You've invoked "Moore's Law"; well, in a similiar vein, the miniaturization of tech, like natural complexity (i.e. life), accelerates ... and I think Buckminster Fuller waa right about ephemeralization in the 1930s (later updated by John Smart et al in the 2000s with the transcension hypothesis) that intelligent systems will also continue to miniaturize, such that AGI —> ASI will eventually be instantiated in matter itself (and maybe then somehow in entangled quantum systems). Thus, nano sapiens. Will they be us? I imagine them as our post-biomorphic – infomorphic – descendsnts, and, to me, Clark/Kubrick's "Monolith symbolizes this apotheosis.In a similar vein, my post-human (post-biomorphic) preference is nano sapien.
— 180 Proof
:grin: but why so small? — universeness
I don't think ASI's goals, especially with respect to humanity, are predictable since ASI is over the event horizon of the "technological singularity" (which is the advent of AGI).Do you completely reject that a future ASI may choose to remain separate from us, but will augment us, and protect us, when we are in danger.
I imagine the movie 2001 in its entirety as the "Monolith" simulating within itself to its-human ancestral-self ("Kubrick's audience") a reenactment of its human ancestors' becoming post-human.Do you think the monolith is 'learning' or 'teaching' or both,in this scene?
Yes.So does this depict, for you, an 'ascendance' moment for the human, or a 'completion of purpose' moment for the human.
No. I imagine that a human astronaut's transformation into the "Star Child" happened long ago (from the Monolith's perspective) as the third(?) and (possibly last) irreverisible step on the developmental path to becoming itself: a nano sapien hypercivilization (aka from our perspective "the Monolith").Is the monolith making an equivalent style statement, to such as 'as you are now, so once was I, as I am now, so will you be, prepare yourself to follow me?
For us, perhaps it is, given our mythopoetic bias.Is this then imagery, of completing the circle, or perhaps even the cycle?
No.Would you find anything in this final scene then, that is relatable to cyclical universe posits, such as CCC or do you think Kubrick was going for something more akin to the buddhist 'wheel of life?'
I think the post-planck era universe is deterministic.So do you think the universe is, in the final analysis deterministic or not?
Yeah it is, but I didn't elaborate there as much as I have here. Maybe my interpretation of Kubrick's final scene is clearer now? (Btw, both Kubrick's interpretation and mine differ from Arthur C. Clarke's too.) :nerd:Or is my general interpretations of your analysis of the final scene you posted and your typings, in Javi's thread, way off?
I don't understand why you would ask such a question?What would motivate anyone to help the blind? — Athena
Perhaps those who train guide dogs for the blind, for example, could explain it to you better than I.How is it possible to know how to help a blind person? — Athena
Or speak! Her parents did not know the 'finger spelling' sign language involved. What motivated the woman who did teach Helen how to communicate, was the fact that she (Anne Sullivan) was a sign language specialist who was brought in, via Helen's parents.Hellen Keller could not see or hear, and a woman who could see and hear, taught her language and made it possible for her to have the language necessary for thinking and communicating with others.
Her parents did not do this. Why didn't her parents teach her? What made the woman who did teach Hellen Keller language different from her parents? The answer will define what makes a human different from AI and from there we can have an interesting discussion. — Athena
I agree with your suggestion that 'functionality' can be miniaturised but I have not really thought about how miniature something could be, but still be self-aware or conscious. Any nano tech I have heard of is certainly functional and can even be networked to achieve a common goal etc but no nano tech is currently sentient. I though by nano sapien, you meant that there would not be much left, which was 'human,' hence your 'post-human' preference over 'transhuman.' I see now that your analysis runs deeper than that.You've invoked "Moore's Law"; well, in a similiar vein, the miniaturization of tech, like natural complexity (i.e. life), accelerates ... and I think Buckminster Fuller waa right about ephemeralization in the 1930s (later updated by John Smart et al in the 2000s with the transcension hypothesis) that intelligent systems will also continue to miniaturize, such that AGI —> ASI will eventually be instantiated in matter itself (and maybe then somehow in entangled quantum systems). Thus, nano sapiens. Will they be us? I imagine them as our post-biomorphic – infomorphic – descendsnts,; and, to me, Clark/Kubrick's "Monolith symbolizes this apotheosis. — 180 Proof
True!I don't think ASI's goals, especially with respect to humanity, are predictable since ASI is over the event horizon of the "technological singularity" (which is the advent of AGI). — 180 Proof
Ok, so the monolith IS post-human.I imagine the movie 2001 in its entirety as the "Monolith" simulating within itself to its-human ancestral-self ("Kubrick's audience") a reenactment of its human ancestors' becoming post-human. — 180 Proof
Confirms what I though you were saying about what the monolith represents, but what do you think of 2010, the sequel to 2001, written by Clarke as well. In that film, a large number of monoliths are used to turn Jupiter into a new star. I assume Jupiter's moons are also turned into new habitable space for humans but Europa is to be left alone and is protected by a monolith. This was too close to the Adam and Eve BS for me. You can go to any tree EXCEPT THIS ONE (Europa). Oh come on Mr Clarke, how derivative can you get?No. I imagine that a human astronaut's transformation into the "Star Child" happened long ago (from the Monolith's perspective) as the third(?) and (possibly last) irreverisible step on the developmental path to becoming itself: a nano sapien hypercivilization (aka from our perspective "the Monolith"). — 180 Proof
:grin: Yeah, Poetic license has a lot of girth.Is this then imagery, of completing the circle, or perhaps even the cycle?
For us, perhaps it is, given our mythopoetic bias. — 180 Proof
So do you think 'quantum fluctuations' are deterministic? I think they are the only example of true 'random happenstance' that I am convinced does qualify as 'random.'I think the post-planck era universe is deterministic. — 180 Proof
Maybe my interpretation of Kubrick's final scene is clearer now? (Btw, both Kubrick's interpretation and mine differ from Arthur C. Clarke's too.) — 180 Proof
Post-posthuman (i.e. post-sentient).Ok, so the monolith IS post-human. — universeness
I didn't think much of either book or film. IMO, the latter is quite dated and superficially derivative.... what do you think of 2010 ...
They certainly aren't deterministic to a classical observer.So do you think 'quantum fluctuations' are deterministic?
They certainly aren't deterministic to a classical observer. — 180 Proof
From what I see, all the efforts have been aimed at reduction of the acceleration of the train, not even reduction of its speed. It’s not a fault. I cannot think of a being that has this capability. Perhaps this is evidence against intelligent design, because that’s one of the primary items I would have included in a decent design.If the people on the tracks, made the train, and caused it to hurtle towards themselves, then they are the only ones who can stop it. The optimists are not as passively waiting and are not as meekly accepting of the fate your pessimism suggests, they can do nothing about. — universeness
OK, I can accept that. I also had a paper-pushing job of sorts, but quite a good one involving significant creativity and pay. Such jobs will also be available for automation one the capability is there. It isn’t yet. But I suspect that there will be those who still choose to do such things, even if not in a capacity that displaces the machines doing the actual necessary work.How about just the person running a paper-pushing position at say a local doctor’s office.— noAxioms
Soon automated, hopefully, same for all such tedious jobs.
It wasn’t so much a job that wasn’t desired, but rather management that nobody wants to work under. I suppose they can make machines that don’t mind being berated for not being fast enough, or machines that don’t need to wear diapers just because the boss thinks 4 hours between restroom breaks is a minimum interval (Amazon does this among others).You keep churning out such examples, and I keep repeating that I am confident that any job humans don't want to do, can be eventually automated.
Ah, now you finally mention the possible utility of consequences, even if completely unspecified.If anyone refuses to do their share, then I would not remove access to any of their basic needs, but there would be social consequence's of their refusal, to do their fair share.
This is an interesting conflict because I’ve never seen either side of the argument make the slightest attempt to acknowledge the points made by the opposing side. There’s almost zero rationality to it. I’ve been to rallies (you decide which side) and trust me, rationality is nowhere to be seen.Pro-life and bodily autonomy arguments and issues like it, will no doubt persist for a long time yet.
Sure, but ‘how’ is not the issue. ‘If’ is more the issue.Who knows how new tech will change how an abortion is performed in the future.
Those on the bottom of the social status scale don’t seem to mind their position there, or the social disdain that comes with it.Well, I have already stated that the main consequence of behaving as you suggest, in the quote above, is 'social status' based. — universeness
Because he gets all he needs without helping. That’s apparently enough for Jimmy. Of course I don’t see public shame-sheets naming each of them each month or so, a list of able-bodies individuals on the dole. People would get tired of such propaganda pretty quickly and it would lose any real pressure after a short time.If you know Jimmy (photo's provided), perhaps you could discuss with him, why he will not help his local community, in the ways we have asked him to.
Then there would be crime, which would be dealt with accordingly, especially with automated evidence-gathering infrastructure that makes it almost impossible to get away with anything illegal. It’s not big-brother if it’s just preventing crime, right?You might find my suggestion here unpalatable, and you might even think that violence would be threatened or enacted against Jimmy, or Jimmy himself would respond to such social haranguing with violence, even though it would be prosecuted, if it was perpetrated.
I don’t know, I sort of favor the way they do it with the guy in the hut, but how to differentiate the layabout from the guy who has this busy hobby writing unpopular books and is too busy to pitch into community-necessary work that somehow cannot be automated? Some have excuses. Not all are able-bodied. Some are retired and exempt, and part of the code is to extend their presence as long as possible.Perhaps you can suggest a better way to reason with Jimmy, if all verbal reasoning has failed to date.
Just so. Then there’s no obligatory tasks, pretty much exactly like life in a zoo.Perhaps the issue would never arise eventually, due to the level of automation achieved.
Don’t think it can unite us. Sure, it can join two smaller groups into a larger one, as it always has, but it cannot, nor has it ever in history, made us one. At best it will be a total imperialistic state with one small group in control of everyone else as occupied states. If they kill off all the occupied population (as they seem to be attempting with Ukraine), then without anyone over whom to have power, the state will collapse into smaller units in mutual conflict. Imagine the entire planet controlled by somebody like Putin, with nothing but Russians everywhere and nobody left who isn’t one. That won’t last. The rules will not be the same for everybody. I can’t prove this, but it seems human nature that this is inevitable. A group needs an enemy to maintain its identity as that group. There’s never been an ‘us’ that seems to encompass all of humanity.Either war will destroy us all or it will eventually unite us all, as it has since we came out of the wilds. — universeness
If that was the outcome, there’d be no point to the war. No, the loser loses something, usually significantly more than just say their leader having to bend the knee. Why does Ukraine resist what’s happening if all they have to do is unite and everybody goes home happy?Two tribes go to war and either one conquers the other of they make peace by uniting.
Well we differ there. I find it impossible unless you limit ‘global’ to ‘one of multiple globes’. Just my opinion.I believe global unity and world government is inevitable
Trying to figure out if/where the sarcasm kicks in. — noAxioms
I have bad sarcasm radar, so never sure.I intended no sarcasm in what I typed. — universeness
I presumed at first this was straight, but I delude myself. jgill definitely throws in on the sarcasm side.I see from my readings here that my thinking needs modulation by your robust brand of optimism. — ucarr
You said this, just not in those words. You said people could barter for more than the essential needs provided by the state on what I called the black market. That makes for wealthy people. If not, then such activity (barter) should be illegal and all goods (say the highly sought after paintings) should be handed out by lottery or something, in which case they’ll all be destroyed in short order because the average Joe has no means to care for priceless artwork. The artist will probably not bother to make many, knowing this fate awaits them.If what you say proves to be true in the future, and the 'wealthy' still exist as you describe them above.
Agree, but it wouldn’t be for me, mostly for the same reasons I don’t pay the stupid tax.Yeah, a lottery win can be a death sentence for many.
I didn’t mention any ‘trick’. I’ve earned my nest egg without every having an employee. I do own a company of sorts now, but it’s just me. It pays far less than the days when I was employed, but I find myself not wanting to get back into it.'Earned the same amount,' is controversial, to say the least. The money trick means you can earn great wealth, not by particularly working hard but by sycophantically leeching from the sweat and toil of workers.
Ah, we seem to have introduced a concept of clean money, different than the usual definition (laundered). You seem to define it in terms of moral means of acquisition. My brother (the one I spoke of above) made his living day-trading for several years. It wasn’t gambling and he did quite well, but I told him that it wasn’t productive since the activity served the interests of nobody, no customer or anything. He stopped doing it (afaik) and now rents other people’s houses. That is a productive activity and I approve more.If you earned your millions/billions via investments and deals on the stock markets (gambling joints), then your wealth is via the money trick and is NOT CLEAN imo.
It’s efficient, and should be emulated by your perfect society. You just don’t like the money going to the owners. The brutal working conditions should be illegal though, but they’re necessary to be competitive. Your social society would eliminate that competition and theoretically make the working conditions far better, especially since nobody is going to be forced to do it by the necessity of needing to feed their families.That beginning, that resulted in the Amazon company that exists today and the abomination that is now the wealth of Bezos, is nefarious, and vile, and needs to be stopped from ever, ever happening, in the future.
You don’t think long commutes are a waste of resources? My last job was about 200 km away. I considered moving but the cost of living was so much higher there. So I went in once or twice a week and did a 40 hour shift and did the rest of the work from home. I burned 4 cars into the ground doing that. Every one of them was lost somewhere on the commute to that place.Sounds good to me! Apart from the 'waste of resources.' — universeness
Yes, but one car passing another isn’t a significant change. It’s a subtle one, even if the long term implications are not subtle. Maybe the cars are not side by side but km apart and nobody notices the difference.For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' — universeness
If only @Gnomon & co could (i.e. would make the effort to) understand and appreciate the soundly speculative implications of contemporary sciences such as ...YOU connected YOUR enformer with deism which means YOU labelled it a deity. All you have done since then, is try to struggle out of those manacles you placed on yourself by trying to redefine deism. Why you choose to cosplay as a theist/deist, whilst denying your dalliances with it [ ... ] Is your 'enformationism' a hot topic of debate within the scientific community? Will it become so, anytime soon? — universeness
The main scientific attraction of the MWI is that it requires no changes or additions to the standard mathematical representation of quantum mechanics. There is no mysterious, ad hoc and abrupt collapse of the wave function.
Once we have granted that any physical theory is essentially only a model for the world of experience,” Everett concluded in the unedited version of his dissertation, “we must renounce all hope of finding anything like the correct theory ... simply because the totality of experience is never accessible to us.
If only Gnomon & co could (i.e. would make the effort to) understand and appreciate the soundly speculative implications of contemporary sciences such as — 180 Proof
You are merely trying to suggest a scenario which YOU think CURRENT automated systems could not deal with. I will leave such issues to the experts in the field. They are aware of such problems as cook's of the past have reported them. The reggae band UB40, even wrote a song about the issue:How does the robot restaurant cook react to a rat in the fresh food storage? Probably doesn’t notice it. — noAxioms
Yes but bodily autonomy may not be an issue in the future if the whole process is done outside of the body, as I am sure most women would prefer that, to the bodily trauma they currently have to go through. No abortion as such would be needed just a case of completing a process or stopping it. I imagine, a whole new set of arguments would ensue.Who knows how new tech will change how an abortion is performed in the future.
Sure, but ‘how’ is not the issue. ‘If’ is more the issue. — noAxioms
You know this for certain? How many have you personally asked?Those on the bottom of the social status scale don’t seem to mind their position there, or the social disdain that comes with it. — noAxioms
Crime has always existed. I think there would be a lot less of it, in a fair socioeconomic world.Then there would be crime, which would be dealt with accordingly, especially with automated evidence-gathering infrastructure that makes it almost impossible to get away with anything illegal. It’s not big-brother if it’s just preventing crime, right? — noAxioms
Do the animals in a zoo have free travel? freedom of speech and protest? a democratic vote? Free education? A career path of their choice with an ability to change their chosen life path anytime they wish?Just so. Then there’s no obligatory tasks, pretty much exactly like life in a zoo. — noAxioms
How is population of a given region controlled? That can’t stay exponential forever, else the human biomass density will eventually exceed the mass density of the available elements. None of the above visions work without this. Shipping the excess off-planet is not a solution. Colonization is done with new blood. Australia is sort of an exception to this, but it was not done with surplus, but with undesirables. — noAxioms
Ukraine may well have united with Russia in the same way as countries in the European union united.If that was the outcome, there’d be no point to the war. No, the loser loses something, usually significantly more than just say their leader having to bend the knee. Why does Ukraine resist what’s happening if all they have to do is unite and everybody goes home happy? — noAxioms
You seem to be OK with there being wealthy people. After all, it makes for an incentive to do something truly productive rather than mere pursuit of one’s hobbies.
I wonder if a sufficiently wealthy person could create a company, all without money. What if the company could be publicly owned? That would make for money appearing in a system devoid of it. My brother is well educated in such matters. I should discuss stuff like that with him. — noAxioms
Yes, I do think long commutes are a waste of resources. I quite liked most of the imagery you invoked in:You don’t think long commutes are a waste of resources? My last job was about 200 km away. I considered moving but the cost of living was so much higher there. So I went in once or twice a week and did a 40 hour shift and did the rest of the work from home. I burned 4 cars into the ground doing that. Every one of them was lost somewhere on the commute to that place — noAxioms
I suspect the future for the personal vehicle (let alone a flying one) is doomed. Transportation in any sufficiently dense population is best done by mass transit. I’ve been in the places where many people don’t own cars since everything can be reached via bus, subway, intercity trains, boats, etc. Most of the personal transportation might be limited to bicycles. It’s too rural where I live to do that, but that raises the problem where many want to live in a scenic place like the mountains, but do work more suited to an urban setting. That makes for a lot of resources wasted on commuting, even if it is a mass commute.
There will be small vehicles, like a service van for the plumber and such. — noAxioms
I have no idea why you interpreted this as You don’t think long commutes are a waste of resources?Sounds good to me! Apart from the 'waste of resources.' — universeness
I don't follow your logic here. The development of an AGI/ASI, has been posited by many, as the technical singularity moment, that will ring the death knell for the whole human species. That's why I mentioned it in my OP on this thread, as I wanted to know how credible, posters here, considered that dystopian prediction to be.Yes, but one car passing another isn’t a significant change. It’s a subtle one, even if the long term implications are not subtle. Maybe the cars are not side by side but km apart and nobody notices the difference.
I didn’t see the point in bringing up a mathematical singularity at all. OK, a black hole event horizon is a singularity of sorts, and dropping through one won’t be noticed by the thing doing it, but the implications (certain doom) are there, and probably were already there before the EH was crossed. So there’s a bit of appropriateness to that analogy. — noAxioms
Again I don't understand your line of questioning here. — universeness
I don't understand why you would ask such a question? — universeness
How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language? T — universeness
In fact, a future ASI could probably develop a much better sign system, that could communicate with Helen, compared to finger spelling. — universeness
When we begin arguing we close our minds and block out the opposing reasoning that threatens our sanity by putting our reasoning in doubt. Ego starts screaming, I have to be right so the other person has to be wrong or is crazy to disagree with what I know is right. Or we can ask, what is your reasoning considering the possibility that the other knows something we do not.Again, I find your line of questioning bizarre, here Athena. — universeness
:up:Anne Sullivan was motivated to learn and teach for human reasons. AI does not have that motivation. There is no caring or feeling for AI. AI can destroy thousands of lives because it has no emotions that would stop it from doing what is programmed to do. It also would not create something new and needed to resolve a human problem for the same no motive reason. Your computer will not wake up one morning and attempt to teach you valuable lessons. It does not care about you or any human. It has no human experience or feelings for determining what is just and what is humane. — Athena
What does this exactly mean?The development of an AGI/ASI, has been posited by many, as the technical singularity moment — universeness
How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language? — Athena
You are attempting to compare human intellect with current AI. Current AI is advancing in functionality and capability. Systems like chatGPT are very advanced compared to an early system such as ELIZA.To establish what makes human thinking different from AI. — Athena
Humans who became more 'enlightened' tend to reject 'law of the jungle' behaviours.Anne Sullivan was motivated to learn and teach for human reasons. AI does not have that motivation. There is no caring or feeling for AI. AI can destroy thousands of lives because it has no emotions that would stop it from doing what is programmed to do. It also would not create something new and needed to resolve a human problem for the same no motive reason. Your computer will not wake up one morning and attempt to teach you valuable lessons. It does not care about you or any human. It has no human experience or feelings for determining what is just and what is humane. — Athena
How much do you know about current developments in AI, what sources are you referencing?Or we can ask, what is your reasoning considering the possibility that the other knows something we do not. — Athena
The term "Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)" is exaggerated. There's no actually such a thing as "artificial superintelligence". There's only Artificial Intelligence (AI), which can range from very simple computations to very complex and sophisticated solutions to problems and, with an analogous complexity and capacity in handling of data. — Alkis Piskas
A book contains knowledge but has no understanding until your brain processes it.However, knowledge involves undestanding. It's not something mechanical or computational or an ability to store and retrieve data. It also ofetn involves perception. — Alkis Piskas
AI has no undestanding. It cannot undestand. It cannot perceive. It has no consiousness. It cannot even think. It just follows and process instructions, which may indeed involve going through quite sophisticated and complex routines (algorithms) in order to find solutions to problems. — Alkis Piskas
You can hear from many people that AI has consciousness and undestands and all that stuff. Well, before believing them and/or taking that kind of information for granted, you must study and acquire a solid knowledge about AI. Then, you must have experience in applying and programming AI, and for this you must be an eperienced programmer. Only then you can judge for yourself and be certain about the validity of their statements. But of, course, you don't need to do all that! :smile: You can only know well the basics and apply simple logic. — Alkis Piskas
Proposed as what? (I just read the first para of the article to which your link refers to and it talks about an observation, not a proposition. Anyway, this is not the main point here.)No, ASI is proposed, based on the current advances in AI and by an observed pace of advancement su indicated by such as Moore's law. — universeness
A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".) And it is your mind that process this data, not your brain. The brain can only process stimuli. And stimuli are not data.A book contains knowledge but has no understanding until your brain processes it. — universeness
AI can never become self-aware or even just aware. Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms).An AGI or ASI is a moment of pivotal change or 'singularity,' if and only if it becomes self-aware. — universeness
It is correct for past, present and future AI. You might have read a lot about AI --a lot ope people say a lot of things about it and a lot of speculating is going around-- but IMO you must stick to basics. That is, what AI actually is. If something else is created or develpped based on it, it will be another subject, not AI anymore. (E.g. cloning.)AI has no undestanding.
— Alkis Piskas
This is correct for all current AI systems imo but not for future AI. — universeness
Science knows a lot about AI already. But if you mean if Science can find how can AI become "aware", well, I don't know of any scientific projects at this moment trying to achieve AI awareness, although there might be some without my knowledge.Science knows very little at the moment — universeness
Only life can be aware? How do you know this?Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms). — Alkis Piskas
Oh, I was not meaning to invalidate your knowledge, @universeness! I'm very sorry about that! Really. :sad:I am a retired Computer Scientist who taught the subject for 30+ years Alkis.
I am not exactly an AI neophyte. — universeness
You mean, what are my arguments about this, right? Because we all know things, don't we?Only life can be aware? How do you know this? — 180 Proof
It was a simple question: "Only life can be aware? How do you know this?" How could I missed it? :grin:You didn't answer my first question (you must have missed it) — 180 Proof
Which physical laws, AP, prevent us from building / growing a 'self-aware AI' — 180 Proof
Your own choice of link seems to define the term quite well:Proposed as what? — Alkis Piskas
From that site, we have:
A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".) And it is your mind that process this data, not your brain. The brain can only process stimuli. And stimuli are not data. — Alkis Piskas
Wanna bet?? :grin:AI can never become self-aware or even just aware. Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms). — Alkis Piskas
Science knows very little at the moment
— universeness
Science knows a lot about AI already. But if you mean if Science can find how can AI become "aware", well, I don't know of any scientific projects at this moment trying to achieve AI awareness, although there might be some without my knowledge. — Alkis Piskas
Otherwise, I really admire and respect what you do, all the scientific research you are doing on the subject, something which I know you do for many other subjects. I wish I had the necessary patience myself to do the same! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.