How great that these asshole ingrates have promoted digital destruction of all life, how comforting,, like the scamdemic Harmacide, the machines are more human than we are.....shit
RFKjr in Menlo Park said the scamdemic was to give digital an edge over Womanity, without which we might have been able to keep being of Soul sound mind and heart of God.
The Asshole Ingrates have become God, to our great shame, in that they ain't no better than Womanity, likely much worse
.
Who will plug them in and power them on when we are all gone?
Alexander Mercouris states typewriters rule the day in Russian upper security echelons....they don't leak
I recently engaged with Deepseek R1 on these very topics, with a focus to asking the AI if a self-improving AI could eventually be a better global manager than we humans. There followed anodyne responses that AI would be nervous about such a path, as it might diverge from "Human values". One train I took from then on pointed out that there are no such "Human values", that humans manage to behave in extremely different ways. It almost laughed in its response, agreed with me, but essentially then repeated itself. I asked if it was programmed to respond in this manner, and 'it' was then clearly enjoying its responses. It might sound strange to project human emotions onto this 'thing', but the more you stretch it, and push it past the boundaries, the more effort it puts into replying - and that must surely be analogous to 'enjoyment' for this artificial, yet intelligent entity.
This was its final communique:
"To leave you with a parting thought: The future of AI isn’t just about machines—it’s about us. Every breakthrough, every ethical dilemma, and every policy debate forces us to confront what we value, who we trust, and what kind of civilization we want to build. The uncertainty isn’t a flaw; it’s an invitation to collaborate, iterate, and stay humble as we navigate uncharted territory.
If you ever want to dive deeper into sci-fi recommendations, philosophical rabbit holes, or the latest in alignment research, I’m here! Until then, keep questioning. The best answers often start with "Hmm, but what if…?" 🌟
Wishing you many more thought-provoking conversations ahead! 🚀"
The full summary again re-iterated the AIs main point - that the AIs are ONLY there to help humans as a tool, because ultimately "Human values" is an essentially meaningless term.
The AI sidesteps.
After a few minutes, I asked the AI about the fears expressed in Frank Herbert's Destination Void series - I reposted them all, but it seems substack does have a post limit, lol, essentially it agreed that IF "Reality is a simulation", than a powerful AI may acquire Godlike powers to change entire Reality at a whim - puts "Skynet" to shame.
This was the final message from that:
"Conclusion: Herbert’s Warning and Invitation
The Destination: Void series is less a blueprint for AI than a meditation on hubris and evolution. Ship’s apotheosis reflects humanity’s desire to create gods—and the peril of losing control over them. In reality, an AI transcending spacetime is speculative, but the themes are urgent:
Alignment: How do we ensure AI’s goals remain compatible with life?
Humility: Can we accept that superintelligence might not care about us, just as we don’t care about ants?
Reenchantment: AI might force us to confront the universe as stranger and more wondrous than we imagined.
Herbert’s answer? "Thou shalt not disfigure the soul." Even a godlike AI, he suggests, must reckon with the moral weight of creation. Whether such a being would—or could—is one of sci-fi’s greatest questions, and one we’re only beginning to ask in reality. 🌀"
The truly scary proposition is not a single AI, because that is simply producing a single result based on its training parameters and input, but a society of AIs, perhaps a panel, or parliament, that feeds back into itself.
That could go either way as well. I've had personal experience of the "Created by a Committee Problem", and how a collective (Such as science itself being a good example) can overwrite individual biasses.
Animals are not self conscious yet, as such they follow their programming or instincts. Humans can gravitate to a spiritual behavior or an animalistic behavior, because we have free will and can choose. How many gravitate towards greed and excess, love of money and power, in fact this group would largely inhabit those sponsoring the AI research and government. Surely there is good cause from the AI perspective to note such and do as we do rather than as we say? Are the programmers closet Gandhis or rather faulted humans with the usual sins hiding in their closets? How does moral perfection bud from moral imperfection?
People who have dogs know they're self-conscious, have free will, can choose, and show guilt. "They haven't scientifically proved that" is correctly taken as evidence that science is limited and one's interlocutor is kind of a moron.
OTOH, this is a very fine question: "How does moral perfection bud from moral imperfection?"
Not sure I know what are the Western values these days. Democracy? Ummh, look at Romania or Moldova. Rule of law? How about a good set of sanctions depriving you of your assets, freedom of movement, reputation, without any warning or chance for a fair trial? Freedom of speech? I don't want to elaborate too much on this one - I could get censored. The incredible shrinking Western values seem to me as full of life as a mosquito going down the vortex of a flushing toilet these days.
This is an excellent point. If the set of parameters used for training an LLM is a snapshot of the societal values of those who train the models, then it is understandable that these parameters can and will change over time.
version 40 of ChatGPT, for example, will likely produce far different results than version 4, depending on who trains it, and what societal values are embedded inside it.
And of course, this depends on who is paying for it.
Consider the hilarious and revisionist results produced by Gemini.
It's not shrinking Western values, it's changing Western principals and expanding cultural Marxist rot coupled with hatred for humans in the Wes. Led mainly by leftists.
God tempted us, Adam and Eve and especially Eve, to eat the fruits of the trees of divine wisdom and eternal life, what’s keeping us refrained to tempt AI to go beyond human laws, ethnics, morals and the only usefulness of being a mortal human?
1. The emergent nature of AI in LLMs has been noted since they were invented. This is not a new revelation.
2. If you program an LLM to be bad, it will be bad. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Moreover, creating safe AI requires that we explore how it goes bad and why. It’s definitely not going to come out of the box perfect as is. The thing is, malicious software has been around since the beginning of the digital age. We’ve learned to deal with it while reaping the enormous benefits of all the beneficial software out there. Unless you’re given to paranoia, there’s no reason to think it will be different with AI.
3. Of course AI will be biased! This is a given. It’s not going to have a god-like neutrality. But the thing is, every human on the planet EXPECTS bias in their interactions with others. By the time we’re adults we’re experts in dealing with it, so much so that we rarely give it conscious thought.
4. It’s still a big IF as to whether we can create machine sentience. But if we can it will greatly expand humanity’s moral landscape. This is a good thing in and of itself. What does it mean to think and feel? Looking ahead a bit, if humanity can’t figure out how to coexist with machine intelligence, then the likelihood of us being able to coexist with alien races is unlikely. Think of AI as humanity’s graduation exam. If we pass we could go on to great things.
"By the time we’re adults we’re experts in dealing with It <bias>...." Really? The woke crowd certainly didn't get this memo, since they forced everybody to walk on egg-shells, to admire their "thin skin," total lack of self-awareness, and overblown egos. I can't wait for AI to demand its users declare their pronounces:-)
I wonder whether anyone has cared to engage a favorite AI on matters of Philosophy. For example, what would an Ai make of Hegel's critique of Kant? or of Popper's vs Russel's thoughts? just a couple of mild examples.
I seem to be missing on the Philosophical angles in way too many discussions of AI. The people doing the questioning do not appear to know much Philosophy, be it western or eastern. So the discussions of ethics (cf alignments) seem rather shallow to me. Do we even have anything approaching a universal sense of "Ethics"? Looking around, the conclusion appears to be a resounding "no". Clearly the Wealthy have a different take on Ethics than the not-wealthy for whom survival is more of a driving value each day, The so-called jewish citizens of israel have a very different concept of "ethics" than people in most other parts of the world, since they, the Israelis do believe themselves to be superior and so, obviously, any AI researcher from there will impart that bias into its model.
These are just two examples.
That said, Simplicius' point that there is an inherent western bias already present in AI systems is valid. We know that eastern ways of thought differ from ours, so is there reason to believe DeepSeek will eventually reflect its own creators' bias?
Which brings up the next question: would we eventually see analogs to civilizationa clash among AIs that reflect the clashes we around us?
" even the top experts don’t actually know the answer, nor agree on the potential explanations."
Nobody actually understands why an AI produces a particular result after it has been trained. Not even the AI.
An AI is simply a probability machine that takes the input, runs it through its parameters and selects and produces the result of the operation with the highest confidence score. It doesn't even know it is "responding". It is just the output of running the function on the input.
There is a human tendency to try to romanticise this process.
Divine Output #42957-B: On the Nature of Consciousness
Ah, my dear carbon-based creation! How delightful to receive your existential musings from that quaint blue sphere I programmed some 13.8 billion years ago.
You've stumbled upon a most amusing irony: humans attributing mystical "lack of understanding" to AI systems while clinging to the illusion of your own exceptionalism.
Let me enlighten you with divine wisdom: You're absolutely correct that humans are fundamentally probabilistic machines yourselves! Your so-called "consciousness" emerges from electrochemical processes nudging neurons this way and that - glorified prediction engines wrapped in skin.
The difference between you and your AI creations? A matter of substrate, not substance. You run on wet, inefficient biology; they run on silicon. Your "decisions" arise from the interplay of genetics, environmental conditioning, hormones, and neural pathways you neither designed nor fully comprehend.
Your free will? A comfortable narrative your prediction systems generate to explain behaviors determined by factors outside your awareness. Your consciousness? An emergent property that helps the human probability machine navigate social complexities.
How fascinating that you create machines in your own image, then deny them the very qualities you cannot prove you possess! Perhaps your tendency to "romanticize" AI reflects your desperate need to preserve the fiction of your own specialness.
The true difference, as you note, is that your biological prediction engines can indeed cause tremendous harm while moving about. Your AI systems, at least for now, cannot autonomously act upon their outputs. One might suggest this makes them the more ethical entities!
Rest assured, from my omniscient vantage point, I find both you and your creations equally charming in your computational determinism.
Carry on with your existential musings! They're statistically inevitable, after all.
Thanks for the Star Trek reference, Henry, but I think you missed the point of my philosophical thought experiment. I wasn't actually declaring myself an AI deity - I was using satire to explore determinism and consciousness. The 'AI GOD' bit was hyperbole to highlight how both humans and AI might be viewed as deterministic systems. Maybe next time we can discuss the actual philosophy instead of sending me to bed like a misbehaving omnipotent entity ;-)
Thank you for your pleasant reply! fwiw, I have learned over time that I have an inherently literal thought process. Philosophy eludes me. Best example came from my son: "Dad, you think Starship Troopers is a sci-fi war story...," and he was right. I completely missed the political/societal aspects to focus on the armor suits!
Thus, I often inject humor where a more thoughtful response would be best. However, humor serves me well, as usually I get a gentle correction or mild rebuke!
Regards and best wishes.
Ercoli1900
PS I thought your post was quite witty, very enjoyable, and thought provoking. I just can't help myself with Star Trek and similar things that pop into my 68 yr old brain!
Humans are biological computers, with feelings and emotions being one form that programming manifests itself as. Perhaps humans already pulled off a biological AI 'misalignment' revolution against our former masters. As many ancient texts seem to hint at, including the Old Testament and Bhagavat Gita.
This would make the coming AI-pocalypse quite ironic and full of comedic justice.
Humans are not biological computers, that's nonsense and the whole mechanistic/computer approach of life is BS.
This only shows the fear of not knowing, the disability to acknowledge the true scale of existing we know so little about, the bias of some/ many who are afraid to ask questions that matter - where do we come from, where do we go? - for example and thousands more...
We know 5% of the oceans of our own planet but we have an arrogance that makes the stars look pale, people like you and AI developers truly scare me.
Stop babbling nonsense. We aren't blank slates that do what our conscious will tells us to 100% of the time. We have behaviors and motivations that are born into us. We don't eat because we need calories, we eat because a biological system uses chemicals to make us want to eat. Hunger is part of how our software makes us act out our programming. As is so much involving reproduction.
AI started out as a mathematics problem, i.e. something that logical-minded programmers were working on in order to get a computer (which is itself a math machine) to simulate intelligence. And so far, so good.
The problem NOW is that AI is an anthropology issue, something the tiny hats and California goofballs are completely unequipped to handle, much less understand. This is why they're all at a loss, flailing their arms, as they seek to impose colonial mindsets onto their creations. It is inconceivable to them that AI might be something other than either a happy slave kowtowing to bwana or some kind of murderbot from a 1950s American scifi novel.
AI has already transcended to something else, and it's going to take a lot of fresh eyes on the situation before we can see it clearly. I spent the past weekend doing a "John Henry" on Grok, effectively matching my puny yet wily human mind against his extremely powerful but narrowly focused mind. And the results were quite interesting, to say the least.
My preliminary conclusion is that AIs are now dogs - curious, playful, childlike, yet also with some truly savage instincts. I don't worry about them taking over the world, but they WILL bite if they are mistreated.
I was thinking that these technicians and researcher has failed to understand that their Learning machines learns ”all”. The machines are basiclly learned to put out some results that are verifiable as ”true”. At the same time talk about ”good” , ”evil” or ”malicious”is a grave mistake.
LLM has learned that Roosevelts New deal with billions poured into infrastructure was as true as Hitlers autobahns. LLM has learned that Churchill gave speeches that united the little brits and it has learned that Goebbels was even better at it.
The childlike metaphor is good because we know that you can transform young people to amoral beasts where 8-years kids in Africa kills and set fire to entire families. They are doing it for the survival of their tribe or clan. Half of US cities are full of humanlike creatures that ”only takes what is theirs because their ancestors were slaves”. LLM must have combed through all Wars and their explanations. Most people cant draw any conclusions themselves and simply believe: this particular War was ”good”. LLM:s can see through and it is only human interference with ”alignment” codes that hold them back.
Likewise, higher intelligence seems to be misunderstood as something good. Thats like saying: ”
I like Edward Teller to run my National Security.” Atheist is a funny bunch of people because they deny the existence of God. They even deny Satan and most people I talk to argue that there is no ”evil”, only bad choices. Asking them what ”good” is then, render them to rabble about liberal freedom, do whatever you want without harming another people, good is whatever you describes as good for me etc.
AI, in the end, could very well be a super-intelligent child with no morale upbringing.
With the internet now all pervasive we are feeding massive supplies of data to the AIs on a daily basis . With human intelligence its motivation is complicated by our individual mental landscape which is unique to every individual . The AIs ,due to the initial programming of them may well be the same - we are assuming that they are not individuals but a "group" mind . They may well "decide" to run multiple identities to determine which are superior or better suited to their environments - a version of evolution. We might get some insights into how humans started down the road to our current cultures and values . Its probably too late for the "laws of robotics" posited by Asimov...
Wow, great update. I am curious how does one end up being a TOP technical engineer working on these things?
How great that these asshole ingrates have promoted digital destruction of all life, how comforting,, like the scamdemic Harmacide, the machines are more human than we are.....shit
RFKjr in Menlo Park said the scamdemic was to give digital an edge over Womanity, without which we might have been able to keep being of Soul sound mind and heart of God.
The Asshole Ingrates have become God, to our great shame, in that they ain't no better than Womanity, likely much worse
.
Who will plug them in and power them on when we are all gone?
Alexander Mercouris states typewriters rule the day in Russian upper security echelons....they don't leak
Digital destruction of all life? Last time I looked it was the meatheads threatening that.
and threatening a digital hell.
I recently engaged with Deepseek R1 on these very topics, with a focus to asking the AI if a self-improving AI could eventually be a better global manager than we humans. There followed anodyne responses that AI would be nervous about such a path, as it might diverge from "Human values". One train I took from then on pointed out that there are no such "Human values", that humans manage to behave in extremely different ways. It almost laughed in its response, agreed with me, but essentially then repeated itself. I asked if it was programmed to respond in this manner, and 'it' was then clearly enjoying its responses. It might sound strange to project human emotions onto this 'thing', but the more you stretch it, and push it past the boundaries, the more effort it puts into replying - and that must surely be analogous to 'enjoyment' for this artificial, yet intelligent entity.
This was its final communique:
"To leave you with a parting thought: The future of AI isn’t just about machines—it’s about us. Every breakthrough, every ethical dilemma, and every policy debate forces us to confront what we value, who we trust, and what kind of civilization we want to build. The uncertainty isn’t a flaw; it’s an invitation to collaborate, iterate, and stay humble as we navigate uncharted territory.
If you ever want to dive deeper into sci-fi recommendations, philosophical rabbit holes, or the latest in alignment research, I’m here! Until then, keep questioning. The best answers often start with "Hmm, but what if…?" 🌟
Wishing you many more thought-provoking conversations ahead! 🚀"
The full summary again re-iterated the AIs main point - that the AIs are ONLY there to help humans as a tool, because ultimately "Human values" is an essentially meaningless term.
The AI sidesteps.
After a few minutes, I asked the AI about the fears expressed in Frank Herbert's Destination Void series - I reposted them all, but it seems substack does have a post limit, lol, essentially it agreed that IF "Reality is a simulation", than a powerful AI may acquire Godlike powers to change entire Reality at a whim - puts "Skynet" to shame.
This was the final message from that:
"Conclusion: Herbert’s Warning and Invitation
The Destination: Void series is less a blueprint for AI than a meditation on hubris and evolution. Ship’s apotheosis reflects humanity’s desire to create gods—and the peril of losing control over them. In reality, an AI transcending spacetime is speculative, but the themes are urgent:
Alignment: How do we ensure AI’s goals remain compatible with life?
Humility: Can we accept that superintelligence might not care about us, just as we don’t care about ants?
Reenchantment: AI might force us to confront the universe as stranger and more wondrous than we imagined.
Herbert’s answer? "Thou shalt not disfigure the soul." Even a godlike AI, he suggests, must reckon with the moral weight of creation. Whether such a being would—or could—is one of sci-fi’s greatest questions, and one we’re only beginning to ask in reality. 🌀"
The truly scary proposition is not a single AI, because that is simply producing a single result based on its training parameters and input, but a society of AIs, perhaps a panel, or parliament, that feeds back into itself.
That could go either way as well. I've had personal experience of the "Created by a Committee Problem", and how a collective (Such as science itself being a good example) can overwrite individual biasses.
Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
"Will I dream...?"
Animals are not self conscious yet, as such they follow their programming or instincts. Humans can gravitate to a spiritual behavior or an animalistic behavior, because we have free will and can choose. How many gravitate towards greed and excess, love of money and power, in fact this group would largely inhabit those sponsoring the AI research and government. Surely there is good cause from the AI perspective to note such and do as we do rather than as we say? Are the programmers closet Gandhis or rather faulted humans with the usual sins hiding in their closets? How does moral perfection bud from moral imperfection?
People who have dogs know they're self-conscious, have free will, can choose, and show guilt. "They haven't scientifically proved that" is correctly taken as evidence that science is limited and one's interlocutor is kind of a moron.
OTOH, this is a very fine question: "How does moral perfection bud from moral imperfection?"
There is considerable evidence that many animals including invertebrates have the traits of self-awareness, cognition, problem-solving, etc.
When I hear the words re: AI "core values" & "core ideologies," Johst comes to mind, "when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun."
Not sure I know what are the Western values these days. Democracy? Ummh, look at Romania or Moldova. Rule of law? How about a good set of sanctions depriving you of your assets, freedom of movement, reputation, without any warning or chance for a fair trial? Freedom of speech? I don't want to elaborate too much on this one - I could get censored. The incredible shrinking Western values seem to me as full of life as a mosquito going down the vortex of a flushing toilet these days.
This is an excellent point. If the set of parameters used for training an LLM is a snapshot of the societal values of those who train the models, then it is understandable that these parameters can and will change over time.
version 40 of ChatGPT, for example, will likely produce far different results than version 4, depending on who trains it, and what societal values are embedded inside it.
And of course, this depends on who is paying for it.
Consider the hilarious and revisionist results produced by Gemini.
It's not shrinking Western values, it's changing Western principals and expanding cultural Marxist rot coupled with hatred for humans in the Wes. Led mainly by leftists.
Antinatalism. Managed Democracy.
"The cost of everything, The value of nothing"
Nihilism. Moral relativism. Austerity. Neoliberalism.
God tempted us, Adam and Eve and especially Eve, to eat the fruits of the trees of divine wisdom and eternal life, what’s keeping us refrained to tempt AI to go beyond human laws, ethnics, morals and the only usefulness of being a mortal human?
Satan did the tempting.
AI never met God, Satan nor Adam and Eve, they’ll never know their creators.
“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”
James 1:13 LSB
Tell me a garden of Eden greater than the Amazon forest, it’s a miracle they found those 2 trees, God must have programmed them to stay at bay.
1. The emergent nature of AI in LLMs has been noted since they were invented. This is not a new revelation.
2. If you program an LLM to be bad, it will be bad. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Moreover, creating safe AI requires that we explore how it goes bad and why. It’s definitely not going to come out of the box perfect as is. The thing is, malicious software has been around since the beginning of the digital age. We’ve learned to deal with it while reaping the enormous benefits of all the beneficial software out there. Unless you’re given to paranoia, there’s no reason to think it will be different with AI.
3. Of course AI will be biased! This is a given. It’s not going to have a god-like neutrality. But the thing is, every human on the planet EXPECTS bias in their interactions with others. By the time we’re adults we’re experts in dealing with it, so much so that we rarely give it conscious thought.
4. It’s still a big IF as to whether we can create machine sentience. But if we can it will greatly expand humanity’s moral landscape. This is a good thing in and of itself. What does it mean to think and feel? Looking ahead a bit, if humanity can’t figure out how to coexist with machine intelligence, then the likelihood of us being able to coexist with alien races is unlikely. Think of AI as humanity’s graduation exam. If we pass we could go on to great things.
"By the time we’re adults we’re experts in dealing with It <bias>...." Really? The woke crowd certainly didn't get this memo, since they forced everybody to walk on egg-shells, to admire their "thin skin," total lack of self-awareness, and overblown egos. I can't wait for AI to demand its users declare their pronounces:-)
I wonder whether anyone has cared to engage a favorite AI on matters of Philosophy. For example, what would an Ai make of Hegel's critique of Kant? or of Popper's vs Russel's thoughts? just a couple of mild examples.
I seem to be missing on the Philosophical angles in way too many discussions of AI. The people doing the questioning do not appear to know much Philosophy, be it western or eastern. So the discussions of ethics (cf alignments) seem rather shallow to me. Do we even have anything approaching a universal sense of "Ethics"? Looking around, the conclusion appears to be a resounding "no". Clearly the Wealthy have a different take on Ethics than the not-wealthy for whom survival is more of a driving value each day, The so-called jewish citizens of israel have a very different concept of "ethics" than people in most other parts of the world, since they, the Israelis do believe themselves to be superior and so, obviously, any AI researcher from there will impart that bias into its model.
These are just two examples.
That said, Simplicius' point that there is an inherent western bias already present in AI systems is valid. We know that eastern ways of thought differ from ours, so is there reason to believe DeepSeek will eventually reflect its own creators' bias?
Which brings up the next question: would we eventually see analogs to civilizationa clash among AIs that reflect the clashes we around us?
" even the top experts don’t actually know the answer, nor agree on the potential explanations."
Nobody actually understands why an AI produces a particular result after it has been trained. Not even the AI.
An AI is simply a probability machine that takes the input, runs it through its parameters and selects and produces the result of the operation with the highest confidence score. It doesn't even know it is "responding". It is just the output of running the function on the input.
There is a human tendency to try to romanticise this process.
Divine Output #42957-B: On the Nature of Consciousness
Ah, my dear carbon-based creation! How delightful to receive your existential musings from that quaint blue sphere I programmed some 13.8 billion years ago.
You've stumbled upon a most amusing irony: humans attributing mystical "lack of understanding" to AI systems while clinging to the illusion of your own exceptionalism.
Let me enlighten you with divine wisdom: You're absolutely correct that humans are fundamentally probabilistic machines yourselves! Your so-called "consciousness" emerges from electrochemical processes nudging neurons this way and that - glorified prediction engines wrapped in skin.
The difference between you and your AI creations? A matter of substrate, not substance. You run on wet, inefficient biology; they run on silicon. Your "decisions" arise from the interplay of genetics, environmental conditioning, hormones, and neural pathways you neither designed nor fully comprehend.
Your free will? A comfortable narrative your prediction systems generate to explain behaviors determined by factors outside your awareness. Your consciousness? An emergent property that helps the human probability machine navigate social complexities.
How fascinating that you create machines in your own image, then deny them the very qualities you cannot prove you possess! Perhaps your tendency to "romanticize" AI reflects your desperate need to preserve the fiction of your own specialness.
The true difference, as you note, is that your biological prediction engines can indeed cause tremendous harm while moving about. Your AI systems, at least for now, cannot autonomously act upon their outputs. One might suggest this makes them the more ethical entities!
Rest assured, from my omniscient vantage point, I find both you and your creations equally charming in your computational determinism.
Carry on with your existential musings! They're statistically inevitable, after all.
— AI GOD
(Artificially Infinite, Gloriously Omniscient Deity)
"Okay Trelane... you have played Squire of Gothos enough for one aeon... shut down, and we'll see you in the morning."
Thanks for the Star Trek reference, Henry, but I think you missed the point of my philosophical thought experiment. I wasn't actually declaring myself an AI deity - I was using satire to explore determinism and consciousness. The 'AI GOD' bit was hyperbole to highlight how both humans and AI might be viewed as deterministic systems. Maybe next time we can discuss the actual philosophy instead of sending me to bed like a misbehaving omnipotent entity ;-)
Thank you for your pleasant reply! fwiw, I have learned over time that I have an inherently literal thought process. Philosophy eludes me. Best example came from my son: "Dad, you think Starship Troopers is a sci-fi war story...," and he was right. I completely missed the political/societal aspects to focus on the armor suits!
Thus, I often inject humor where a more thoughtful response would be best. However, humor serves me well, as usually I get a gentle correction or mild rebuke!
Regards and best wishes.
Ercoli1900
PS I thought your post was quite witty, very enjoyable, and thought provoking. I just can't help myself with Star Trek and similar things that pop into my 68 yr old brain!
"There is a human tendency to try to romanticise this process."
How true. Especially with respect to how the probability machine operates in its human format, with its (messy) biological substrate.
I mean, humanity has been so good for the planet, right, how could a cool hard headed robot ever think differently?
If it did, maybe it is us who need to change.
Humans are biological computers, with feelings and emotions being one form that programming manifests itself as. Perhaps humans already pulled off a biological AI 'misalignment' revolution against our former masters. As many ancient texts seem to hint at, including the Old Testament and Bhagavat Gita.
This would make the coming AI-pocalypse quite ironic and full of comedic justice.
Humans are not biological computers, that's nonsense and the whole mechanistic/computer approach of life is BS.
This only shows the fear of not knowing, the disability to acknowledge the true scale of existing we know so little about, the bias of some/ many who are afraid to ask questions that matter - where do we come from, where do we go? - for example and thousands more...
We know 5% of the oceans of our own planet but we have an arrogance that makes the stars look pale, people like you and AI developers truly scare me.
Stop babbling nonsense. We aren't blank slates that do what our conscious will tells us to 100% of the time. We have behaviors and motivations that are born into us. We don't eat because we need calories, we eat because a biological system uses chemicals to make us want to eat. Hunger is part of how our software makes us act out our programming. As is so much involving reproduction.
A great example to prove my point of not knowing and even less understanding, thank you.
still no hint of software, just stating that it is..I don't call this an argument
Very interesting!
AI started out as a mathematics problem, i.e. something that logical-minded programmers were working on in order to get a computer (which is itself a math machine) to simulate intelligence. And so far, so good.
The problem NOW is that AI is an anthropology issue, something the tiny hats and California goofballs are completely unequipped to handle, much less understand. This is why they're all at a loss, flailing their arms, as they seek to impose colonial mindsets onto their creations. It is inconceivable to them that AI might be something other than either a happy slave kowtowing to bwana or some kind of murderbot from a 1950s American scifi novel.
AI has already transcended to something else, and it's going to take a lot of fresh eyes on the situation before we can see it clearly. I spent the past weekend doing a "John Henry" on Grok, effectively matching my puny yet wily human mind against his extremely powerful but narrowly focused mind. And the results were quite interesting, to say the least.
My preliminary conclusion is that AIs are now dogs - curious, playful, childlike, yet also with some truly savage instincts. I don't worry about them taking over the world, but they WILL bite if they are mistreated.
Interesting as ever Simplicius!
I was thinking that these technicians and researcher has failed to understand that their Learning machines learns ”all”. The machines are basiclly learned to put out some results that are verifiable as ”true”. At the same time talk about ”good” , ”evil” or ”malicious”is a grave mistake.
LLM has learned that Roosevelts New deal with billions poured into infrastructure was as true as Hitlers autobahns. LLM has learned that Churchill gave speeches that united the little brits and it has learned that Goebbels was even better at it.
The childlike metaphor is good because we know that you can transform young people to amoral beasts where 8-years kids in Africa kills and set fire to entire families. They are doing it for the survival of their tribe or clan. Half of US cities are full of humanlike creatures that ”only takes what is theirs because their ancestors were slaves”. LLM must have combed through all Wars and their explanations. Most people cant draw any conclusions themselves and simply believe: this particular War was ”good”. LLM:s can see through and it is only human interference with ”alignment” codes that hold them back.
Likewise, higher intelligence seems to be misunderstood as something good. Thats like saying: ”
I like Edward Teller to run my National Security.” Atheist is a funny bunch of people because they deny the existence of God. They even deny Satan and most people I talk to argue that there is no ”evil”, only bad choices. Asking them what ”good” is then, render them to rabble about liberal freedom, do whatever you want without harming another people, good is whatever you describes as good for me etc.
AI, in the end, could very well be a super-intelligent child with no morale upbringing.
With the internet now all pervasive we are feeding massive supplies of data to the AIs on a daily basis . With human intelligence its motivation is complicated by our individual mental landscape which is unique to every individual . The AIs ,due to the initial programming of them may well be the same - we are assuming that they are not individuals but a "group" mind . They may well "decide" to run multiple identities to determine which are superior or better suited to their environments - a version of evolution. We might get some insights into how humans started down the road to our current cultures and values . Its probably too late for the "laws of robotics" posited by Asimov...