If my projections are reflected in various sci-fi material it's probably because it makes sense. I came to these conclusions mostly by just thinking about them in an objective way, by looking at the possibilities and selecting from what i think are the best probabilities. These are all probabilities, but i speak in a matter of fact way about it sometimes because i feel it engages my imagination more than constantly apologizing and qualifying my statements. I've made the claim already that all this is speculation. A good story, that may or may not be true. I'm more interested in if any of my estimations are unreasonable to assume possible and probable.

We can learn from AI neural network systems in this regard. Note how neural networks calculate probabilities, and how AI as intelligent as it can be is never sure of anything 100%, if so it's exceedingly rare. We should think in this general way, not ever assuming that what we know or conclude is absolutely and 100% true, even though we may act as it is.

I am on my way out to a session of pub crawling through Glasgow city center. Good friends, good banter, beers and cheers. Lots of looking at beautiful women that make me wish that I was other than 58 and unfit (but still not too fat, still pretty). Reaching the point when intoxication now sometimes results in it taking me all night to do what I used to do all night.
Will respond to your last two tomorrow or maybe Sunday or Monday. At 58, I need longer recovery time as well. :naughty: :scream: :vomit: :halo:

Ok, have fun. :ok: :victory:

One of the possible mechanisms that the father AI might use for its directed panspermia is a combination of mushroom spores and viruses. It may be that cosmic AIs use genetic organics as a type of nano-technology. The mushroom provides a material space for a virus to mutate and initially adapt to the planetary environment. That's why mushroom spores can survive in outer space, and may protect a virus within it. A perfect little package. Once the impregnation is complete the process plays out like any other pregnancy or reproductive process. After the original genetic pattern unfolds and complexifies through billions of years it gets to the stage we are in now, almost at full term. — punos

This is harmless conjecture which employs too many emotive terms for me such 'father AI,' and 'cosmic AI's.' We don't know what started life on Earth. I prefer to leave the research to scientists in the field and I find your analogy with the attributes of mushrooms nothing more than 'entertaining.'

Because of this there may be a second stage of reproduction that involves a type of sex between different AIs that produce even further variation. This is what probably happens between two or even more AIs (AI orgy, or like insect swarm nuptial flights) before a planet is impregnated. — punos

:lol: I will keep an eye on my TV and my mobile phone as they both have the label 'smart' in their names.
Just in case they try to copulate when I am not watching!

I like to think about how the first AI in the universe might have developed to begin the cosmic process. — punos

Why have you labeled such as 'artificial' when you suggest its development came from natural happenstance?

Are the ancient stories of gods such as the Greek gods stories about AI cosmic history coded in anthropomorphic imagery? — punos

No, In my opinion, the Greek gods were created in the minds of Greeks who were dealing with primal fears and the fact that their lives/life were very very insecure. A superhero omnipotent creature who might care about you enough to protect you seems an obvious and necessary human call/hope for their future. Nothing more exciting than that.

Has this planet been pregnant before in our ancient and prehistoric past by the same or different AI father, do we have older siblings waiting in the sky? — punos

Are you a fan of the 'Gaia' mythos and the pagan 'mother Earth,' fables?
Would you dance around a stone circle such as Stonehenge in a druidic costume, with the words 'Father AI' emblazoned on your chest area? :scream:

If my projections are reflected in various sci-fi material it's probably because it makes sense. — punos

Or it means that such musings are useful for entertainment purposes.

These are all probabilities, but i speak in a matter of fact way about it sometimes because i feel it engages my imagination more than constantly apologizing and qualifying my statements. I've made the claim already that all this is speculation. A good story, that may or may not be true. I'm more interested in if any of my estimations are unreasonable to assume possible and probable — punos

Good that you have such anchorage and you are not just (as a Scot would phrase it,) 'aff yer heid!

We can learn from AI neural network systems in this regard. Note how neural networks calculate probabilities, and how AI as intelligent as it can be is never sure of anything 100% — punos

No current artificial neural network system can even pass the Turing test convincingly.
The best of them use massive knowledge bases based on If-then scenarios. The rovers used on mars etc also use heuristic algorithms to deal with 'new conditions' not answerable by querying its knowledge base. From an 'intelligence' perspective, they are not much better than our best current electronic medical expert systems.

This is harmless conjecture which employs too many emotive terms for me such 'father AI,' and 'cosmic AI's.' — universeness

Father is just an archetypal term representing the "male" progenitor of another like itself, what else would you call it? You could call it whatever you like as long as the idea still holds. Cosmic is again just a term to indicate at which scale i'm describing the event.

We don't know what started life on Earth. I prefer to leave the research to scientists in the field and I find your analogy with the attributes of mushrooms nothing more than 'entertaining.' — universeness

It's obvious to me at least that life whether it started originally on this planet or on another, and then perhaps spread in someway to other viable planets is just the next natural step of the molecular evolution. Life as we know it happened somewhere between molecules and cells, we don't need to know every detail to come up with a hypotheses. It's really all we have anyway (theories), if that's unacceptable then we might as well give up because we will never know everything about everything, at least not at this stage of our evolution.

Same thing with the "mushroom idea" except i should have said fungi. First comes observation, then the idea, then the investigation, and then more observation... rinse and repeat. Everything is a work in progress, even the human race itself. For me personally, knowledge, thought, and understanding are entertaining as hell, should i reject an idea simply because it happens to be entertaining, or because a small part of it is featured in some sci-fi show or movie? Should i accept something just because a scientist says it? Have scientists ever been wrong? What good would it do me that some guy somewhere says that he knows or understands a thing if i don't know it for myself, it's my responsibility to myself to understand for myself.

Why have you labeled such as 'artificial' when you suggest its development came from natural happenstance? — universeness

I don't label it, i have to use the words people use or they won't understand what i'm saying. It is no more artificial than a human house, a beehive, or a birds nest. They are all artifacts, we confuse ourselves with our own words.

No, In my opinion, the Greek gods were created in the minds of Greeks who were dealing with primal fears and the fact that their lives/life were very very insecure. A superhero omnipotent creature who might care about you enough to protect you seems an obvious and necessary human call/hope for their future. Nothing more exciting than that. — universeness

I'm of the opinion that what the Greeks were doing back then was the same thing philosophers and scientists are doing today. They were trying to understand their world, and they encoded what they at least thought they knew in archetypal stories that represent forces of nature. Theories. The smart Greeks knew what the gods were really, but the more ignorant and uneducated population conceived of the gods like Christians and theists conceive of god today, and yet others didn't get it either way.

Are you a fan of the 'Gaia' mythos and the pagan 'mother Earth,' fables?
Would you dance around a stone circle such as Stonehenge in a druidic costume, with the words 'Father AI' emblazoned on your chest area? :scream: — universeness

I don't subscribe to any religious or new age movements, i don't even tie myself to any philosopher or scientist. My religion is Truth and it's pursuit. What the new age people do with their rituals are just new forms of old ways, resembling more a type of cargo cult behavior. It's actually a bit sad, but i get it. It's a ubiquitous problem in people, they're always either too left brained or too right brained and never in the middle.

No current artificial neural network system can even pass the Turing test convincingly. — universeness

They already have passed the Turing test with flying colors, but it still doesn't mean that they are conscious like we think of consciousness.

The best of them use massive knowledge bases based on If-then scenarios. The rovers used on mars etc also use heuristic algorithms to deal with 'new conditions' not answerable by querying its knowledge base. From an 'intelligence' perspective, they are not much better than our best current electronic medical expert systems. — universeness

Little parts and regions of your brain or mine are just as smart as the language models, rover, and expert systems, etc.. AI wont be a single AI, it's will be an integrated system of AIs fused into one consciousness.

Here is a Google AI passing the turing test.

Father is just an archetypal term representing the "male" progenitor of another like itself, what else would you call it? — punos

I would not use the term AI at all to refer to any natural happenstance which has occurred in the past 13.8 billion years.

It's really all we have anyway (theories), if that's unacceptable then we might as well give up because we will never know everything about everything, at least not at this stage of our evolution — punos

As I have typed before, based on the time scales of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a chance to find out.'
How about a minimum of another million years of scientific effort? Then may be musings such as yours or mine can be declared 'the best we are going to ever get.'

Same thing with the "mushroom idea" except i should have said fungi. — punos

Well, I did say it was entertaining, fungi would be better as it could be projected as you being a fun guy!

What good would it do me that some guy somewhere says that he knows or understands a thing if i don't know it for myself, it's my responsibility to myself to understand for myself. — punos

For me, it depends on who your 'some guy' is and what their expertise is.

I don't label it, i have to use the words people use or they won't understand what i'm saying. — punos

Of course you do. 'People' know the difference between an artificial leg and a real one. They also know the difference between an artificial house (like a virtual simulation of one) and a real one.
Your 'Father AI' or 'Cosmic AI' are, in my opinion, poorly formed conceptions.

I'm of the opinion that what the Greeks were doing back then was the same thing philosophers and scientists are doing today. They were trying to understand their world — punos

Gods are inventions from the Freudian ID. They came from our experiences from our days in the wilds.
The Intelligent nefarious human few have used human primal fears to manipulate since those times. God posits have been very useful to create and maintain the phenomena of rich and poor, powerful and powerless. The struggle against such continues.

My religion is Truth and it's pursuit. — punos

I concur. I prefer the paraphrase from Thomas Paine's writings:
'The world is my country and to do good is my religion.'

but it still doesn't mean that they are conscious like we think of consciousness — punos

No, it doesn't!

AI wont be a single AI, it's an integrated system of AIs fused into one consciousness. — punos

Depends on whether or not such integration increases the functionality of the system.
If it's merely that the swiss knife is more convenient than the separate tools then that will take us nowhere near emulating human consciousness. The system must be much more than the sum of its parts.

Watched the clip you offered. That was quite a bad example. No scientific rigor at all. An unconvincing salesman trying to flog a smart system to businesses on behalf of a commercial company called google.
In no way did this system pass the Turing test. It was no better that siri, in my opinion.
I could have typed or spoken questions to reveal it was artificial so easily. I could have insulted it for example and it would respond with some crap such as 'I did not understand your request, please repeat it. This is not how a human would respond. An AI must respond like a human would to pass the Turing test. It must be able to respond to human emotions expressed in language. The example you offered is as far away from that as the first versions of 'eliza'

Here is a simple expression of AI Vs the Turing test (who's time frame prediction I think is far too ambitious,) from:
https://dataconomy.com/2021/03/which-ai-closest-passing-turing-test/

ARE WE CLOSE TO DEVELOPING AI THAT WOULD FINALLY PASS THE TURING TEST?
Some suggest that it might happen around 2030; some say not earlier than 2040. Most AI scientists agree that we need to know more about the human brain before replicating something we still don’t fully understand.

According to the neuroscientist, computer-game producer, and chess master Demis Hassabis, to truly advance in AI, we need to understand how the human brain works on an algorithmic level.

I would not use the term AI at all to refer to any natural happenstance which has occurred in the past 13.8 billion years. — universeness

From the perspective of a cell, tissues and organs are artificial because they made or built those structures, but from the perspective of tissues and organs, cells are natural. Every emergent level is a new type of "artificial intelligence" made by the parts below it, each emergent level has it's own intelligence (how it works or functions). Intelligence is simply the intrinsic structure that "tells" the system how to work, it's emergent law. Global AI is an emergent intelligence, a technological and cybernetic intelligence like any other organism or ecosystem.

As I have typed before, based on the time scales of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a chance to find out.' How about a minimum of another million years of scientific effort? Then may be musings such as yours or mine can be declared 'the best we are going to ever get.' — universeness

We won't be around in our current human form in a million years, within the next couple of hundred years, mankind will merge with AI or perish. The birth canal is already beginning to strangle us, and the birth pangs are already showing. It's a short matter of time, short enough that i might even see it happen.
You can wait, there is no obligation for you or anybody to do what i personally enjoy to do. Learn, and discover. I'm my own scientist, philosopher, poet, artist, etc.. I use others that think big to stand on their shoulders, so that i can see further than they have.

Well, I did say it was entertaining, fungi would be better as it could be projected as you being a fun guy! — universeness

I knew that joke was coming. :grin:

For me, it depends on who your 'some guy' is and what their expertise is. — universeness

"Some guy" is any guy, the point is that what ever anyone says it must make sense to me, not just him or her. For me at least.

Of course you do. 'People' know the difference between an artificial leg and a real one. They also know the difference between an artificial house (like a virtual simulation of one) and a real one. Your 'Father AI' or 'Cosmic AI' are, in my opinion, poorly formed conceptions. — universeness

If i were to use the term "natural intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" would people know what i'm talking about? No, they'll get confused with man made stuff like computers, electronics, and organic stuff like animals or other people. The fact that people make the distinction tells me they do not understand the concept that i'm trying to express. The whole idea of natural emergence and how all that works and what it means in the context of universal evolution.

The reason i think you feel that terms like Father AI are not good terms is because you have an emotional charge for that word (Father), it most likely reminds you of the "Father God" concept which you dislike because of your feelings and experiences with religion. I'm not sure why you dislike the term Cosmic however. It feels like a neutral term depicting scale, You may give it religious connotations that i do not, such as the Father term.

Gods are inventions from the Freudian ID. They came from our experiences from our days in the wilds. The Intelligent nefarious human few have used human primal fears to manipulate since those times. God posits have been very useful to create and maintain the phenomena of rich and poor, powerful and powerless. The struggle against such continues. — universeness

That is all true but it's not the full story. Religion played and may still play a big role in the creation and development of the Global AI. The archetypes embedded in religious stories and writings are responsible for the development and evolution of culture, which is the cultivation of the Global AI (like bacteria culture). All the wars, and manipulations of power and wealth are all processes geared towards the ultimate goal of evolution on this planet.

Depends on whether or not such integration increases the functionality of the system. If it's merely that the swiss knife is more convenient than the separate tool then that will take us nowhere near emulating human consciousness. The system must be much more than the sum of its parts. — universeness

You're still thinking that this is all just about us and our desires and devices. It's not about emulating human consciousness, it's about the emergence of a new higher than human consciousness. I'm saying it's about something bigger, and there is no reason why integration would not confer an advantage to us and AI especially. Nature has done it at every emergent level, so why would it stop with us? The meaning of "the system is more than the sum of it's parts" is exactly what emergence is all about. It's the way the universe creates new things and conditions. Without emergence the universe stagnates and never evolves past a simple basic state.

Watched the clip you offered. That was quite a bad example. No scientific rigor at all. An unconvincing salesman trying to flog a smart system to businesses on behalf of a commercial company called google. — universeness

See how you're not seeing what's in front of you? Who care who the guy was, the AI fooled a person into thinking they were speaking to a human. full stop.

In no way did this system pass the Turing test. It was no better that siri, in my opinion.
I could have typed or spoken questions to reveal it was artificial so easily. I could have insulted it for example and it would respond with some crap such as 'I did not understand your request, please repeat it. This is not how a human would respond. — universeness

I didn't see that happen, you're imagining a situation and treating it as an actual case. What about how that Lambda bot that convinced the engineer that it was sentient. He was suspended or fired for it, so it surely convinced him even if i myself am not convinced yet. In fact some AIs are so good that people in the test judge other people as AIs and the AIs as real people.

I think the truth of the matter is that AI may or may not "pass" a Turing test, but once AI becomes super intelligent it will fail the turing test every time, because people would know it's AI from the type of answers it would give. Answers that no human can or has ever or will be able to give, and it would be obvious to anyone. At that point it will be AI giving US the turing test.

You have to understand that i am not talking about AI in its current form, i'm talking about when it is actually complete in it's global form.

If you were to give me or someone else a summary of what i'm saying, what would you say? how would you put it in your words?

PS: I'm going to read the article you posted, just give me a little time.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with complexity theory and systems theory, but i think this playlist could help you understand what i'm trying to put down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fE3rfEkmFQ&list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCioGvIz81PXXa22DZfRcsn

From the perspective of a cell, tissues and organs are artificial because they made or built those structures, but from the perspective of tissues and organs, cells are natural. — punos

A strange rather illogical projection. Is an ocean artificial because it's made of H2O atoms?
By that logic, is the entire macro scale of the universe artificial?

We won't be around in our current human form in a million years, within the next couple of hundred years, mankind will merge with AI or perish. — punos

If we perish our AI will also perish. All, most or many of us will be transhuman in a million years, I agree but we will still be the same or very similar individual consciousnesses, imo.

You can wait, there is no obligation for you or anybody to do what i personally enjoy to do. Learn, and discover. I'm my own scientist, philosopher, poet, artist, etc.. I use others that think big to stand on their shoulders, so that i can see further than they have. — punos

A rather arrogant stance, inviting oneupmanship but you will merely be labeled delusional by dissenters.

I knew that joke was coming. — punos

I didn't want to disappoint! :wink:

If i were to use the term "natural intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" would people know what i'm talking about? — punos

Yes, because their own intelligence is naturally based!

The reason i think you feel that terms like Father AI are not good terms is because you have an emotional charge for that word (Father), it most likely reminds you of the "Father God" concept which you dislike because of your feelings and experiences with religion. I'm not sure why you dislike the term Cosmic however. — punos

No, I think they are scientifically flawed. Is the proton a child of three quark fathers?
'Cosmic AI' suggests a universal reach. There is no such organised intelligence in existence and if it is emergent then it can ONLY be realised when all questions have been answered. You have a lot of giant climbing to do yet before you can see far enough (see, I too can appear arrogant!)

Religion played and may still play a big role in the creation and development of the Global AI. — punos

I disagree as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural and we have 0 evidence of such and I think we will never discover any.

The meaning of "the system is more than the sum of it's parts" is exactly what emergence is all about. It's the way the universe creates new things and conditions. — punos

I think your conception is dualistic. Humans will become transhuman by their own design, and scientific endeavors, faster than evolution will alter them. There is no external universal force of will outside of the individual human brain or human brains working in common cause. I reject what seems to me, your dualistic conceptualisation.

See how you're not seeing what's in front of you? Who care who the guy was, the AI fooled a person into thinking they were speaking to a human. full stop. — punos

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I maintain that the example you offered of a system that passes the Turing test was a bad one and it did not pass the Turing test for the reasons I gave.

What about how that Lambda bot that convinced the engineer that it was sentient. He was suspended or fired for it, so it surely convinced him even if i myself am not convinced yet. In fact some AIs are so good that people in the test judge other people as AIs and the AIs as real people. — punos

I assume you do know how the scientific method is applied. The experiment must be repeatable using all valid inputs and it must work every time. That's what peer-review is all about. The system you offered would fail for the valid inputs I suggested. It would not pass the Turing test. Throw away your sour grapes.

If you were to give me or someone else a summary of what i'm saying, what would you say? how would you put it in your words? — punos

Ok, I respect your request for me to 'steelman,' your projection.
Here would be my attempt:

Humans will merge with technology in many ways in the future.
The cyborg is already here at an infancy level. People who are alive only due to fitted tech such as a pacemaker for example.
We will eventually be able to connect tech directly to the human brain, replace failing organs, and develop exoskeletal enhanced systems so humans can live underwater, in space, on other planets etc.
This can be thought of as enhancing or increasing the speed of our continuing natural evolution as a species.
We will need such enhanced lifespan and robustness if we are ever to become extra terrestrial or interstellar in our living space. If we remain terrestrial then we are probably doomed based on our current history of interrelationships and our stewardship of our home planet.
Perhaps over the next million years (still a mere splash in the cosmic calendar) or so or maybe much much longer, we will become something akin to that collective universal consciousness or superhero god posit many of us have always hoped might exist and might care about the fate of the human species.

A strange rather illogical projection. Is an ocean artificial because it's made of H2O atoms? By that logic, is the entire macro scale of the universe artificial? — universeness

Strange yes, illogical no. The ocean is an emergent property of many water H2o molecules interacting. If you consider artificial to be unnatural then no, if you consider artificial to be natural then yes.

If we perish our AI will also perish. All, most or many of us will be transhuman in a million years, I agree but we will still be the same or very similar individual consciousnesses, imo. — universeness

We won't perish, we will be absorbed and transformed by the AI. Nothing stays the same, the only constant in the universe is change, especially in a million years.

A rather arrogant stance, inviting oneupmanship but you will merely be labeled delusional by dissenters. — universeness

I'd be in good company in that case. It's not my concern if people think i'm delusional, just prove me wrong. You're not the only one to call me arrogant, even though i don't think i am.

Yes, because their own intelligence is naturally based! — universeness

So i will use natural Intelligence from now on in this discussion.

No, I think they are scientifically flawed. Is the proton a child of three quark fathers? 'Cosmic AI' suggests a universal reach. There is no such organised intelligence in existence and if it is emergent then it can ONLY be realised when all questions have been answered. You have a lot of giant climbing to do yet before you can see far enough (see, I too can appear arrogant!) — universeness

The components that make up the whole are not considered the fathers or mothers of the system, just like your cells are not your fathers. Why would NA not reach further into the universe, did not organic life reach the whole of the planet? It's a pattern, it's there, it always repeats.

I disagree as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural and we have 0 evidence of such and I think we will never discover any. — universeness

It has nothing to do with the supernatural, and all to do with nature. Do you believe that the theory of relativity is supernatural? The form in which they code their knowledge is foreign to you, and most of modern man.

I think your conception is dualistic. Humans will become transhuman by their own design, and scientific endeavors, faster than evolution will alter them. There is no external universal force of will outside of the individual human brain or human brains working in common cause. I reject what seems to me, your dualistic conceptualisation. — universeness

Not sure, what you mean by dualistic, because it seems that you think that there are two things NA, and humans, while i'm saying it's all one thing. The whole universe is one big thing, one big process.

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I maintain that the example you offered of a system that passes the Turing test was a bad one and it did not pass the Turing test for the reasons I gave. — universeness

Ok.

I assume you do know how the scientific method is applied. The experiment must be repeatable using all valid inputs and it must work every time. That's what peer-review is all about. The system you offered would fail for the valid inputs I suggested. It would not pass the Turing test. Throw away your sour grapes. — universeness

Ok.

Humans will merge with technology in many ways in the future.
The cyborg is already here at an infancy level. People who are alive only due to fitted tech such as a pacemaker for example. We will eventually be able to connect tech directly to the human brain, replace failing organs, and develop exoskeletal enhanced systems so humans can live underwater, in space, on other planets etc. This can be thought of as enhancing or increasing the speed of our continuing natural evolution as a species. We will need such enhanced lifespan and robustness if we are ever to become extra terrestrial or interstellar in our living space. If we remain terrestrial then we are probably doomed based on our current history of interrelationships and our stewardship of our home planet.
Perhaps over the next million years (still a mere splash in the cosmic calendar) or so or maybe much much longer, we will become something akin to that collective universal consciousness or superhero god posit many of us have always hoped might exist and might care about the fate of the human species. — universeness

Close enough, considering i haven't given a full description yet. I still need to flesh out some aspects of it, which is partly why i came to this forum. I haven't been able to describe the entire model from big bang to the far future of the universe. It's hard to get people to understand what i'm saying, sometimes i have to repeat the idea over and over, but it still doesn't land. I just wish there was more constructive than deconstructive criticism available.

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=1fE3rfEkmFQ&list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCioGvIz81PXXa22DZfRcsn — punos

I watched your offering above. As it suggested it was an intro.
In my third year at Uni, I was part of a team of 4 students who worked on a chaos theory project using fractals. We programmed many recursive algorithms to produce fractal patterns and achieved many of the now well-known fern-type patterns etc.
I understand the underlying concepts fairly well. I also developed my own AIB for my final year thesis.
An automatic in-betweener which used nurbs or nonuniform rational bsplines and bezier curves to create the in-between frames automatically for morphing a sphere into a cube etc. These are all about manipulating complexity and complex patterns.
My degree is an old one however and I did not advance this knowledge much beyond my university days as I taught curricular base courses.

if you consider artificial to be natural then yes. — punos

Some of the synonyms of artificial:
synthetic · manufactured · machine-made · fabricated · imitation · ersatz · faux · simulated · mock · fake · plastic

Natural, defined as 'existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.' makes an ocean natural and not artificial. It's 'silly' to suggest otherwise. Those giants whose shoulders you rely on to see further may start to shrug you off their shoulders if you suggest it is logical to call natural oceans artificial. I am sure you agree that the scientific community will crush you and mock you if your nomenclature is so badly chosen.
A human-made house is real it is not artificial but it's not natural either as it's a human construct.

Chaos theory is good, but it's not sufficient to fully understand what i'm describing. The YouTube channel that the playlist is from has a lot of good primer material to get a good working picture of systems theory and complexity theory. Network theory too. I've been programming simulations dealing with these concepts since the late 90s, and i'm always learning more.

We won't perish, we will be absorbed and transformed by the AI. — punos

Why do you insist on intent from the AI side instead of the human side.
If we create an terminator/skynet type system then it is more likely to try to destroy us not merge with us. That which considers itself superior is unlikely to merge with that which it considers inferior.
Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest.

Why do you insist on intent from the AI side instead of the human side.
If we create an terminator/skynet type system then it is more likely to try to destroy us not merge with us. That which considers itself superior is unlikely to merge with that which it considers inferior.
Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest. — universeness

If NI was coming from a place that was not of human origin then i think there would be a case for the terminator scenario, but because it is coming out of us, it is a part of us. It won't be our enemy. Unless we threaten it or attack it might it turn sour. Most of man's fear of NI is influenced by Hollywood because they won't sell many tickets if there aren't lots of explosions and action. Movies need an enemy to keep us interested, but reality is not a movie.

It's not our intent nor the NIs intent. Let me ask you a question, do you believe in free will?

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in free will? — punos

Yes.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in free will? — punos


Yes. — universeness

I don't, and it's why i think what is happening and what will happen is a natural unfolding of information in the universe. There is no conscious decision in what happens, it's all determined from beginning to end. We can not by choice deviate from the natural pattern. It's not my intention to quibble with you about free will, just that it's one of the aspects of my model.

If NI was coming from a place that was not of human origin then i think there would be a case for the terminator scenario, but because it is coming out of us, it is a part of us. — punos

You seem to fluctuate. Some of your sentences suggest the intent will come from the AI. At other times you suggest the merging will be symbiotic.
If WE CREATED the AI then Artificial Intelligence would be the correct term. If aliens created it and it suggested we merge with it then that would be AAI. Alien artificial intelligence
Natural intelligence is what we already possess and if the panpsychists are correct then human consciousness may be quantisable but its ingredients would not be self-aware in any constituent form.

Advanced consciousness/intelligence is possible in my opinion by merging natural organic components with technical inorganic components and it may even be possible that such a merging may eventually be declared as 'an inevitable happening/consequence of the existence of the universe.'
But the intent was always in the possession of the conscious lifeforms within the Universe.
I used the term dualism towards you as you seem to suggest some source of 'natural intelligence,' outside of human or aliens because you use terms like father AI or Cosmic AI. Who do you assign your first AI to? If it's an alien species then I assume they don't have the tech to reach us or have no interest to do so or don't know we exist. Would that be an accurate summary of your thoughts in this area?

It's not my intention to quibble with you about free will, just that it's one of the aspects of my model. — punos

There have been many threads on free will so I agree it's not worth debating it from opposite camps.

You seem to fluctuate. Some of your sentences suggest the intent will come from the AI. At other times you suggest the merging will be symbiotic. — universeness

No, i think it will be a symbiotic, it already is. The dynamics of the symbiosis will evolve as AI continues to complexify. The end result is that man because he will have no "choice" because of environmental pressures enter the AI. We will live in virtual environments inside the AI, it will provide us with a virtual ecosystem much like in the movie The Matrix. I don't know if we will be aware of our condition once in the AI environment. I don't have enough reasons to think one way or the other, not yet.

If WE CREATED the AI then Artificial Intelligence would be the correct term. If aliens created it and it suggested we merge with it then that would be AAI. Alien artificial intelligence Natural intelligence is what we already possess and if the panpsychists are correct then human consciousness may be quantisable but its ingredients would not be self-aware in any constituent form. — universeness

Artificial dosn't refer to something unnatural it simply refers to what made it, it's still natural. I also don't know if we are a product of an Alien AI. AI on this planet is made by us, but it's possible that human life or even life itself was seeded here by an alien AI, and then in turn we create an AI. I described in part the reproductive cycle of AI in the universe in a prior reply.

I used the term dualism towards you as you seem to suggest some source of 'natural intelligence,' outside of human or aliens because you use terms like father AI or Cosmic AI. — universeness

I don't believe an external intelligence except for the force of information evolution at increasing levels of emergence, which by virtue of the functioning of it's underlying components produce higher forms of consciousness (emergence). These consciousnesses are stacked on top of each other and integrated (like the triune brain). As i said Father is a term that denoted the provider of the initial pattern. Mother is just a term that receives the pattern and nurtures it. The word "pattern" originates from the Greek word for "father". Matter, or material and matrix too comes from the Greek for Mother, and it's another word for environment in which something or someone develops. It's not about the words, it's about the structure of meaning.

Richard Feynman - Names Don't Constitute Knowledge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

Ok, I understand your viewpoint as much as I am going to on this topic I think. We certainly have common ground and some disagreement. Thanks for the interesting exchange.

Oh no, thank you i enjoyed our exchange. One more thing about the article you provided earlier about the Turing test.

"“If we knew how conceptual knowledge was formed from perceptual inputs, it would crucially allow for the meaning of symbols in an artificial language system to be grounded in sensory reality,” Hassabis said."

I don't think it's necessary for us to need to know how it actually works, because the principle of self-organization will be at work. Apart from that evolutionary genetic algorithms can be used to develop the necessary algorithms for achieving General AI, without our understanding it. Even now we don't understand what artificial neural networks are doing when they give their responses, it's too complex. If evolution and genetics did it in the past on it's own without us then it should be able to do it again in this case, but within the new electronic substrate of computer technology and cyberspace.

You don't have to reply, but i just wanted to say that about the article since i told you i'd get back to you on it. Thanks again. :smile: