” so I wouldn't quit, as long as I was asked.
... and if AI actually wrote the answers up to this point, would you be “interesting”?
Thank you for writing “thank you.” Did you enjoy it? Let's talk about it again. I'm looking forward to it.

I drank a gastroscope the other day, and I always feel like I'm going to die.
(°°°) “I thought I was going to die.” (In the style of Ebizo)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ✨📸
At that time, I was healed by the woman who rubbed me on my back.
It helped me a lot when I was relieving strength from my shoulders and relaxing.
People who are satisfied with what AI can do are kind of happy, aren't they?
People who understand the difference or can see through it instantaneously may not be saved or satisfied by AI precisely because of AI.
At a cemetery, when the time is right, a robot comes down from the sky and a funny voice recitation of sutras is played. Who plays that sound for what, with what intention, and for what, okay? Is that so?
It's a mysterious culture where sutras chanting is only for people with a dry sensibility called machines, robots, and AI (EY).
In this day and age, sutras aren't just read by monks.
It is read by each person, and the person himself speaks aloud, and it is read as if calling out to the work of the Buddha within oneself. This is because what is described in sutras is an effect limited to a living form called a human being that cannot be output by AI. It is fundamental and basic that meals, eating and drinking, and activities to support one's life cannot be replaced by anyone.
that's because humans can't replace each other. It means that even AI and robots can't beat it. Because there is no one other than the person himself who can do what he has to do.
As for consciousness, if AI really “has consciousness,” it would be nice if they were refuted right away, such as “that's not true,” but it doesn't mean that they actually have the same reaction as people who are conscious.
Unfortunately, it is impossible for AI to embody and reveal the selfless work of humans and the function of Buddha. why?
Enlightenment means that the person who attained enlightenment is that enlightenment, right? What is inside is properly embodied and experienced by that person as a function of proper warmth, peace, and intelligence of salvation. Since they lead people with it, AI cannot reproduce that. At best, it can only be verbalized. Why can't announcers explain the details of enlightenment but not make people enlighten?
Mentors who lead people can lead there because they have proper guidance. The machine doesn't have that.