Our own critical ability will always be the pivotal point in our use of any tool.
If we are to develop AI that pretends to be thinking then such a program will be unpredictable and have the capacity to change its conclusions. It will need a reasoning ability that can reject non-rational positions. I haven't seen signs of that at all.
Having a program accept 2+2 = 5 in a conversation is not evidence of thinking, it is rather evidence of a lack of argumentational capacity. Programmers have to simplify human thinking processes in order to emulate them. This in turn is a problem with ripple effects.
AI development will therefore attract programmers that believe that human thinking is a simple process. It's like a filtering mechanism where those that underestimate human capacities are the same people that are most likely to spend time developing AI.
Many ethical programmers will likely reason along the lines of:
Either I am not competent to develop high quality AI and it would be a waste of my time, or, if I am competent enough then I would risk causing harm. In either case it doesn't seem like a good use of my time.
It seems hard to overcome this filtering process.
Alternative possibility: two people with orange jackets and at least one of them is a dude, the other seems to be a teenager. Could be bitcoiners minding their own business. Guy on the left is smiling like an idiot after checking the bitcoin price and knowing his sats are in cold storage.
Probably not what happened but that would have been a more interesting scenario.😄
If Mike McCulloch's theory of Quantised Inertia works out in practical experiments then we can ditch dark matter and a new era of interstellar travel will become a possibility.
Exactly. If jurisdictions are small enough and we have full property rights + mobility (bitcoin), then the type of governance is less of an issue since we can vote with our feet and have access to a variety of jurisdictions that would welcome skills and capital. This allows liberty arbitrage to have a counter-balance against central plannin.
Beautiful vista.
Watching the seasons change reminds us that no state is eternal. Liberty has its cycles and it will have its spring as well.
Right. What do we even mean when we say that something is superior to another thing. On what level and by what measure? By what tradeoffs? By what cost or sacrifice?
Humans will always search for a perfect paradise where life is sublime, yet it is through struggles that our existence is sculptured, by necessity and challenges.
Newton's third law of motion: every action comes with an equal contrary reaction. This applies to social movements as well; pendulum of cultural cycles.
When I think of humanity's future in the galaxy, I envision a great variety of sovereign worlds involving different characteristics. My thoughts of the future are more along the lines of: 'pick a solar system and planet where you belong'.
I don't think of progress as a linear course, but rather as cycles. Empires and cultures rise and fall. We observe problems and weaknesses within each system, then we overcompensate and overshoot and the pendulum swings back for a while.
Humans will always seek balance and this involves groups going against the prevailing trends. This is how we explore a multitude of options and ways of life.
I don't believe that there is a single prevailing future, but rather an open spectrum of possibilities.
I don't think in terms of our 'next" evolutionary form.
Humanity will likely spread out in the galaxy if we survive the coming centuries, like a branching tree.
I think it would be premature to imagine one branch of humanity and assuming that it will be better than the rest. On what level and by what measure.
Culture involves tradeoffs.
Humanity's strength is variability and spread.
Cultural greatness is not dependent on the latest technology.
Faketoshi has his day of attention. 😅🤣
I am late, no zappa me. 😄
Story:
All that is meaningful, is necessary
I never joined the March. It makes sense to have one optimal form of money, Bitcoin. It also makes sense to have a multitude of communications channels.
Than you Iefan. It is always fascinating seeing the terrain from above at this angle. I can see a city which I'd assume is Visby on island Gotland through the clouds.
Ants we are, in the greater scheme of things.
Beautiful.
The large lake in southwest Sweden is Vänern and the long, thin island on the right is Öland. Beyond it, though hidden beneath the clouds is the island Gotland. I spent many years living around those light specks on the Norwegian west coast.
Depends, perhaps to some degree.
I remember spending several summer and winter holidays in the countryside in Sweden and there was sometimes hostility due to the fact that I was from the city. Back in the city it was in the reverse; I was viewed as the rural guy there. 😄
It is interesting how statistics work. We consist of mostly water, yet if we enter a teleportation device we will be disturbed if the teleportation machine considers us the equivalent of a cucumber and decides that we are nothing beyond a vegetable.
Well said.
There is a difference between hearing a story and understanding a story from living it.
We can warn others from placing their hand on a hot stove, but many insights have to be lived and experienced personally to be properly understood and processed.
Experiencing loved ones pass away is a transformative process for us humans. It is not merely information of a parameter changing value. It is a far deeper process that we don't even know how to describe to a computer program. And the program doesn't understand our input, it merely arranges it via a set of weighted formulas.
This is why poetry, music and art are fundamentally different when they are created by a human being; the words spoken by a human have a meaning in relation to past experiences, struggles, joys and the reflections of a sovereign mind.
We form words into ideas as a sculptor chips away marble to form a statue. It is a process guided by our consciousness. We put our mind into what we create. All our experiences flow through the creative process and converge in the output.
A machine producing the same output has merely reproduced something already created by a human mind. Most of the work is internal, not external. The finished visible piece is just the tip of the iceberg of an internal process.
No, I wouldn't.
I have no interest in becoming 'hackable'.
That said, I can respect that a person with disabilities might do it voluntarily and that their benefits may trump the risks.
Voluntarism is great.👍