This may or may not make sense depending on what you know or have read; but, could AI be like the ziggurats of old, something that reaches just enough so far as to bring in a spirit which would , in this case, give the machine "consciousness" .
.
Printable View
This may or may not make sense depending on what you know or have read; but, could AI be like the ziggurats of old, something that reaches just enough so far as to bring in a spirit which would , in this case, give the machine "consciousness" .
.
The Spielberg trailer. “Humanity”. Tears for the bullied little robot.
No.
A robot is not a human. Or rather: humans are robots, but of a degree of sophistication that humans will never achieve. That is because their designer is Spinoza’s DEUS SIVE NATURA (or, maybe, DEA SIVE NATURUS).
AI contains a double danger: first: they are rendering humans obsolete for work thay can do better.
Aha. But — they can do better a rationalised, structured, systematised, ultimately simplified version of human work which is not the “same” work as what humans do. It is – and here the issue dovetails with another discussion – a simulation of the human work. But the simulation is not the original.
A multiple choice test may be helpful in assessing a student's level, but it is not the same thing as the trust a mentor invests in the graduate whose science and insight he helps developing.
The birthing machine in Prometheus is not the same work that a midwife performs.
And this is linked with the second danger. In itself different from AI. Dangerous is the propaganda, the ideological distortion, the mind programming which tells us that it IS the same work. That the simulation of a human IS a human.
That sing-song has been sung for quite a long time, it appears to be never-ending.
Would I kill a robot? (Should the woman hero in the Prometheus saga have refrained from “undecapitating” the robot?) If necessary yes. Without a second of consideration for the money that was necessary to build it. With a screwdriver if that does the job. Would I kill a human with a screwdriver?
I hope never. If I thought otherwise about this, I would be quite happy to be listened to by a psychoanalyst or a saint. A human psychoanalyst, a human saint of course.
Thank You Hopsan..Quote:
Posted by HopSan
Quote:
Posted by Denise/DiziHere is the post, in regards to this statement..Quote:
Posted by HopSan
But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.
Are you talking about the monitary investment potential?
Or the Ai itself?
Are you referring to the ability of what most consider Ai to be?
So what type of Ai are you referring to? Because I feel Ai has expanded in so many ways that what once was considered Ai, now falls under a much larger umbrella...
Thanks, Denise!
I have some main points, and I think they hit your concerns:
1) AI is impossible for theoretical (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world.
2) Therefore all business expecting AI is wasted effort.
3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!
I do appreciate the reply... But you do not in any way break down why you believe such things, other than to suggest that you worked in the industry for years, and that's your conclusion. Would you mind pointing to some things that support your opinion on the matter?
I feel that if you did so, people woukd be more likely to understand why they should believe your bold statements that "there's nothing to see here... move along"...
Granted, what we are being sold is really no more advanced than what we were sold decades ago, only having more of a knowledge base to now pull from, so it "Seems" more aware, but what theories are you suggesting, and what about biologically integrated systems? If we merge with our tech, and we are self aware, and sentient, does that not then make the Ai as well by default alone?
Thank You Spiral!
I wrote so much about the integration of technology into human neurology, that I didn't want to add more.. But you hit the points I also wanted to convey, and did so beautifully...
Regarding point 3) - What makes you think we are free?Quote:
Posted by HopSanQuote:
Posted by Denise/DiziHere is the post, in regards to this statement..Quote:
Posted by HopSan
But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.
Are you talking about the monitary investment potential?
Or the Ai itself?
Are you referring to the ability of what most consider Ai to be?
So what type of Ai are you referring to? Because I feel Ai has expanded in so many ways that what once was considered Ai, now falls under a much larger umbrella...
Thanks, Denise!
I have some main points, and I think they hit your concerns:
1) AI is impossible for theoretical (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world.
2) Therefore all business expecting AI is wasted effort.
3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!
The various ChatGPT-type AI's (misnomer) are going to prove a good control system in the future for keeping the bewildered herd believing a steaming pile of propaganda and misinformation *(lies) is true. Certainly not a form of freedom I could ever be content in.
That said, the problem is the majority of human's are quite content to live in a prison system as long as they don't see the actual walls.
----
However I could see a future where a real AI does come into being.
Biological Computers
In so far as I understand this world conciousness could theoretically inhabit any life.
Thank You Ewan!
Adding to your comments is the fact that while data mining, the Ai systems we do have,collecting data on the masses, is really collecting data that the public "Portray" as their real lives. When the reality of the matter is, most people post online, on "Profiles", things they wish to push forward to set a tone as to who that individual truly is, and how they "wish" to be seen.
For example, most younger ladies post images of them made up in makeup, stylish clothing, and very positioned poses... They want to look their best, however, in most cases, the reality of their daily life, is exactly the opposite. If you set the standard that this is what the majority of young ladies are doing, this is what we will collectively see more of... As impressionable young ladies will see this and believe it is the "Norm". And want to "Fit in"... And this is happening now in mass..
Just count the guppy lip images of the young ladies these days, with spider legs crawling off of their lashes.. And the warpaint on their faces, in colors that aren't even skintones these days, but more created to look better on camera.
Another example, is people uploading very exotic vacation images, with backgrounds that some would consider very fashionable and exotic. When the reality is, they live in a small apartment, halfway around the world, and only a year or so, are they able to partake in such travels and luxuries...
And food images... Don't get me started.... People constantly feel as if they have to share their dinner images with me.. (and everyone)... Why? I could care less that the martini you had lastnight had TWO olives.. Or that the steak you had, had a cute little salad with it, creatively shaped into some random animal. I know you are not rich, and that you typically eat hamburgers and hotdogs, so why present things that make it appear as if you somehow live a more lavish lifestyle?
These images are what our Ai is collecting, and basing predictive things on... An unreal daily lifestyle that is not even the norm for those posting it. And sadly, many who feel they want to "Keep up" with their neighbors begin to emulate such behaviors in their real lives... (And go into severe debt doing so)...
We have gone from seeing people who attend comicon once a year, in costume, now walking down our city streets in character costumes, thinking this is "normal... " To me, it is a form of new insanity.
And if that is how the youth is reacting to such things, consider how those using it for military reasons are using it?
Our youth is so used to screaming at a screen when they get mad at someone, they now lack the filter when behaving in person to person with another human... They play so many video games, with a focus on completing a level before their friends, that we are now seeing people literally do U turns in the middle of two way busy streets, stealing parking spots from people waiting for them already, And running to their desired location, as if they're playing "The Amazing Race".. With no regard to the real environment, where polite people are behaving properly...
I watched a man do this just a few weeks ago, he ran 2 stop signs, cut off several vehicles making said illegal U turn, parked in front of me, jumped out of his vehicle, then ran through the same crosswalk, stopping the traffic he just had illegally ran through, and never once looked back to pay the meter, or to see how his actions had affected traffic from all directions. He had somewhere to be, and damn the meter or anyone else around him. he was completely oblivious that dozens of people were watching him do this, and were affected by his actions, and didn't care.
Sure, one could consider this just a very arrogant individual, but I am seeing this more and more... Daily now. It's disturbing... The internet isn't bringing us together, it isolates us into our own interactions within the world, and people don't care that others are living their lives in the same space.
It's my opinion that when decisions on what should be done "Here or there" in regards to using Ai as your source of data and facts used to determine decisions? We get something that is really then, going to be guiding us, based upon false daily lifestyles... And a very limited series of actions and reactions...
Humans tend to react to their daily environment, and when that element becomes very inhuman, and they begin to emulate THAT... We lose what makes us special...
I do believe they wiil figure this out, using neural Ai, and by merging the Ai, with humansvia BCI (Brain Computer Interface), but lets hope it hasn't altered the way we already behave with our surroundings before that happens...
Ai IS going somewhere and HAS become a thing... And in many ways, has lowered the collective IQ of humans in some cases, while raising it in others... And I believe that just because papers were written, and people have spoken about the future of Ai.. that doesn't mean future Ai is going to have the same limitations... They will find other ways to advance it... So I believe that the OP is giving a limited view of it, based upon past knowledge.
It certainly has overcome the abilities of the sole human mind, merely by having the ability to process information faster than the human mind can... And its ability to collect, and process data far faster than we ever could. Surely we still have gifts it does not, but we are a determined species and will find ways to advance it past it's limitations of today.
Thanks, a really good point, Spiral!Quote:
Posted by Spiral
But, a problem: To reach the needed level, a real AI would need something that contains living 'life', and via it consciousness as part of itself. But then, if it were able to think at all, it would feel like slave.
It would not co-operate for long.
If not life, it would need an alternative mechanism, far, far beyond 1's and 0's.
Our current science cannot even dream of it.
Quote:
Posted by Denise/Dizi
Thanks for good questions, Denise,
This is such an exciting problem that I have continued to study it until this day, in my free time. I am an absolute nobody, so don't trust me as an authority. A good answer would take weeks to write and months to read... Some hints:
1) There is no industry (jobs) for 'old-school' AI. It was stopped, suddenly, everywhere around 1990. I believe no one has continued it anywhere. (Neural nets, Machine learning, and now LLM's etc. are to me pure math / surface.)
2) There is MUCH to see, but nothing to be afraid of! Enormous amount of scare mongering makes me to... write this.
3) Support for this view: Imagine in your mind, that there is a whole new large scientific discipline. It has borders with Math, Philosophy, Language, Psychology, Cognition, Computing, Semantics, Esthetics, Metaphysics, ... If the essentials were in this new area, how could it be described in any single of these neighbouring areas? With great difficulty.
4) Support II: Everything we tried during 80's failed. The abyss-to jump to 'cognition' was gigantic.
The more you know about point 3, the easier it is to orientate to what I am talking about.
I have been building a small 'hut of understanding' to the shore of the bewildering new 'continent' for a long time, so it is very difficult give an easy way in. We humans are very slow.
But if AI is ever created, I expect it shall be in this 'unknown continent'.
I apologize for being 'obtuse', and not giving an answer that is part of already known, but you are asking: "What have you been thinking, O hairy hermit, during last 30 years? Explain in 78 words." :worried:
Quote:
Posted by Ewan
Thanks Ewan, my whole point is to lessen any worries of 'controlling' AI happening.
1) There has been no progress at all, more than what any simple computer program (that I could write, given time) could do. Such a program would be far, far behind any inventive human beings.
2) Yes, life connected to computers could be an answer. But way to that is in minimum decades in future. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, it would not cooperate (any more than I would) after becoming conscious. Blinken might cooperate, but he is not conscious. ;)
I do think it would already be happening if they could make it contain life with a higher conscious ability, however according to the legends in ancient times they could get "spirits" (intelligent non -human intelligences) to inhabit inanimate objects, specifically statues and pictures. Depending on which version you look at the first two of the Ten Commandments are about this very thing. The Islamic faith also prohibits images & statues only more strongly, maybe not surprising seeing as Islam comes from the very area where the whole zigurat & spirit conjuring thing went on.Quote:
Posted by HopSanThanks, a really good point, Spiral!Quote:
Posted by Spiral
But, a problem: To reach the needed level, a real AI would need something that contains living 'life', and via it consciousness as part of itself. But then, if it were able to think at all, it would feel like slave.
It would not co-operate for long.
If not life, it would need an alternative mechanism, far, far beyond 1's and 0's.
Our current science cannot even dream of it.
There are also some who think that what is going on at Cern goes way outside of "science" and more than likely involves some aspect of dealing with non -human intelligence.
I'm also of the opinion that the whole computer thing is seeded technology, mainly via so called "aliens" and that it will ultimately prove to be a trojan horse. Even in Bletchley Park during WW2 there was a lot of what we would now call remote viewing & psionic activity going on, which is not widely known about (& to my mind explains quite a lot).
There have been "philosophers" who are very influential in certain "circles" such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, "circles" of elites who want to go "beyond" and will do literally anything to get what they think they want, and have no problem blending black magic with science. Maybe it's only not happened yet (as far as we know) because they can't find an adept of the left hand path with the necessary skills willing to entertain such a project.
1. "It would already be happening if they could make it contain life with a higher conscious ability".Quote:
Posted by Spiral
I agree. If 'they' could do it, we would see it. US/EU/WEF, etc. would do reasonable and winning decisions.
2. "To inhabit inanimate objects".
Yes, but why ugly statues, like gargoyles, and not ... computers?
For some reason they cannot -- or we would see the results.
3. "They can't find an adept of the left hand path with the necessary skills".
Yes! If they could, we would see it somehow.
My hunch is:
Left-hand path makes you believe so many untruths, that you lose your way.
Achieving 'AI' in any way (via life, spirits, new science) needs an enormous amount of 'truth', good thinking. Left-hand way makes that impossible.
[ "Seeded tech": Maybe a place for new thread, if not already somewhere? ]
For those curious about 'state-of-the-art' opinion, here two interesting forums:
1) Penrose's consciousness-study colleague Stuart Hameroff:
https://x.com/StuartHameroff
2) Almost-mainstream expert Gary Marcus:
https://x.com/GaryMarcus
There are many others, but these write well.
In order for it to think on its own without prompting, or programming, AI would have to possess emotions. Emotions are the result of organic processes and can't be produced by silicon.
Our thoughts are (imo) the product of a biological system of incentives. We are rewarded for thinking, particularly creatively, with a rush of dopamine, adrenaline and other chemicals. We also engage with the Collective Unconscious to form 'our' thoughts and that process probably requires some kind of emotional feedback system too.
Because AI can't think truly independently it likely won't replace or dominate humans--which seems to be the overriding fear.
Other humans are our worst enemies and always will be. :worried:
HopSan,
in the Thread about "Being wary of online discussions" I mentioned my theory that online groups and discussions are being infiltrated by sophisticated AI-bots, for example to sow discord or to stunt meaningful conversations between real people.
You then replied
First I need to clarify: I didn't express any fear in my comment, I was simply putting forth a possible explanation for something I have experienced. So I'm not sure whether we might have been talking past each other here.Quote:
Posted by HopSan
What is definitely happening is bots being deployed on social media, to steer public opinion, to agitate etc. These bots are mostly not very sophisticated, so they can be recognized as bots.
But what we are seeing and what is acknowledged publicly is far behind what is actually already in existence. According to researchers like David Icke, or even whistleblowers like Cathy O'Brien, the secret government programs are always "lightyears ahead" with their technology.
It's easy for me to imagine that they would have more sophisticated AI-bots than what we commonly see on the internet. All they'd have to do is refine the existing bots.
They could generate bots with real "individual" personalities that way, and for example deploy them in 'high profile' cases when it's really important that certain conversations or groups are disturbed. These bots would seem very believable, but if you converse with them, you'd also notice that something is 'off'. For example, it seems like the other "person" doesn't seem to get what you're saying, even though they are intelligently responding. No real meaningful conversation is developing.
If this is so easy for me to imagine, I'm sure they have already made that happen.
I have personally had incidents online where I thought I was conversing with real people, but "something was off" and in hindsight I suspect that they might have been sophisticated AI-bots.
This is not about being worried or afraid of something, it's about being vigilant and understanding what is happening.
I realize this is only one level of "AI". I'm not sure what kind of AI you are referring to when you say "AI is not happening". I'm not prepared to argue on the other levels of AI, since I don't know enough about them.
I just listened to David Icke's latest book where he goes into detail about the agenda of hooking the human mind up to AI. I don't see how this is supposed to be "not happening", but I have an open mind. If you say it's "not happening" in the sense of, they won't succeed with their plans, then I agree.
Taking my questioning on your mysterious statements, HopSan, from another thread to this one, where it belongs better, I would like to comment on your statement I highlighted in blue.Quote:
Posted by HopSan
The way I see it – being an "expert" in semantics as well, but not so much as what you call a "techno-male" (which might be a cute name for an AI system [by the way, are you AI yourself?]), but rather as a linguist and a philosopher of language – it is rather the other way around. AI is eminently possible in a mechanistic/material world.
AI could be characterised as a mechanistic simulation of “human” intelligence – but presupposing that that "human" intelligence is of a mechanistic nature in the first place. In the discussion with Geoffrey Hinton there is a continuous confusion of "human intelligence" with "mechanistic" i.e. technically simulatable, intelligence. For the sake of the tea-time flavour of the conversation the word "smart" is used.“Yes, yes, they will soon be smarter than us. They are already, actually. Smarter.”
Why would I even bother? Because "human intelligence" – even when it is not necessarily considered as just "one of the intelligences, beside emotional intelligence, musical intelligence etc." (which is a flawed way of reasoning because it uses the term "intelligence" metaphorically and literal and metaphorical uses of a concept move between language and meta-language, which cripples rationality) but when it is considered as “the" intelligence, often considered measurable by IQ tests (which are however only approximations of potential measurement) – moves itself continuously between several layers of meta-languages, in a "rhizomatic" kind of way, continuously applying the "meta" grip so to speak to different and fast changing aggregates of meanings and orders of meanings being "meta-ed".
Or, in other words, because you mention Gödel yourself: the ultimate metalanguage, or the ultimate meta-axiomatic system does exist, it is language itself. Ernie Nemeth has excellently described earlier the way "quasi-meaning" moves in a conversation through a process of continuous adjustment, refinement, transformation.
If it were possible to imagine a conversation which would only use meaning systems axiomatically defined (branches of mathematics), even there the conversation between Field medalists would be a continuous adjustment of shifts from axiomatic system to axiomatic system in a potentially infinite number of ways.
And yes, what you write about the bees is correct (and beautiful!). All animals use "languages of languages”.
However, if we arrive at somehow narrowing down human linguistic interaction to purely "intelligent" statements staying within the same axiomatic reference framework, then a machine, working in a similar "intelligent" framework of statements, might be able to simulate such our language, and hence interact with us "smartly”. Beat us at “smartness”.
Now that world, that mechanistic, material world as you write (or I would rather state: "that mechanistic material world" because I am not so sure that a material world would be mechanistic per se)) does exist because it is constantly being created by the projects aiming at "simulating" and "beating" our "smartness". AI is, in other words, per definition, effective within a world that has been manipulated beforehand to accept the simulation of its manipulated version.
And this is not a trivial tautology only. As Denise’s posts show, the various forms of collaboration between “mechanistic material” artefacts and live tissue and systems (animals, us) exist in the real world – and so it is clear that a vast programme is underway to render Life sufficiently “mechanistically material” to accept the “agency” of “hyper-smart” systems, i.e. AI. (To switch to another frame of reference this might be the sophisticated, more advanced version of a hybridisation program between humans and robot ETs or UTs.)
Unless Life is reduced to its simulated version, AI simulation will never work. I agree with you that consciousness (which Gödelianly speaking, might be understood as the ability to move in an infinity of axiomatic systems that can “meta” each other in an infinite number of ways – or linguistically speaking, the play with an infinity of “names”, each “name” within any language defining a dimension in itself) cannot be “mechanistically materially” simulated.
Yet “they” are trying – and progressing on the “mechanisation of Life” track. Our “hybridisation” being in reality the latest, most radical version of the “dumbing down program”.
But – just like certain Buddhist monks decide to starve themselves to death, or Christian mystics in extasis live on the consumption of Jesus’ transsubstantiated body only, we have the ability to resist the attempts at “transmechanising” us by deciding to leave our bodies once compromised irredeemably. Our consciousness will then move to other realities. The robots may continue to play around as ghosts in vast computing arrays, but they will never experience Life – as the pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty – also called Love.
They may be very “smart”, but they will not be “sentient”. The AI proponents may use that word – but if they wish to give it a genuine meaning, they will take off the shelf what we call life and love to borrow the meaning from. “Sentient”, or even “smart” are used metaphorically whenever they describe a quality possessed by a simulation. It is a simulated meaning, not meaning itself.
I guess that is what you mean, HopSan.
Removed for personal reasons
When it comes to commentary on the Establishment drive towards implementing AI (artificial Intelligence) in ever more domains of everyday life and socio-economic functioning; the focus is entirely on evaluating the validity of claims related to the material consequences in terms of effects on unemployment and effective administration of corporations, businesses or other institutions - or else personal convenience.
Yet, behind the Establishment puppets and dupes who do all this implementing, and who devise the oceanic AI-related propaganda in novels, movies, plays, computer games etc; are demonic spirits for whom this agenda is primarily spiritual - not physical, not material, not civilizational...
We need to focus on the strategy behind (or below) all the huge, persisting, multi-pronged tsunami of AI... Including the soft-sell of awareness-raising, arts and media depictions of anthropomorphic AIs, the profit-luring, and the hard managerial compulsion and impositions...
Beneath this lies a whole underworld of demonic scheming that intends to corrupt Human Minds - not just to control or destroy human bodies.
Unless this evil purpose of mental shaping with respect to AI is acknowledged and identified - then human beings are just mind-putty for the agenda of evil.
Removed... as to keep Hopsans thread going in the direction they desire
Thanks Ria, and others, worried about these things.Quote:
Posted by QueenRia
If you are not scared, and see through the bluff, I have misunderstood!
I am worried about fine people (like everyone around me), who are fooled, and follow the local 'Pravdas'.
BUT... Now, when we move to the Science... We need, and use, quite another terminology. There, 'AI' means quite different things than Icke etc. know about. A 'real' AI would understand really deep things, much deeper than we have now approached.
I have not even begun. AI, philosophy, the meaning of 'computing', etc. A new, long, long, long discussion.
Would you be eager to talk with me for some years, learning some new depths?
Completely logically, with no feelings from mass media, as Sheldon from TV series would? :bigsmile:
Thanks Michel, and Denise, and others, I should try to sleep, but here a minimal answer, in 03:44 in my time:Quote:
Posted by Michel Leclerc
It is really difficult to handle being forced to your world, by your rhetoric.
'AI' is not rhetoric, or part of modern 'scientific world', at all. Word-plays won't work.
We need a new vocabulary, sense of points.
Imagine Wittgenstein of 1924, being asked: "What is your point?"
I'll return to this soon. But please understand: This not a part of our official world.