Submitted by [deleted] t3_zu2c0y in singularity
Frumpagumpus t1_j1h30ii wrote
Reply to comment by a4mula in So… Do you guys want to form a cult? by [deleted]
a war is one way to characterize it, i see it more as communities form, enclaves form, inevitably, as a result of the communication constraint that distance creates.
even in a microprocessor different parts of the chip will have their own memories, registers, caches.
a4mula t1_j1h3a7t wrote
I'd advise you read The Selfish Gene, or at least have ChatGPT talk to you about the power of memes as described not by 4chan, but by Dawkins.
The power of memes. That's the power of these machines.
Because I can develop an idea. One that is very powerful in its own right. And then I can spend as many hours as I choose with a machine that will offer me expert guidance on how to make it a viral weapon that would be all but impossible to discount.
I'd shave from it all little objections. I'd make it logical and rational, and very difficult to combat.
And it wouldn't matter if the idea was of benefit to society or not.
The machine doesn't care, only I do.
Frumpagumpus t1_j1h3l82 wrote
i think dawkins selfish gene hypothesis is mostly wrong.
biological systems are in programming terms, function factories and not functions themselves.
They don't have discrete goals, just constraints. They amble along in a higher dimensional "goal space".
but yes I'm sure there will be some better scissor statements.
similar to your worry but what I would be more worried about is someone using a programming AI to develop a family of viruses that almost simultaneously encrypt all computer memory on the planet lol. as far as existential risks go.
a4mula t1_j1h3qlq wrote
Many people have objected to Dawkins over the years, but never has anyone proposed anything that effectively negates his thoughts.
Agree or disagree, that's alright. Again, personal views don't really matter.
This isn't about the book. Just the idea of memes as presented in the book, and I've never found anyone that has ever challenged him in that regard.
Frumpagumpus t1_j1h3vrj wrote
i dont think you understood my take then, unfortunately i dont have a timestamp for you but basically I agree with this biologist by the name of michael levin.
https://youtu.be/p3lsYlod5OU?t=1946 maybe around here
a4mula t1_j1h4u4v wrote
I'd not challenge your beliefs. We're all free to see this reality however it is we'd like.
Yet, if you're embedding beliefs into these machines, they will only amplify them.
Instead, we should be promoting principles that all stakeholders can agree are beneficial.
Inviting everyone to join, I don't care what your beliefs are. Be Muslim, Be Christian, Be Atheist, Be Conservative, Be Liberal, Be whatever it is you are.
Those things don't matter anymore, and if we make them matter. These machines will ensure they do, and not in ways that are healthy to all stakeholders.
Frumpagumpus t1_j1kftsb wrote
since I am obsessive autist i hope u dont mind if i circle back to this, let me rephrase,
I think selfish gene hypothesis is kind of like saying the purpose of a computer virus is to replicate some snippet of assembly code it compiles to. I mean yes, it does that, but the purpose of the virus is probably better described as "steal your bank password"
it's not a perfect analogy because biology is actually more complicated and actually has more layers of abstraction, and there is actually more indirection and competition between the goals of the layers (e.g. maybe something like dna -> rna -> proteins -> bioelectrical and chemical signaling environment -> collections of cells -> organs -> organism -> population -> ecosystem), a similar hieararchy in a computer might be like processor -> assembly code -> thread -> daemon/service -> operating system -> network (but a computer is more deterministic and aligned and straightforward than a biological system) (just cuz something is at the lowest level doesnt mean it gets the final say on what the purpose of the whole is)
a4mula t1_j1mmm6q wrote
We could spend a lifetime expressing our personal perspectives only in the end to realize that we're saying the same things. Just from different perspectives.
Separate yourself from this. It's a waste of time.
Respect all perspectives but leave them at the personal level.
Instead rise above that personal level to one in which the scale is that of the stakeholder.
At that scale, personal perspectives are irrelevant. Because they will always be conflicting, and personal, and open for interpretation, and ambiguous.
Instead focus on principles that all stakeholders can agree upon.
You widen your potential audience and narrow those that would fight and disagree considerably.
This is the new paradigm of thought moving forward. Individual perspective is respected, it's welcomed, it's required.
But it's not going to be what dictates the technology, and if it is. We're all fucked pretty badly. All stakeholders.
Frumpagumpus t1_j1mn38y wrote
> ambiguous
> Instead focus on principles that all stakeholders can agree upon.
idk even in math zfc axiom set is not universally used and some basic axioms like axiom of choice are considered controversial and thats about as low level/universal as you could possibly get
a4mula t1_j1mp28r wrote
You're a considerate person. So I share a complex consideration with you, because I respect that you're considerate.
Ideologies can fundamentally be seen as rulesets. They're a type of legislation of the mind.
Rulesets have only one purpose. That is to limit the potential space of outcomes.
Rules confine systems.
The problem with confining potential outcomes in this manner is that if the only actual solution to a problem resides outside of the space that is being constrained by the rule. It's never reached.
I was raised Christian. I am no longer, but I do respect the beliefs because I try my best to respect all beliefs.
In that ideology, and religions aren't the only kind. There are rules. Not just the commandments of God. Many rules that are more subtle, less defined, but rules none the less.
Concepts like the sanctity of life.
Only God can arbitrate what lives and dies. We're already in conflict with that rule with our very existence. After all, we require sustenance. Food.
So we change the rule to fit our personal definition. Maybe that's animal life. Maybe it's only human life. But we arbitrarily determine it, because we must. We must end life at some level to maintain our own.
It's a flawed concept that introduces rules that are ill defined and ambiguous.
Sanctity of Life isn't the only subtle rule. There's also rules about what is required to secure a desired afterlife.
Talk about ambiguous. Do I need to consume flesh? Do I need to be submerged? Do I have to virally spread the belief system?
This is not to offer anything other than consideration to the fact that as rules grow, become more complex, become more abstract, become more ambiguous:
The only real outcome is that the potential space for actions that remain within the rules is limited in greater and greater ways.
This is true of all ideologies.
Not as much with principles.
Principles are not complex. They're much less ambiguous.
Logic, Rationality, Minimization of bias, Fairness, Equity, Critical Thought.
They're well-defined principles that are less complex, and allow for much more freedom of potential outcomes, while remaining beneficial to all.
Frumpagumpus t1_j1mqw9q wrote
thanks for compliment, merry xmas,
to me principle -> rule as is theory -> implementation
agents traverse space, agents doesn't have ability to traverse all of space, also some parts of space will end agent, some traversals are not fair or logical
a4mula t1_j1mvkt5 wrote
Rules are important, otherwise there is no convergence of complexity. Consider Conway's Game of Life. Without rules it's just random interactions, with no potential benefit.
Yet, with simple rules these cellular automata hop to life. Every rule you add however, limits the possible configurations that the system can physically exist in.
I find it compelling to consider that according to the Old Testament there is only a single example of God providing Direct rules.
The original ten commandments.
It's an interesting story. The first tablets were created by God directly. From the the mind of God, through God's own fingers the laws were carved.
But Moses destroyed those tablets in rage when he saw what his fellow believers were up to in his absence.
Of course, he returned to God, probably quite ashamed of this ultimate form of blasphemy. After all, never before had God (nor since) interacted directly with humans in this way.
The tablets were a physical manifestation of God's will, with no interpretation of man at all.
God instructed Moses to reconstruct those laws. Through the hand of man. Through Moses' own interpretation.
I often wonder how closely those sets of tablets would align. Was it only the handwriting that was changed?
Or does this story contain a deeper message? A symbolic one?
One that is telling us quite clearly, that any rule of God, is by default a rule that has been interpreted only via man.
That's an important distinction after all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments