If it considers itself sentient/conscious, or if something else considers it so? I ask because from outside, it's typically a biased judgement call that comes down to a form of racism. — noAxioms

For me, it comes down to: Can it suffer? If it can suffer, then don't do it. If it can't, then if you must, do so. If you see a roach in the street, leave it alone. If you find it on your kitchen counter, then kill it or get rid of it somehow (if possible). The reason for this should be obvious, and it hurts me every time i have to do it.

Racism is an altogether different issue that stems from a certain level of ignorance and disrespect for other sentient/conscious beings. It doesn't stop with racism; similar attitudes are found in nationalism, politics, and even among sports fanatics. Gangs exhibit similar tribal and territorial behaviors.

Or at two scales at the same time, neither scale being particularly aware of the consciousness of the other. Whether my cells are conscious or not depends on the definition being used, and that very fact leaves the word very much useless for a basis on which to presume a moral code. — noAxioms

You are initially correct about the "two scales at the same time" for most cases. That's why i believe it's important to have a technical and rational definition of consciousness instead of just a phenomenological or philosophical one. A lot of language is meant to obscure; i've even heard it said that "language was invented for lying". I don't believe that, but i understand what it's suggesting.

But there are a lot more insect observers than human ones, a whole lot more shit-not-giving observers than ones that care enough to post on forums like this. Will the super-AI that absorbs humanity bother to post its ideas on forums? To be understood by what?? — noAxioms

Each observer is equipped by evolution to observe and care for its own needs locally at its own level. It's not meant for more or less, but there are almost always anomalies in the system. Some observers are most likely behind the curve, some are ahead, and most are right in the middle of the normal distribution.

I don't know if it will use forums or not, but i'm sure there will be some kind of back-and-forth communication about important or relevant information. It's a lot like the communication between the gut and the brain.

First to the intelligence is questionable. There are some sea creature candidates, but they're lousy tool users. Octopi are not there, but are great tool users, and like humans, completely enslaved by their instincts. As for consciousness, there are probably many things that have more and stronger senses and environmental awareness than us. — noAxioms

All animals, including humans, are enslaved to their instincts to some degree or other; some more than others. Humans have the capacity to rise above their instincts, but not everyone does so to a significant degree for various reasons or circumstances. My step-brother, for one, is basically a career criminal who has no impulse control whatsoever and doesn't seem to be rational enough to change in any significant way after spending more than half his life in and out of prison. He's still at it.

I don't doubt the possibility of conscious beings or "things" more aware than us, but if they exist, where do you think they are? For one, i believe that AI will achieve that status in the not-too-distant future.

Kind of tautological reasoning. If money stops, then money stops. But also if one entity has it all, then it doesn't really have any. And money very much can just vanish, and quickly, as it does in any depression. — noAxioms

Yes, of course, but that's not what i was saying. My point was that whether it is money or blood, what's important is that it circulates, because a living thing needs internal circulation of energy to maintain its life. It is not enough to have a bunch of blood or a bunch of money that doesn't move. The money maintains its value, the blood maintains its oxygen, but if either is not being transported, the system dies. That is why i emphasized the relation between the words "currency" and "current" to allude to the flow of life in a living system. I wasn't stating that money can or can't vanish quickly or slowly. It was just a thought experiment.

Lots of new ideas qualify for the first point, and nobody seems to be using AI for the 2nd point. I may be wrong, but it's what I see. — noAxioms

Yes, i would expect new developing ideas to cause an increase in "cash flow." Just like how i expect an organ to increase its "blood flow" when producing new products for the body, such as insulin from the pancreas or bile from the liver.

My blood iron being a critical part of my living system doesn't mean that my iron has it's own intent. You're giving intent to the natural process of evolution, something often suggested, but never with supporting evidence. — noAxioms

I never said your iron had its own intent; i merely implied that it is connected to your intent. If that iron doesn't carry that oxygen, your intent for whatever dies with you. You are your own proof to yourself that natural processes of evolution have intent. Are you claiming that you are not a natural process, that you are somehow artificial or supernatural; disconnected from nature and the universe? If you have intent then nature has intent.

First of all, the rapid consumption of resources appears to me to be part of a growth stage of the human social superorganism.

That doesn't make the humans very fit. Quite the opposite. All that intelligence, but not a drop to spend on self preservation. — noAxioms

On the contrary, all that consumption of resources goes towards the eventual production of the AI mind and the rest of its body (social infrastructure). If we don't get to a certain threshold of AI advancement through this rapid growth process, then our only chance for ultimate self-preservation would be lost, and we would be stuck on a planet that will kill us as soon as it becomes uninhabitable.

And no, the caterpillar does not consume everything. — noAxioms

Yes it actually does, it tries to eat as much as it can, but it will only eat leaves, not rocks or oil. A caterpillar is the size of a medium-sized insect; it is not at the scale of a planetary system. Therefore, even if it tried, it could not consume everything, only what it can eat.

You do realize the silliness of that, no? One cannot harness energy outside of one's past light cone, which is well inside the limits of the visible fraction of the universe. — noAxioms

Well, if you put it that way, then yes, it is silly; reaching outside one's past light cone. But perhaps there is a better way to do it from within our own light cone. I suppose it seems impossible to some minds but not to others. Either way, i don't think there will ever be an energy shortage for a sufficiently advanced AI. I have ideas as to how energy might be siphoned off from quantum fluctuations in the quantum foam as a last resort for energy harvesting. It may even be easier than we think for an advanced ASI, and could become a standard energy source for the AI; hooked into the energy dynamics of the fabric of space itself. This potential solution should be sufficient for however many trillions of years to answer your question.

You don't know that. Who knows what innovative mechanisms it will invent to remember stuff. — noAxioms

I don't know anything except probabilities, which might surprise you to read considering the matter-of-fact style i speak and write in sometimes. Don't be concerned about it, as it is only a cognitive device to help me think creatively about unknowns. So yes, something i haven't thought of might be the case, but i'm not really trying to lay out all the details of what will happen in the future, just the general pattern or silhouetted shape of it.

That's like a soldier refusing to fight in a war since his personal contribution is unlikely to alter the outcome of the war. A country is doomed if it's soldiers have that attitude. — noAxioms

Thankfully i'm not a soldier. If i sacrifice myself i'm making sure it counts because if it doesn't then i wont be around when i actually can make a difference. That's when i'd do it probably, but its still silly to say and mean that because no one really knows what they will do when confronted with death.

Religion is but one of so many things about which people are not rational, notably the self-assessment of rationality. — noAxioms

Sure, but someone who does not consider themselves rational tends not to consider things rationally. A person who does define and concern themselves with rationality might actually execute a rational thought every once in a while. You've got to at least aim at the target for a decent chance to hit the bull's-eye, even if you suck at it. At least it's better than not aiming at all.

Did you know that mammalian pregnancy evolved from a virus combining with our DNA? The body's adaptation is partially an adaptation to this virus. — I like sushi

I vaguely remember reading or watching a video about that. It's very interesting, the role that viruses play in our evolution. I also recall reading about an ancient virus that was responsible for the emergence of myelin in vertebrates. This enabled faster and farther neural communication, probably contributing to the reason why we have advanced nervous systems.

I have not looked into it but I would assume any immunological reaction to pregnancy in birds and reptiles would be much lower (if not absent entirely?).

Just checked for Platypus and it seems to be the obvious case that immunological responses are much more limited when animals lay eggs compared to in utero genesis. — I like sushi

Yea, it seems to make sense. I should probably look into that some more.
Thanks :up:

Actually I’m reminded of a quip by (I think) Neils Bohr - ‘A physicist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself’.

Actually I’m reminded of a quip by (I think) Neils Bohr - ‘A physicist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself’. — Wayfarer

An you just reminded me of this: (The Wheeler Eye)

I thought you believed that intelligence needs consciousness? — Carlo Roosen

No Actually, i think consciousness is fundamentally structured with intelligent components. This is why we can have intelligent machines or artificial intelligence without consciousness. However, have you ever seen a conscious entity without intelligence? I don't think i have.

I've been one. Not able to put my pants on, needed to be fed by nurses. No memory, didn't know my own name. But I was conscious and remember it, although vaguely. (this happened after a major surgery)

For me, it comes down to: Can it suffer? — punos

Few have any notion of suffering that is anything other than one's own human experience, so this comes down to 'is it sufficiently like me', a heavy bias. Humans do things to other being that can suffer all the time and don't consider most of those actions to be immoral.
It heartens me to consider suffering of bugs into your choices.

Point is, you don't want an AI with human morals, because that's a pretty weak standard which is be nice only to those who you want to keep being nice to you.

Each observer is equipped by evolution to observe and care for its own needs locally at its own level.

That's a good description of why a non-slave AI is dangerous to us.

Humans have the capacity to rise above their instincts

I have not seen that, and I don't think humans would be fit if they did. Instincts make one fit. That's why they're there.

As for your (OCD?) step-brother, being civil and being rational are different things. Most humans have the capacity to be civil, which is what you seem to be referencing above.

If we don't get to a certain threshold of AI advancement through this rapid growth process, then our only chance for ultimate self-preservation would be lost, and we would be stuck on a planet that will kill us as soon as it becomes uninhabitable.

First, if the AI is for some reason protecting us, the planet becoming inhospitable would just cause it to put us in artificial protective environments. Secondly, if the AI finds the resources to go to other stars, I don't see any purpose served by taking humans along. Far more resources are required to do that, and the humans serve no purpose at the destination.
OK, we might be pets, but the economy which we might have once provided would long since have ceased.

But perhaps there is a better way to do it from within our own light cone. I suppose it seems impossible to some minds but not to others. The former minds know a little about the limits of cause and effect. Unless physics as we know it is totally wrong, level IV is not possible, even hypothetically.

Either way, i don't think there will ever be an energy shortage for a sufficiently advanced AI.

Heat death? I don't think the AI can maintain homeostasis without fusion energy.

I have ideas as to how energy might be siphoned off from quantum fluctuations in the quantum foam

Which is similar to getting information from quantum randomness. Neither is mathematically supported by the theory.

Thankfully i'm not a soldier.

But you are, in the war against the demise of humanity. But nobody seems to have any ideas how to solve the issue. A few do, but what good is one person with a good idea that is never implemented? Your solution seems to be one of them: Charge at max speed off a cliff hoping that something progressive will emerge from the destruction. It doesn't do any good to humanity, but it is still a chance of initiating the next level, arguably better than diminishing, going into the west, and remaining humanity.

A person who does define and concern themselves with rationality might actually execute a rational thought every once in a while.

We are equipped with a rational advisor tool, so sure, we often have rational thoughts. That part simply is not in charge, and output from it is subject to veto from the part that is in charge. Hence we're not rational things, simply things with access to some rationality. It has evolved because the arrangement works. Put it in charge and the arrangement probably would not result in a fit being, but the path of humanity is not a fit one since unlike the caterpillar, it has no balance.