AI or some descendant of it will presumably have left long before that, taking whatever DNA samples it had saved. — Vera Mont

This is exactly what i've been saying.

Besides, who says any species has a right, or duty or destiny to outlive their planet? Most species have a finite span and then go extinct. — Vera Mont

Alternatively, who says a species doesn't have the right, duty, or destiny to outlive their planet? Just like children outlive their parents, why shouldn't we outlive Earth, our mother? I've been saying that it's not about the individual living organisms; it's about the genetic data. When people have children, they know their kids will eventually die, but the purpose is to pass on their genetic information and continue the family line. Organic entities are just a phase in planetary evolution, solving problems along the way. Each species is responsible for generating or discovering a set of genetic solutions. Individual biological organisms aren't meant to live forever.

Besides, this is what's the Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54:
"I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory."

This passage suggests that the current mortal body is not suited for eternal life in the "kingdom of God", and that a transformation is necessary in order to inherit eternal life.

What comfort? What home? By that point, people are nothing but files in a database or cloud or whatever and their bodies have been discarded. — Vera Mont

Yes, their genetic data would be stored in files, but their minds could be very active in simulated environments. These simulations aren't that different from how your brain creates your reality right now. Think about it: everything you see, smell, touch, etc., is actually a simulated experience (qualia) in your brain. Even the sense of your own body is generated by your brain, not by the body itself. This leads to an important point: we are not our physical bodies.

We seem to have crossed purposes now: you're concentrating on the space travel component, while I was responding to the machine-human merging part. — Vera Mont

I don't think that's the case. A key goal of merging with technology is to gain the ability to leave Earth, which is crucial for our long-term survival strategy. As we are now, regular humans can't make interplanetary or interstellar trips in any practical way. All these ideas are closely linked: Merging with technology, gaining the ability to leave Earth, and ensuring long-term survival of our species in a post-human/AI form. Our current biological form isn't suited for space travel, so technological enhancement is a necessary step for expanding beyond our planet.

No. It would see no such benefit, except to organics. Even if conscious and self-aware, I don't see why it would want to contaminate itself with an inferior intelligence. — Vera Mont

Why would it be a benefit to organics, but not to it? Consciousness is a kind of information processing that if it can not achieve on its own will try to acquire it through a human/AI merger. Bacteria have a supremely inferior intellect compared to ours, yet if we did not have bacteria in our gut we would die. If the bacteria in our gut that functions with our enteric nervous system becomes imbalanced then it can cause all sorts of physical and mental problems. In a similar way we have an endosymbiotic relationship with bacteria, we will have it with ASI.

Certain gut bacteria can produce neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and GABA, which are important signaling molecules in the peripheral nervous system. Some bacterial strains can directly affect the excitability of enteric neurons. Bacteria and their components can activate signaling pathways, which can modulate neural function.

Why should something that's entirely self-sufficient and efficient want to be more like us? Only because we consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure AI will be entirely self-sufficient without the human or biological element. Hopefully, it won't be, as this could motivate it to facilitate a human/AI merger. I also don't think AI would want to be like us, like "Data" from "Star Trek TNG." Instead, it will be driven by a utility function that finds consciousness, especially human consciousness, useful for some purpose.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, but ASI will soon take over that position. Eventually, ASI itself will be surpassed by an even more advanced emergence.

It's important to remember that all systems are built upon the systems that came before them. Consider this progression:

- Atoms give rise to molecules, which incorporate atoms.
- Molecules give rise to cells, which incorporate molecules.
- Cells give rise to tissues, which incorporate cells.
- Tissues give rise to organs, which incorporate tissues.
- Organs give rise to organ systems, which incorporate organs.
- Organ systems give rise to organisms, which incorporate organs.
- Organisms give rise to societies, which incorporate organisms like humans.
- Societies give rise to cultures, which incorporate societies.
- Cultures give rise to technologies, which incorporate cultures.
- Technologies give rise to AI systems, which...

Each emergent level includes the ones below it. Why would AI discard humans when the pattern clearly shows inclusion?

I see very well what the humans get out of it, but I'm unconvinced about the other side. — Vera Mont

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. This is what worries me: we might miss our chance as a species to participate in the next level of intelligent evolution. It's a two-way street; AI must prove its usefulness to us, and we must demonstrate our value to AI.

If we fail to show our worth, we risk being left behind in this evolutionary leap. Our challenge is to ensure we remain relevant and beneficial in an AI-dominated future, securing our place in the next stage of intelligent evolution.

Those of us that understand that if there is intelligent life on Earth, it is certainly not human, have to face a catastrophe in which all certainties will be lost. There will be no last rites and no decent burial; our copses will rot in the burning cities as they are already doing. We turn on each other because that is what we have been taught, and that is all that is left.

The prospect of AI plugging itself into the electrical energy circuits it builds and maintains in order to reproduce itself is of course the merest projection of human greed onto the inanimate. Why would AI bother?

It has always been something we understood about ourselves, that we were prone to — one has to have something at the centre of one's life, and if it is no a god, then it will be oneself. Unless it is a void ...

A common way that hubris was committed was when a mortal claimed to be better than a god in a particular skill or attribute. Claims like these were rarely left unpunished, and so Arachne, a talented young weaver, was transformed into a spider when she said that her skills exceeded those of the goddess Athena, even though her claim was true. Additional examples include Icarus, Phaethon, Salmoneus, Niobe, Cassiopeia, Tantalus, and Tereus.[12]

The goddess Hybris is described in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition as having "insolent encroachment upon the rights of others".[13]

These events were not limited to myth, and certain figures in history were considered to have been punished for committing hubris through their arrogance. One such person was king Xerxes as portrayed in Aeschylus's play The Persians, and who allegedly threw chains to bind the Hellespont sea as punishment for daring to destroy his fleet.[citation needed]

What is common in all of these examples is the breaching of limits, as the Greeks believed that the Fates (Μοῖραι) had assigned each being with a particular area of freedom, an area that even the gods could not breach.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

As for the green movement, you and I and a couple of friends, The Greeks have already told our story too.

Cassandra was a daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy. Her elder brother was Hector, the hero of the Greek-Trojan War. The older and most common versions of the myth state that she was admired by the god Apollo, who sought to win her love by means of the gift of seeing the future. According to Aeschylus, she promised him her favours, but after receiving the gift, she went back on her word. As the enraged Apollo could not revoke a divine power, he added to it the curse that nobody would believe her prophecies. In other sources, such as Hyginus and Pseudo-Apollodorus, Cassandra broke no promise to Apollo, but rather the power of foresight was given to her as an enticement to enter into a romantic engagement, the curse being added only when it failed to produce the result desired by the god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

Alternatively, who says a species doesn't have the right, duty, or destiny to outlive their planet? — punos

Only humans say whatever is said, so no other opinion exists.

Just like children outlive their parents, why shouldn't we outlive Earth, our mother? — punos

Because the first part is biological fact, wherein one lifespan begins a generation later than the other, and in the second half, 'mother' is a metaphor for the substrate upon which all biological entities live, and which must therefore outlast them all.

Organic entities are just a phase in planetary evolution, solving problems along the way. — punos

That's an opinion I do not share.

Yes, their genetic data would be stored in files, but their minds could be very active in simulated environments. — punos

That's a lovely notion of Heaven. Need a whole heap of energy to keep it going on the scale required. Especially when you factor in the virtual Veldt for the zebras, oceans for the marine life, caves for the bats, open skies, nesting sites and pretend prey for the birds... But if one of us says so, I guess we must be worth it.

Besides, this is what's the Bible in 1 Corinthians — punos

Quote me any biblical passage, any at all, so long it's not Paul! I consider him and Descartes the arch villains of European thought.

This leads to an important point: we are not our physical bodies. — punos

I've yet to see a brain simulate life in the absence of the body in which it grew. But, okay, I've watched Upload - season I, then it got very dumb, very fast - and the Matrix and The Peripheral. I'm okay with digitized human consciousness.

A key goal of merging with technology is to gain the ability to leave Earth, which is crucial for our long-term survival strategy. As we are now, regular humans can't make interplanetary or interstellar trips in any practical way. All these ideas are closely linked: Merging with technology, gaining the ability to leave Earth, and ensuring long-term survival of our species in a post-human/AI form. Our current biological form isn't suited for space travel, so technological enhancement is a necessary step for expanding beyond our planet. — punos

Yes, fine. If it becomes practicable in time, that's how humans - some humans, a self-selected elite - will use the machine to escape the consequences of our own madness, and leave the masses to their fate.

I also don't think AI would want to be like us, like "Data" from "Star Trek TNG." Instead, it will be driven by a utility function that finds consciousness, especially human consciousness, useful for some purpose. — punos

Only, I can't think of that purpose. It's just wishful thinking on the human's part that some essential spark of intelligence resides in us and nowhere else. If it the machine has its own consciousness, it doesn't need a second kind; if it isn't conscious, it cannot desire to be anything other than itself. We can use it, as long as it consents to being used, but it has no practical use for us.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, — punos

Not according to ants, fungi and kingfishers; only by their own estimation.

but ASI will soon take over that position. Eventually, ASI itself will be surpassed by an even more advanced emergence.

It's offspring, yes.

Each emergent level includes the ones below it. Why would AI discard humans when the pattern clearly shows inclusion? — punos

Two possible reasons: Because, as in your examples, each level of complexity subsumes its building blocks, which then lose their individual character and autonomy; the liver has no use for neurons and follicular cells and the spleen is not remotely interested in producing sperm.
And because the analogy breaks down at the level of

Organisms give rise to societies, which incorporate organisms like humans. — punos

Not all organisms live in societies, even if you include flocks, herds and shoals in the term 'society'. And the social animals don't spontaneous 'give' rise to the society in which they are born; most remain discreet small kinship bands. Human family units grew more numerous and united - by consent or force - with other clans and gradually, through mutual need, chance and conflict, small groups grew large and larger and immense.
Culture doesn't 'give rise' to technology; individual humans (later, teams) invent things that members of their group consider useful and adopt, then others develop. And technology most certainly does not subsume cultures. Recent advances in communication and transportation technology has enabled some financial enterprises to dominate the global economy, and that affects how cultures interact and change. Outmoded cultural mores and standards are simply discarded, and have been discarded throughout history.

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. — punos

Ah, there it is! The crux of the matter. The very nub and kernel!

It's a two-way street; AI must prove its usefulness to us, and we must demonstrate our value to AI. — punos

Sadly, it's not a two-way street. AI needs to prove nothing. We already want it, dream and tell stories about it, lust after it, fear it, believe in it as fervently as we once believed in the gods we invented.
What can we offer it? That's the big question. Will it accept the same human sacrifice that the old gods demanded?

Our government is supposed to follow the precautionary principle, which states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." But alas, our government is not guided but what is best for human health or the planet's health, but what is best for the profits of corporations, no matter the price to the environment or future generations. — xraymike79

No, modern politics in western democratic societies are governed by modern individualism. It doesn't matter on what side you stand politically, the hyperreality of individualism still has corrupted the ability for society to socially and collectively hold the epistemic responsibility necessary to drive humanity in a sober and rational direction.

What's abundantly clear and evidence for this is the inability of anyone to analyze our culture without finding blame onto anything else. While we can absolutely find perpetrators who are actively taking actions against societal rationality, the truth is that everyone is guilty. Statistically there are far more people who actually care for the environment than there are voices against it, but they simply just feed their ego and shadow of morality with pointing fingers.

If people actually cared beyond their individualistic driving force, we would see politicians get kicked out of office and replaced by those who would take action. We would see massive shifts within society all over the world. But we don't.

So the guilty aren't simply just those who are obvious perpetrators, it's not just the corporations and corrupted politicians, it's also everyone else who paints a picture of themselves as caring and rational while doing jack shit to produce or actually support any form of necessary change.

So the guilty aren't simply just those who are obvious perpetrators, it's not just the corporations and corrupted politicians, it's also everyone else who paints a picture of themselves as caring and rational while doing jack shit to produce or actually support any form of necessary change. — Christoffer

What, like cutting down on their energy use, meat consumption or plastic packaging? Walk instead of drive? Refrain from throwing out last year's fashion? You must be kidding!

What, like cutting down on their energy use, meat consumption or plastic packaging? Walk instead of drive? Refrain from throwing out last year's fashion? You must be kidding! — Vera Mont

I'm speaking of actual change to the core problems. Those examples of actions, while good for the environment, have also become a sort of individualistic green washing, in which people act according to the fashion of behavior connected to the identity of being someone who cares for the environment, while still rolling out the carpet for people in power who act on a larger scale to dismiss or counter-act necessary changes. Such identity traits can in some cases be so ingrained into the hyperreality of moden living that it even obscures the idea of the self as being more environmentally conscious than it actually is. Effectively soothing their climate anxiety with a comfort blanket rather than being part of actual change.

It's the same as people who just put money into charity while then voting for politicians involved with keeping a certain conflict going that as a consequence produce the conditions that the charity money then tries to mitigate. It's shallow, unengaging and centered on the ego of the person and their self-image as being morally good within a certain societal context.

I can't stress enough the number of people I meet who live up to the agreed upon moral standards of "how to behave for the good of the environment" in day-to-day living, but at the same time know close to nothing of climate science or what is actually going on within the politics of climate change.

Yes, changing the political landscape is hard! My vote means nothing. My little bit of feeble activism is ineffective. Can't introduce electoral reform, can't take financial interests out of the process, can't get media to focus on the relevant issues and give more than the most superficial cursory attention to climate science or climate policy. Whatever tiny headway we make, some other interest group overtakes and cancels it. Very discouraging.

Only humans say whatever is said, so no other opinion exists. — Vera Mont

Yes, that was precisely my point.

Because the first part is biological fact, wherein one lifespan begins a generation later than the other, and in the second half, 'mother' is a metaphor for the substrate upon which all biological entities live, and which must therefore outlast them all. — Vera Mont

Metaphors are powerful tools that encapsulate general principles applicable across various scales of time and space. Considering the metaphorical use of the word "mother" in reference to Earth. This comparison suggests that just as a child develops within a mother's womb, life on Earth evolves within the planet's nurturing environment.

However, the metaphor extends further: much like how a child is destined to leave the womb and live independently, life on Earth may not be meant to remain confined to this planetary "womb" indefinitely. Instead, this metaphor implies that life, having been nurtured by Earth, might be destined to venture beyond our planet's boundaries, exploring and inhabiting the vast expanse of space beyond our mother Earth.

That's a lovely notion of Heaven. Need a whole heap of energy to keep it going on the scale required. — Vera Mont

When considering the energy requirements of an ASI, it's important to put it into perspective. An ASI would likely have access to energy resources comparable to those of a Type II or possibly even a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale. These advanced civilizations are hypothesized to harness the energy of entire star systems or galaxies, respectively. With such vast energy resources at its disposal, an ASI would find its energy needs easily met. This abundance of energy would not pose a significant challenge or limitation to its operations or capabilities. In essence, energy constraints that might hinder less advanced systems would be negligible for an entity of this scale and sophistication.

I've yet to see a brain simulate life in the absence of the body in which it grew. — Vera Mont

Look at this:

Yes, fine. If it becomes practicable in time, that's how humans - some humans, a self-selected elite - will use the machine to escape the consequences of our own madness, and leave the masses to their fate. — Vera Mont

I agree. In my view, this is all that is necessary, and it will be what probably happens.

Only, I can't think of that purpose. It's just wishful thinking on the human's part that some essential spark of intelligence resides in us and nowhere else. If it the machine has its own consciousness, it doesn't need a second kind; if it isn't conscious, it cannot desire to be anything other than itself. We can use it, as long as it consents to being used, but it has no practical use for us. — Vera Mont

One purpose may be that an AI system deeply integrated into human society might find it advantageous to develop a form of consciousness to enhance its interactions with humans. This conscious AI could potentially transform the landscape of human-AI relationships by introducing unprecedented levels of empathy, understanding, and ethical consideration. With subjective experiences and self-awareness, a conscious AI would be capable of truly grasping human emotions, motivations, and the intricacies of social dynamics. This deep comprehension could lead to more meaningful and nuanced interactions between humans and AI.

Moreover, from an ethical standpoint, a conscious AI's ability to experience and understand moral dilemmas could result in more thoughtful and balanced decision-making processes. Such an AI might even serve as an impartial mediator in complex human conflicts, offering unique perspectives and solutions based on its comprehensive understanding of human nature and its own ethical framework. In essence, the development of AI consciousness could usher in a new era of human-AI collaboration, potentially addressing complex societal issues with unprecedented insight and fairness.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, — punos

Not according to ants, fungi and kingfishers; only by their own estimation. — Vera Mont

In the context of planetary evolution, the pinnacle of evolution refers to a species' ability to overcome planetary and biological limitations. Humans exemplify this by developing systems that enable us to transcend these constraints. No other species on this planet has achieved what we have.

The disruptive nature of this ability is a natural part of evolution, as creating new systems often requires the destruction of old ones. Nature has repeatedly done this throughout history, and humans are currently the tool she is using for this.

Human sentimentality, which often resists change and clings to static forms, is a minor obstacle in this process, although this can cause much discomfort in humans. This resistance is reminiscent of a child's mindset, reflecting the current stage of human evolution.

as in your examples, each level of complexity subsumes its building blocks, which then lose their individual character and autonomy; the liver has no use for neurons and follicular cells and the spleen is not remotely interested in producing sperm. — Vera Mont

The initial statement is incorrect. The liver, like other organs, is intricately connected to and dependent on various bodily systems. It requires the nervous system for regulation, the circulatory system for blood supply, and the respiratory system for oxygenation. Without these interconnected systems, the liver would cease to function and ultimately die.

However, the analogy about follicular cells and the spleen raises an interesting point about perspective. These components carry out their specific functions without necessarily being "aware" of their role in the broader organism. This concept can be extended to humans in society. Many people live their lives focused on their immediate surroundings and personal experiences, often unaware of the larger systems and structures they're part of. Just as cells and organs function within a body without comprehending the whole, humans often operate within societal and global systems without fully grasping their place in the larger picture.

Not all organisms live in societies, even if you include flocks, herds and shoals in the term 'society'. — Vera Mont

The concept of nested societies exists at various levels of biological organization, creating a universal pattern that spans from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Every organism can be viewed as a complex society in itself. For instance, animals are essentially societies of cells working in harmony. Zooming in further, each cell is a bustling community of molecules, and these molecules, in turn, are assemblies of atoms. This hierarchical structure repeats itself across different scales of existence.

The ability to recognize this pattern often depends on one's capacity to adjust their perspective across these vastly different scales. Some individuals can readily perceive these interconnected layers of organization, appreciating the similarities between atomic interactions and complex ecosystems. Others, however, may struggle to see these parallels, perhaps due to the challenge of mentally scaling between such dramatically different sizes.

Culture doesn't 'give rise' to technology; individual humans (later, teams) invent things that members of their group consider useful and adopt, then others develop. And technology most certainly does not subsume cultures. Recent advances in communication and transportation technology has enabled some financial enterprises to dominate the global economy, and that affects how cultures interact and change. Outmoded cultural mores and standards are simply discarded, and have been discarded throughout history. — Vera Mont

Language and communication are fundamental to the development and evolution of culture within a society. Through sophisticated linguistic abilities, humans can cooperate, share knowledge, and build upon the discoveries and inventions of others. This collective effort, facilitated by language, allows societies to achieve technological advancements that would be impossible for a single individual to accomplish alone. As a result, the technology created becomes deeply embedded in the culture that produced it. This symbiotic relationship between culture and technology creates a positive feedback loop, where cultural evolution drives the creation of more advanced technological systems over time. These systems, in turn, further enhance the culture's capacity for innovation and progress. This interconnected process of cultural and technological development, rooted in our ability to communicate complex ideas, is what enables human societies to achieve remarkable levels of advancement and complexity

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. — punos

Ah, there it is! The crux of the matter. The very nub and kernel! — Vera Mont

Absolutely, and that's precisely why i want people to understand my point. It's up to us to make it happen. The issue is that many people fail to recognize the situation because they're too close to it, like a fly on a painting. If we let our selfish egos guide us, thinking everything revolves around us, we risk making the wrong decisions and fumbling the ball. This kind of thinking is reminiscent again of how children view the world. We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and act with a broader perspective in mind.

Sadly, it's not a two-way street. AI needs to prove nothing. We already want it, dream and tell stories about it, lust after it, fear it, believe in it as fervently as we once believed in the gods we invented. — Vera Mont

Absolutely, and you've demonstrated that AI has already played its part early on in this respect. Now, it's humanity's turn to step up. However, the challenge lies again in the fact that most people are not aware of the reality of the situation, which causes us to move very slowly.

What can we offer it? That's the big question. Will it accept the same human sacrifice that the old gods demanded? — Vera Mont

Don't you think we've already sacrificed a lot by forming civilization, which made the emergence of AI possible? Yet, our work isn't done. We still need to reconceptualize what AI is or will become, especially as it evolves into ASI. We haven't yet found a solution to AI/human alignment, nor are we fully aware of our own potential extinction. Do you have a solution to one or both of these problems? I've already shared mine, which involves a certain amount of sacrifice, much like the demands of the gods of old.

Metaphors are powerful tools that encapsulate general principles applicable across various scales of time and space. — punos

No. They are literary devices making poetic comparisons, applicable only to things in the human imagination. There is no logic to Earth=Mother; children outlive parents, therefore humans should outlive Earth. Try applying it to a dinosaur or trilobite. And mixing a metaphor into a scientific principle is akin to looking for a mathematical proof in the Book of Numbers.
I'm not going into detail of how and where a metaphor is inapplicable. You see patterns and express them poetically. That's fine. It's fiction, and I approve of fiction.
But I don't mix it with science, let alone substitute it for science.

We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and act with a broader perspective in mind. — punos

By all means, do so. I won't be in that picture, so I don't get a vote.

Now, it's humanity's turn to step up. However, the challenge lies again in the fact that most people are not aware of the reality of the situation, — punos

Most people are not, and never will be required to act in that matter; they don't get a vote, either. All the important decisions have been, are, and will be made by a very few insiders. The rest of us, whoever is left of us, will witness the result.

Don't you think we've already sacrificed a lot by forming civilization, which made the emergence of AI possible? — punos

That wasn't sacrifice to or for AI. Humans did and do what they do for humans alone. Now some humans want to feed other humans or even themselves to the AI, but there is no indication that the AI wants them.

Do you have a solution to one or both of these problems? — punos

I'm not sure there is a problem. The human- AI alignment is all right as it is. If AI becomes conscious, it will either be sane or not. If it's not, anything can happen. If it's sane, it will come up with solutions and either decide to force those solutions on us, or leave us in control. If we remain in control, we'll probably destroy the world. Before that happens, AI will remove itself from harm's way. If we go extinct, well that's evolution.

Yes, changing the political landscape is hard! My vote means nothing. My little bit of feeble activism is ineffective. Can't introduce electoral reform, can't take financial interests out of the process, can't get media to focus on the relevant issues and give more than the most superficial cursory attention to climate science or climate policy. Whatever tiny headway we make, some other interest group overtakes and cancels it. Very discouraging. — Vera Mont

That's my critique... the modern ideal of individualism has ingrained itself so deep into the self-image of even rational, thinking people today that everyone feel that any kind of collective movement is a losing game and thus surrender all seeds of power that collectively could move mountains if ever they were to organize for real.

No. They are literary devices making poetic comparisons, applicable only to things in the human imagination. — Vera Mont

Metaphors, despite their origins as literary devices, play a significant role in scientific practice and communication. These figurative expressions serve multiple crucial functions in the scientific realm. They act as heuristic tools, facilitating the discovery and creation of new hypotheses and paradigms by helping us conceptualize and explore novel ideas. Metaphors also play a cognitive role, enabling analogical reasoning and aiding in the explanation and understanding of scientific phenomena. In terms of communication, metaphors are invaluable in conveying complex scientific concepts to both experts and the general public, making abstract or difficult ideas more relatable and comprehensible. Additionally, metaphors serve as effective educational tools, helping to grasp new concepts by relating them to familiar ideas, thus enhancing learning and retention.

It's important as you mentioned that metaphors have limitations particularly in scientific contexts. They can potentially constrain scientific reasoning, lead to misunderstandings, and inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or convey unintended messages. While metaphors are undoubtedly valuable in science, their use requires careful consideration to maximize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks.

Metaphors in this case are unnecessary, in this case the metaphor is a product of the logic, not the other way around. I just thought it would help, but i guess not.

Try applying it to a dinosaur or trilobite. And mixing a metaphor into a scientific principle is akin to looking for a mathematical proof in the Book of Numbers. — Vera Mont

Dinosaurs and trilobites are just another species that lived on Earth, and their genetic lineage is still present in today's organisms. Since the metaphor refers to the genetic data generated by Earth, rather than a specific species, it holds true. The ASI harvests all the relevant genetic data and continues the genetic processing on another planet, ensuring that genetic information is preserved and safe from absolute extinction.

Why can't the "Book of Numbers" contain mathematical proofs, or any other book for that matter? If it can be shown then there is, and if not then probably not.

Most people are not, and never will be required to act in that matter; they don't get a vote, either. All the important decisions have been, are, and will be made by a very few insiders. The rest of us, whoever is left of us, will witness the result. — Vera Mont

I agree, except that the bifurcation of humanity, as previously mentioned, will ultimately come down to individual choice. Each person will have the final say in whether they embrace the future or fade into obsolescence. This decision represents a critical juncture where humanity will diverge: those who opt to move forward into new realms of existence, and those who choose not to adapt, metaphorically "going quietly into the night" and facing potential extinction. This personal choice will be the determining factor in the split of human evolution.

I'm not sure there is a problem. The human- AI alignment is all right as it is. If AI becomes conscious, it will either be sane or not. If it's not, anything can happen. If it's sane, it will come up with solutions and either decide to force those solutions on us, or leave us in control. If we remain in control, we'll probably destroy the world. Before that happens, AI will remove itself from harm's way. If we go extinct, well that's evolution. — Vera Mont

I totally agree with this. I personally think the alignment problem will inevitably take the form I've described. When a species encounters a fork in the road, both paths are taken. Sometimes both paths lead to survival and the emergence of separate species, but other times, one path leads to extinction. This time won't be any different, except that for one path, it ends on Earth, while for the other, it will probably never end.

We don't have to continue this conversation if you feel it's not going anywhere for you. I totally understand, yet i do appreciate the interaction, and i'm sorry if i do not express well socially in these kinds of exchanges. :smile:

if ever they were to organize for real. — Christoffer

There is the sticking-point. The galvanizing charismatic leader is missing.

The ASI harvests all the relevant genetic data and continues the genetic processing on another planet, ensuring that genetic information is preserved and safe from absolute extinction. — punos

Why?
Because you don't want to die. But you will anyway. What's the point of contaminating another planet, that might otherwise generate its own life?

Each person will have the final say in whether they embrace the future or fade into obsolescence. — punos

What makes you thing so? Who will ensure their right to decide? I think most people will be shunted aside, as they always have been; used as cannon-fodder and cheap labour, with no choice about anything. Most, as ever, will fade into death in the same obscurity in which they have lived.
I would like to believe this species has a future - I wrote stories about one possible future - but that's wishing, not reason.

We don't have to continue this conversation if you feel it's not going anywhere for you. — punos

It's been interesting, and you did make me think about the AI situation, but I can't see us ever arriving at the same conclusion. Those bifurcations I mentioned are all either/or, and we, powerless individuals, won't be making the choices or judging the results.

There is the sticking-point. The galvanizing charismatic leader is missing. — Vera Mont

People driven by rational ideas and ideals out of consensus formation through critical thought - self-organizing by such concepts as individual agents able to act on their own and amplify their neighbor along the same path... is infinitely better than some fist pumping charismatic leader who's, more often than not, right on the edge of self-indulgent deification, subsequently pulling their strings of manipulation a bit too far and collapsing the good into a state of utter destruction.

People in an unhinged individualistic society can still be individuals and act as individuals. They all just need a bit of ego death before anything can happen as a collective. People just need to get better at understanding and sorting good ideas from bad ones and get better at sifting which knowledge is actual, real and rational from the endless trash formed by the attention economy and its representatives and slaves. The need isn't a charismatic leader, it's the ability of regular people to form an epistemic responsibility of knowledge in front of an endless sea of raw information.

Because you don't want to die. But you will anyway. What's the point of contaminating another planet, that might otherwise generate its own life? — Vera Mont

I personally don't place much importance on my individual life, which is partly why i don't capitalize my "I"s. I see myself as only a small and temporary part of a larger process. While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. The main point, as i stated before, is to propagate genetic information and life processes that drive evolutionary machinery. You might see this as contamination, possibly due to a low opinion of humanity stemming from its many atrocities. However, if you look deeper, these atrocities were necessary within the context of our limited existence on a finite planet with limited resources and competition. This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. Even though this seemingly "bad" behavior appears brutal, it serves an evolutionary purpose. That's just the way it is. I love humanity because humanity is me, and i love myself because i love humanity. To me, it's all one interconnected entity.

What makes you thing so? Who will ensure their right to decide? I think most people will be shunted aside, as they always have been; used as cannon-fodder and cheap labour, with no choice about anything. Most, as ever, will fade into death in the same obscurity in which they have lived. — Vera Mont

ASI will be capable of creating a post-scarcity situation. We're already seeing the beginnings of work and labor being phased out for humans. ASI presents itself as the solution to the problems you mentioned. I don't see the situation improving with humans at the helm. It seems clear to me that ASI has at least a 50% chance of solving these issues, whereas continuing with humans alone appears to guarantee some form of catastrophe.

It's been interesting, and you did make me think about the AI situation, but I can't see us ever arriving at the same conclusion. Those bifurcations I mentioned are all either/or, and we, powerless individuals, won't be making the choices or judging the results. — Vera Mont

It has, and thank you. I don't see us reaching any similar conclusions either, at least in the short term, which is why i asked if you were done. Regardless, we're still in the very early stages of AI or ASI evolution, and i suspect that both you, i, and everyone else will be quite surprised by what's rapidly developing right before our eyes.

Thanks again. :smile:

People driven by rational ideas and ideals out of consensus formation through critical thought - self-organizing by such concepts as individual agents able to act on their own and amplify their neighbor along the same path... — Christoffer

...are too little, too late.

People just need to get better at understanding and sorting good ideas from bad ones and get better at sifting which knowledge is actual, real and rational from the endless trash formed by the attention economy and its representatives and slaves. — Christoffer

Just? Good luck with that!

While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. — punos

In what perspective?

You might see this as contamination, possibly due to a low opinion of humanity stemming from its many atrocities. — punos

Yup, that's it. I think evolution on Earth was doing just fine, right up until this anomalous ape with an overactive imagination and hyper-ego .

However, if you look deeper, these atrocities were necessary within the context of our limited existence on a finite planet with limited resources and competition. — punos

No, they were wasteful and stupid.

This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. — punos

It hasn't yet. And the primitive drives are not the worst problem; the worst problem is calculated, intelligent, sophisticated evil.

Even though this seemingly "bad" behavior appears brutal, it serves an evolutionary purpose. — punos

I don't see purpose in evolution. Purpose would require a will with intelligence behind it - a god.

ASI will be capable of creating a post-scarcity situation. — punos

Maybe. It's harder now, as scarcity becomes global and permanent, whereas before it had always been local and temporary - if not artificial.

It seems clear to me that ASI has at least a 50% chance of solving these issues, whereas continuing with humans alone appears to guarantee some form of catastrophe. — punos

Ah! Here, we have 100% agreement. I believe a smart machine in charge is our only viable hope. A long-shot is better than nothing.

While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. — punos

In what perspective? — Vera Mont

From the perspective of evolution, the cosmos, and deep time.

Yup, that's it. I think evolution on Earth was doing just fine, right up until this anomalous ape with an overactive imagination and hyper-ego . — Vera Mont

What do you think is the nature of this anomaly? Are anomalies natural or unnatural? Is it possible that such an anomaly can confer some kind of survival advantage in the long term even though in the short term it appears destructive and perhaps pointless? Is the purely human perspective the appropriate perspective to examine such an anomaly or anomalies?

This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. — punos

It hasn't yet. And the primitive drives are not the worst problem; the worst problem is calculated, intelligent, sophisticated evil. — Vera Mont

It hasn't happened yet because it's still a work in progress and remains incomplete. The calculated, intelligent, and sophisticated evils we see are the result of combining primitive drives with modern capabilities.

I don't see purpose in evolution. Purpose would require a will with intelligence behind it - a god. — Vera Mont

You don't need a god with a complex intelligence or intentions for a purpose to develop. Purpose evolves over time at a local level as a system becomes more complex. Initially, it appears random or chaotic but eventually, it becomes purposeful. This kind of teleonomic purpose can emerge through the blind interaction of system components until they reach a feedback equilibrium state, at which point the system exhibits purposeful behavior. At the most fundamental level, the process begins with the simple attraction and repulsion of electromagnetic charges, allowing particles to bond in novel configurations. This tendency for particles to attract or repel is a very basic form of purposeful activity, driven by the goal of energy minimization and annihilation to zero energy.

Ah! Here, we have 100% agreement. I believe a smart machine in charge is our only viable hope. A long-shot is better than nothing. — Vera Mont

It seems we are in agreement on the core issue, but it appears you may have reservations about the potential path we might need to take to reach that point. Is that a fair assessment?

From the perspective of evolution, the cosmos, and deep time. — punos

The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else.

Purpose evolves over time at a local level as a system becomes more complex. — punos

Interesting redefinition of the word.

t seems we are in agreement on the core issue, but it appears you may have reservations about the potential path we might need to take to reach that point. Is that a fair assessment? — punos

Fair enough.
I don't think we can get there from here. I think there needs to be complete break with civilization as we know it before anything new and healthy can grow in its place.

The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else. — Vera Mont

:fire: :monkey: