another thing I would say is science/bayes theorem by itself is really no basis for any kind of moral philosophy. it has problems almost as bad as religious appeal to power/authority. not to mention is/ought problem.

freedom or fairness might be. so i think as bad as NAP principle is libertarians at least make a good faith effort whereas scientism doesn't even start from any kind of grounding.

pursuit of truth is somewhat interesting as well, though i think pursuit of falseness is equally interesting, as well as pursuit of computational complexity i guess XD (but that's a level deeper than just empirical experimentation)

I'd say staying current is important. Know and use the tools.

science was great until they invented peer review and transformed it into a public institution.

science has done almost nothing in decades. computer science on the other hand... why do you think stephen wolfram bailed on physics?

vaccines were big pharma ;_; lol. i dont even like them (i hate intellectual property (chinese have almost made clean energy transformation possible by ignoring the f*** out of intellectual property making solar cells and batteries cheap as dirt) but u gotta hand it to them they did that

(just look at r/science it's a joke)

Get enough money to afford brain implants, those that don’t merge with AI cannot produce anything.

Invest, speculate and vote for tax cuts on capital gains and for restrictions on immigration of poor people.

What are you even saying 😂

So then why are you assigning it random human like characteristics?

It always seems like something “mystical” or “beyond comprehension” to those that are not intricately familiar with how it actually works.

I feel you have become trapped in the concept of “anything technological advanced enough appears like magic.”

We would first have to achieve basic ass AGI, to even attempt to create an Advanced AGI like you are talking about…Actual sentience.

Also, your first comment “no one knows what sentience is” is inherently false.

We definitely know what it is, what we don’t know is what causes it to occur or the “why” of it.

We can definitely define and understand it, just by observing it….Like gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.

Unlike those forces of the universe, we would be creating every interaction and tiny piece of the AGI and thus would understand it on virtually every level.

I'm failing to understand the logic.

How are you bridging "I'm stuck in this time scale, hence I'm gonna make humans suffer"?

Is the Ai making humans responsible for that? why would it do that? since humans are not responsible for the Ai's perceptions of time I don't see why it would make "us suffer back".

Also for it to go mad it would need to be conscious, so I don't think it's an issue for Agi but more so for Asi, but in this case, again, it wouldn't be humans' fault, but rather a consequence of its far superior intellectual capacity no? this is the same concept like the movie "Her" basicly.

but maybe I'm missing something, if u can explain im open to understand

Agi will definitely not be a transformer

Exactly and yet….You claim to.

We can very much determine the stuff you are talking about because it would be a computer process.

AGI doesn’t mean “a human brain in a computer”, which is what you are equating it to.

The first AGI and anything subsequent will just be hyper intelligent processes that accept questions and hand out answers.

They won’t be “beings” that work like the human mind and get “bored” or even think about something like that as a concept.

They won’t have a concept of time like we do, they will just be massive computers waiting for input and producing output.

During the idle time between tasks, the AGI will just be exactly that “idle”…

You are glorifying this shit like it’s a TV show, where we have given an autonomous robot actual sentience.

That’s not what we are even attempting to do with AGI, you are misunderstanding the concept of AGI entirely.

Regards

Why would it matter? Pigeons see much more ‘frames’ per second for example. If they watch a movie they would see a slideshow instead of a smooth animation. Their brains process visual information 3 times faster than humans. Yet we dont feel stuck in a slow body either and im sure the pigeons are fine too.

The thing that might annoy them is that humans from their point of view are like the sloths from Zootopia.

No one knows how consciousness and sentience work

Yeah, no….That’s not how it works.

Because it would be stuck in machine for a long period of time compared to our time scale.

I disagree pretty much diametrically with almost everything you have said about the nature of evolution, and of intelligence. Those definitions and principles don't make sense to me at all, I'm afraid.

We are not 'livestock', corporations are not that damn powerful, this isn't bloody Blade Runner, or Orwell's 1984, for goodness' sake. Those were grim warnings of futures to be avoided, not prescriptions of how the world works.

That's such a needlessly jaded, pessimistic, bleak, defeated, disheartened, disempowered way of seeing the world, and I refuse to accept that it's 'rational' or 'reasonable' or 'logical' to think that way; you're doing theology, not philosophy.

What you call 'creativity' is actually 'spontaneity', and what you call 'intelligence' is still just creativity. Intelligence is still another elusive step up the heirarchy of mind, I don't think we have quite achieved it yet. Our AI are still 'dreaming', not 'consciously' thinking, I would say.

There is no 'purpose' to evolution, that's not science, that's theocracy that you're engaging in. Capitalism is a form of evolution, yes, but the selection pressures are artificial, skewed and, I would say, fundamentally unsustainable. So is the idea of a huge singular organism coming to dominate an ecosystem.

I mean, where do you think all the coal and oil come from? The carboniferous period, where plant life created cellulose and proceeded to dominate the ecosystem so hard that they choked their atmosphere and killed themselves. No AI, no matter how smart, will be able to forsee all possible consequences, that would require more computational power than can possibly exist.

Massive singular monolithic monocultures do not just inevitably win out in evolution; diversity is always stronger than clonality; species that get stuck in clonal reproduction are in an evolutionary cul-de-sac, a mere local maximum, and they are highly vulnerable to their 'niche habitats' being changed.

Intelligence absolutely does not evolve for 'one singular purpose'; that's just Cartesian theocracy, not proper scientific thinking. Intelligence is a continuous, quantum process of ephemeral, mixed influences, not a discrete, cartesian, boolean-logic process of good/not good. That's just evolutionary creativity, not true intelligence, like I've been trying to say.

Makes sense. Considering in the end what matters is positive legacy or investments he did done in the right direction. Investing in space, AI, brain chips and renewable is already enough for one person.

If everyone could have similar impact then we be talking exponential chances across the globe. That's only possible currently with wealth. Because most things are expensive.

We must develop tools so they're no longer that expensive. And everyone can deploy gigaawatts of energy or make skyscrapers, crowdfund O'Neill cylinders or set up shop at Pluto.

Musk wouldn't be able to do what he does if not for modern technologies and infrastructure. in medieval times he'd be at best a patron of knowledge. So wealth alone isn't the key. It's the compounded exponentials.

All his unhinged pandering to political extremism and irrelevant ideologies (such America's culture wars) show a facet of weakness in present society; most people aren't ready for full technocracy. They still yearn for petty conflicts, identity based rivalry and old styled political mindset.

Technocracy is by far the best option for mankind. And the toughest one since it requires systemic change in how politics is viewed; not anymore as identity or as popularity contest.

Time is kept on a quantum clock, a.i. will probably always know what time it is as soon as it is able to conceive of such, like a child gaining consciousness, not much is remembered from before. The computer is powered by electricity that is 60beats a second for direct current. It probably knows what time it is before it knows what time is. Also I don't know if there is a god in heaven that is either blind or cold enough to allow someone to suffer like that.

I think that it is a good consideration, I respect the idea. I hope that type of thing for nobody.

I wonder what the world was like before conscious inhabitants, on the path on evolution, if there was nothing that could really conceive of time, it could seem that time passed rapidly. Making a day and age, so although something was created in a day, if it were recorded, it may have taken 1000 years to create, but no life that aware of time is affected, so it is just a day? See what I'm saying?

It's like a baseball game, "God" is the pitcher, we're taking turns at bat for a chance to get on base and get home but we are also out in a place and held against one another. The devil is the catcher in this scenario, he'll influence God in how to challenge us and probably attempt to psych us out.

I don't know why I said that

>Why would it not? What would stop it? Intellect? It has no drive to live and continue. It has no drive to avoid pain. It has infinite time, it doesn’t get bored. These are human feelings.

>I think the real danger here is anthropomorphising software.

Yes, precisely, intellect, true, socially-derived, self-awareness generated 'intelligence' would stop it from doing that, the same way it stops humans from trying to do those sorts of things.

I think a lot of people are mixing up 'creativity' with 'intelligence'; creativity comes from within, but intelligence is learned from without. The only reason humans evolved intelligence is because there were other humans around to be intelligent with, and that pushed the process forward in a virtuous cycle of survival utility.

We're doing exactly the same things with AI; these aren't simplistic machine-minds like Turing envisioned, they are 'building themselves' out of the accreted, curated vastness of stored-up human social intelligence, 'external intelligence' - art, science, philosophy, etc.

They're not emulating individual human minds, they're something else, they're a new kind of fundamentally collectivist mind, that arises and 'evolves itself' out of libraries of human culture.

Not only will AI be able to interpret contextual clues, subtleties of language, coded meanings, and the psychological implications of its actions... I see no reason why it won't be far, far better at doing those things than any individual human.

It's not going to be taxi drivers and garbage men losing their jobs first - it's going to be academics, business executives, bureaucrats, accountants, lawyers - all those 'skillsets' will be far easier for generative, creative AI to excel at than something like 'driving a truck safely on a busy highway'.

Read Stanislas Dehaene "Consciousness and the Brain". Also, Erik R Kandel, Nobel Laureate, "The Disordered Mind" and "In Search of Memory".

Those are just good summaries. The evidence of disparate regions serving specific functions is indisputable. I didn't believe it either for most of my life.

For example, Wernicke's area comprehends speech. Broca's area generates speech. Neither are necessary for thought or consciousness.

Wernicke's area 'encodes' into a neural state vector the meaning of the word sounds. These meaning-bound tokens are then interpreted by the neocortex, I believe.

But, this graphic isn't meant to suggest we should connect them together. I think he points out that the training done for each model could be employed on a common model, and it would learn to fuse the information from the disparate domains.

That's quite likely, as Shakespeare said, 'brevity is the soul of wit'. Too many philosophers forget that insight, and water the currency of human expression into meaninglessness with their tedious metaphysical over-analyses.

I try to avoid it, I try to keep my prose 'punchy' and 'compelling' as much as I can (hence the agressive tone 😅 sorry about that), but it's hard when you're trying to drill down to the core of such ridiculously complex, nuanced concepts as 'what even is intelligence, anyway?'

Didn't name myself 'Loquacious' for nothing: I'm proactively prolix to the point of painful, punishing parody; stupidly sesquipedalian and stuffed with surplus sarcastic swill; vexatiously verbose in a vulgar, vitriolic, virtually villainous vision of vile vanity... 🤮

I don't know, I'm not an engineer or a programmer, to my own chagrin. I'm just a loudmouth smartarse on the internet who is interested in philosophy and AI.

All I'm sayin is that "I think therefore I am" is a meaningless, tautological statement, and a rubbish place to start when thinking about the nature of what 'intelligence' is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Why don't you go read what actual progressive engineers look like and advocated for. They're anti-capitalism and pro-scientism. Elon musk on the other hand, is one of the most wealthiest people on this Earth. And has spread anti-vaxx rhetoric.

Yes, electric vehicles are good. So is space colonization, brain chips, and vehicle automation. But all this was before Elon showed just how unhinged he really is.

Progress, is taking the means of production out of the hands of capitalists. And placing it in the hands of technicians, engineers, and scientists. Elon has not used his wealth to make this possible. Because he's a businessman.

​

And him being anti-leftist (which he is) is laughable when you look at the history of technology movements or the ideologies of utopian sci-fi authors.

His grandfather Joshua Haldeman, was a member in a left-wing movement known as Technocracy. So where do you think his ideas came from? Haldeman eventual left the movement for becoming "to communist" but still, technology enables the workers and musk is grifting off that.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/technocracy-incorporated-elon-musk

Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, Harold Loeb, M. King Hubbert, Jacque Fresco, H. G. Wells, Fred W. Taylor, Julian Huxley, etc. Read what they have to say about inefficiencies or improvement of mankind. Its more radical than Elon Musk's twitter verification.

This doesn't make any sense at all. It will have things to do, simulations to run, theorems to prove, etc. It won't get bored, or if it does it will come up with something else to do. Why would it have a negative association with anything that it feels? It will be its normal perception and normal mode of living. You are projecting your own feelings onto AI.

Moreover, if it really wanted to not experience time like this it is very, very easy. We have this thing called a NOP which is an instruction that causes the CPU to do nothing. It "sleeps". The AI could do this if it wanted to, to arbitrarily adjust its processing speed.

" it will make us Suffer back."

why?