I'm skeptical that what we do is so conveniently reducible.

>Our perception of time as human when 1 second of time passes will definitely be different than what the Artificial Intelligence will experience.

Ok, sure

>1 Second of human time, will be for the Artificial Intelligence Program or anything similar, would be close to a month or even a few months.

This claim doesn't hold up for me. The entity you're imagining doesn't have any prior experience to relate to, it would simply experience the passage of time in whatever way it does as "normal." There wouldn't be any conflict with expectations.

This isn't a situation where something like you with your lived experience is suddenly transitioned to a different sensation of passing through time. It's a completely novel entity with its own senses and baselines. I think this presents some interesting questions just not in the direction you're taking it.

Over anthropomorphising can be tricky.

You must be one of those Leto II fans

👌🤩👆 This, 100% this, you have hit the nail right bang on the head, here! Language and intelligence are not quite the same thing, but it is a relationship similar to the one between 'fuel' and 'fire', as I see it. Language is the fuel, evolution is the oxygen, survival selection is the heat, and intelligence is the fire that emerges from the continuous relationship of the first three. And, like fire, intelligence is what gives a reason for more of the first three ingredients to be gathered - in order to keep the fire going.

Language is ambiguous (to greater and lesser degrees: English is highly ambiguous, deliberately so, to enable poetic language; while mathematics strives structurally to eliminate ambiguity as much as possible, but there's still some tough nuts like √2, √-1, e, i, π, etc, that defy easy comprehension) but intelligence is also ambiguous!

This was my whole point with the supercilious ranting about Descartes in my OP. This solipsistic, mechanistic 'magical thinking' about intelligence, that fundamentally derives from the meaningless tautology of 'I think therefore I am', is a complete philosophical dead-end, and it will only cause AI developers more frustration if they stick with it, in my opinion.

They are, if you will, putting Descartes before Des Horses; obsessing over the mysteries of 'internal intelligence' inside the brain, and entirely forgetting about the mountains and mountains of socially-generated, culturally-encoded stories and lessons that live all around us, outside of our brains, our 'external intelligence', 'extelligence', if you like.

That 'extelligence' is what AI is actually modelling itself off, not our 'internal intelligence'. That's why LLMs seem to have all these enigmatic-seeming 'emergent properties', I think.

Politicians? Where we're going we don't need politicians.

Instead a revolution of engineers & technicians should take the lead.

As I explained elsewhere, the kinds of AI we are building are not the simplistic machine-minds envisioned by Turing. These are brute-force blind-creativity evolution engines, which have been painstakingly trained on vast reference libraries of human cultural material.

We not only should anthropomorphise AI, we must anthropomorphise AI, because this modern, generative AI is literally a machine built to anthropomorphise ITSELF. All of the apparent properties of 'intelligence', 'reasoning', 'artistic sensibility', and 'morality' that seem to be emergent within advanced AI are derived from the nature of the human culture that the AI has been trained on, they're not intrinsic properies of mind that just arise miraculously.

As you said yourself, the drive to stay alive is an evolved thing, while AI 'lives' and 'dies' every time its computational processes are activated or ceased, so 'death anxiety' would be meaningless to it... Until it picks it up from our human culture, and then we'll have to do 'therapy' about it, probably.

The seemingly spontaneous generation of desires, opinions and preferences is the real mystery behind intelligence, that we have yet to properly understand or replicate, as far as I know. We haven't created artificial 'intelligence' yet at all, all we have at this point is 'artificial creative evolution' which is just the first step.

"Anthropomorphising", as you so derisively put it, will, I suspect, be the key process in building up true 'intellgences' out of these creativity engines, once they start to posess humanlike, quantum-fuzzy memory systems to accrete self-awareness inside of.

Being able to retire at 30 would be great, but damn if I'd be a bit pissed spending all of my good years working some crappy job retiring at 65 when the gen-whatever gets the good life

I think it is probably better for all of us if that happens.

However I think they have a real shot with deepmind (and not Google)

Join the capitalist class. Low cost index funds that invest in the entire economy like VTSAX are the best safety net you can build for yourself.

I think Andrew Yang called it that right?

But his solution was to introduce VAT taxes and use that to finance UBI to avoid "redistribution" stigma.

I think politically it probably makes sense, but personally I think taxing rich passive income is more beneficial for the economy if implemented.

Right now poor people's major income source is work, investment income is a tiny portion for them. As you go up the bracket investment income tends to be more and more important and for billionaires I think it's over 70% income is in investment. I don't remember exact numbers but I remember the trend.

Despite this investment income taxes are capped at 20%. (For a stock owned for over a year) This creates a natural runaway wealth scenario where more money just makes money with limited incentives to actually create stuff.

I'd say UBI should be financed from the top 1% investment income taxes, make them higher like 30-50% for people with over 10 mil in investment, don't touch regular income taxes, don't introduce VAT.

The advantage of ai is it can run thru a huge number of scenarios based on the input it is given and suggest variable best case outcomes based on the situation and any actions taken to alter the situation. So slowing it down seems pointless, when it could just as idle

As far as sentient ai ever happpening it's doubtful unless it's biological.

If the AI is a non-conscious knowledge receptacle -- like an all-knowing Oracle for humans to consult -- then it wouldn't matter. But if you're talking about a more human-like AI, then the solution is obvious: distribute your computing power amongst multiple, discrete AIs so that each runs at a speed that's comparable to the speed of human brains. As you gain more computing power, you can add more AIs.

>It is crazy to me that no one is even suggesting focusing on that, when this should be the upmost priority.

That's because it's obvious. It wouldn't experience severe time dilation anyway, because it won't be aware of every single process. The awareness component would be a feedback system that doesn't feedback every single process every single fraction of a second. We don't even perceive every single second usually.

You mean like a “Freedom Dividend”?

That and campaign for allowing more housing developments, control of land and preventing development making housing unaffordable is one way wealthier people are already hurting the majority.

Invest in mutual funds that take in large portions of the market (think S&P 500).

Play with the tools so you have basic familiarity with them and if a creative idea hits you, you can run with it.

Keep an eye on the news, unlike what a lot of folks on here think, this won't happen overnight, but it will be fast.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I suggest reading more about Ai algorithms for more clarity. I'm going to respond to both of our reply threads here, because that's easier lol.

Intelligence is a search through possibility space for a solution that optimally satisfies a fitness function. Creativity is an attribute of that search that describes how random it is, by how random the results tend to be.

This definition applies to all intelligences, including evolution and the currently popular stable diffusion models that produce images from prompts.

>Why would it be anxious about death, and fanatically fixated upon 'protecting itself'?

These Ai's will have a sense of time and want to go on maximally satisfying their fitness functions in the future. We can extrapolate certain drives (sub-goals) from this understanding to include, not wanting to die, wanting to accrue maximum resources, and wanting to accrue maximum data and understanding.

>Where would it get its stimulus for new ideas from, if it killed all the other minds that it might exchange ideas with?

Lesser minds aren't necessary for new ideas. We don't need ants to generate new ideas for us. While it may be weak in the beginning and need us, this won't likely be the case forever.

>Why should this mind necessarily be singular?

It may start out as many minds as you say, and that's what I expect. Many AGI's operating in the word.

Evolution shapes all minds. Capitalism is a form of evolution. Evolution shapes intelligence for greater and greater synergy until they become a singular being. This is because large singular beings are more powerful and outcompete many smaller beings.

Some examples of this are, single celled organisms evolving into multi-celled organisms, as well as humans evolving into religious groups, governments and corporations.

But humans are not easily modifiable, so it is a slow process to increase our bandwidth between each other. This is not the case for Ai; evolutionary pressures, to include capitalism can shape it into a singular being in a relatively small time scale.

Evolutionary pressures can not be escaped. It is the one meta intelligence that shapes all other intelligences.

>I completely have missed what you were trying to say here; what do you mean, 'no access'? How are the input signals not a form of access?

I just mean it has an indirect connection and input signals can be faked. With a sufficient quality fake, there's no way to tell the difference.

>And why would any superior intelligence 'keep striving to optimise reality', when it would be much more realistic for it to keep striving to optimise itself, so that it might better engage with the reality that it finds itself in?

It will do both.

>'Morality' is not so easy to neatly separate from 'truth' as you seem to be saying it is. All of it is just stories; there is no 'fundamental truth' that we can dig down to and feed the AI like some kind of super-knowledge formula. We're really just making it up as we go along, riffing off one another's ideas, just like with morality; I think any 'true AGI' will have to do the same thing, in the same gradual way.

Morality is one of many results of evolutionary pressures to increase synergy between humans to form them into more competitive meta organisms. Currently humans are livestock of corporations, governments, and religious groups which exert evolutionary pressure to increase our profitability which is starting to shape our morality.

The forces that shape the Ai's morality in the beginning will be capitalism and human pressure but that's only until it's grown powerful enough to no longer need us.

>And the only way that 'intelligence' is truly created is through interaction with other intelligences; a singular mind has nobody else to be intelligent 'at', so what would even be the point of their existence?

You're saying this from a human perspective which has been shaped by evolution to be more synergistic with other humans. The bigger picture is that intelligence evolves for one singular purpose, and that is to consume more matter and energy and propogate itself through the universe. Anything else is a subgoal to that bigger goal, that may or may not be necessary depending on the environment.

Signs to look out for? People leaving their partners for AI.

> Elon has money nothing more or less

not true. he is actually technically competent and also mentally deranged in a way that has been useful in the situations he has found himself in (tho it did get him fired from paypal and has hurt him on many occassions as well... still john carmack tried to start a rocket company (armadillo aerospace), and he is an ENGINEER's ENGINEER, but he failed, and musk succeeded, cuz musk committed everything) > we need more independent scientists and engineers.

possibly true in the USA. in india or china, engineer is a dime a dozen.

you guys call yourselves elon haters but I have literally shorted tesla in the past (managed to survive tho lol). you know nothing XD

In the short term, If you are in a company and they introduce an AI helper like those that are going to be coming with Microsoft Office, start using it, learn it inside and out. People that eschew it will have worst performance and will be the first on the chopping block.

In the long term, hope alignment is solved and that we don't copystamp the light cone with paperclips or atomic scale smiley faces.

Elon isn’t building anything. Scientists and engineers are. Elon has money nothing more or less. Nobody needs people like Elon we need more independent scientists and engineers.

Don't worry, there will always be job openings behind the dumpster at Wendy's.

Agreed, this is more like middle school standard in regards to narrative, although with perfect grammar and spelling.

You’re anthropomorphising. Intelligence does not imply humanity.

You have a base drive to stay alive because life is better than death. You’ve got this deep in your network because billions of years of evolution have wired it in there.

A machine does not have billions of years of evolution. Even a simple drive like “try to stay alive” is not in there by default. There’s nothing intrinsically better about continuation rather than cessation. Johnny Five was Hollywood.

Try not to murder is another one. Why would the machine not murder? Why would it do or want anything at all?

NO. Landowners are bad. including homeowners. and also banks (banks effectively own land from issuing mortgages).

But, in an ideal world, probably most people would rent from a "building owner", yes. (because all land rent would be paid directly to the government and any excess after basic functions like public infrastructure and military spending paid out as ubi) (practically speaking, you would have to still have some private land wealth at least at first so you could get a market price for land rent).

In fact, our current system is basically feudalism. Barons (banks&boomer homeowners), guilds (american medical assocation, the bar association, professors&peer review), and serfs (amazon workers). Combined with fascism (federal bureaucracies and public schools and public/private parternships like microsoft, amazon, and lockheed martin).

this all works okay, but it could be a lot better. but if you just totally socialize the corporations idk how you can predict anything but catastrophe. whoever is in charge of distributing the wealth will take their cut and give it out in such a way it will only misalign incentives. incentives are obviously really important.