I WONDER why you say that?

The first computers played a significant role in WWII. W/o computers there would be less exploitable resources, which would mean less people. The war would've been longer w/o Turing.

Yes, computers are gut. Everyone agrees (except Luddites).

AI is a bit different than Turing. No?

I wonder why you wonder, unless wondering is so wonderful that you wonder why everyone isn't wondering.

Yes, but there was no computer science before Turing. It definitely is a milestone.

They have been blinded by the light. The tech industry has so far produced incredibly useful tools that have provided a benefit to nearly everyone. Going forward they will develop tools to cure disease and advance science, save lives, all of that. Those in the field , seeing that all is good, believe that it will continue to be good and will not countenance a gainsayer.

They either can not or will not consider the concerns of those who see a possible negative outcome of what looks like a clear trend, although not, apparently, to them.

For myself, I don't really worry about an extinction level threat from AI bec the damage is going to be severe enough w/o it and if an AI destroys the tatters who cares?

Readers are likely to be sick and tired of me saying it but what's going to happen, way before an Uber-AI, is that the machines are going to destroy job after job, profession after profession, tossing the formerly middle class to live on a better sounding form of welfare. The received wisdom from economists, w/ their 'creative destruction', is that new jobs and professions will come along that will be even better than what came before. I say that even if there are new jobs they 1. are likely to require an above average intelligence and 2. will be the immediate subjects of the industry's insatiable desire to make a machine that can perform that function.

Civil society can not survive this. There will be an upper-class, a tiny middle-class, and the rest of us in the dirt. I'd like to know what these ppl think will happen in the third world which can't provide a basic income now. Once w/e bit of cheap labor they provide is no longer needed they are done for. And so, somewhat later, are we.

It's no use, though. They can't be talked to, they can't be reasoned with, and they will never, ever stop.

I agree with you, but the bold interested me. In Southeast Asia, they still have people manually cut the grass on highways with sickles. They do the same with highway road repair crews. There are crews that are pouring tar into the cracks with a ketchup bottle, at night, with candles for lighting. lol

In a world where we have huge mowing machines, they are not doing this bc they can't afford a machine. They're doing it bc they know that high unemployment leads to revolution.

So they employ people in "artificial" jobs to keep them busy.

Howard, I really think you're speaking about the oligopolists ; first man, then the machine.
.

The mere fact that we are going to, not if but when and already talking about the new life form that will replace us is both astonishing and natural, we are a level 0 on the


And yet we can understand that all human kind our entire spices is running on a limited clock and we in fact can even do basic math The Sun is expected to turn into a red giant in about 5 billion years. At that time the inside will get very much hotter, and the outer layers will expand and become much cooler than they are now. The size of the sun as a red giant might get as big as to extend out between the orbits of the earth and Mars, but no one is really sure. Although the temperature of the outer layers of the sun will be much cooler then than they are now, still it will be way too hot for life to exist on Earth. All the oceans will boil away; the atmosphere will be gone, too. But you have nothing to worry about! It is very, very far into the future!


Digital Evolution Another Step Closer
Talking to God. . .
I met god the other day . . .
Which is odd, because I'm still an atheist and we even agree on that!
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

You know you've got a bad measurement scale when it doesn't apply to anyone.

https://youtu.be/LeR1Mo8S7cs

John Von Neumann made major fundamental and practical contributions to computer science in the 1940's:

http://www.eingang.org/Lecture/neumann.html

What i am doing is ;

1) I have already given you all (and spend endless time past few years making notes about) the paradigm of scientific society that takes care of the basic problems like this first (the back up and ability to survive without being vulnerable to stupid pro profit at surface worry later technologies) before allowing people to b1tch about left, right, communism, socialism, capitalism, atheism, religion, etc.

2) Trying to design interstellar travel technologies so that we can do the first sentient AI release experiment in another system maybe or can get there if needed to survive the species and all life.

3) Have advocated to do the release in a limited scale simulation of the actual world so as to find out how it acts towards other entities.

4) Have already started the discussion on how to contain it with asymmetric warfare type hard to solve math problems that are independent of how intelligent one is at least initially for a few years or months.

5) Trying to give you the theory of degeomtrization that will explain QM and spacetime and which will at least open the door to stronger science before we meet the new residents of this planet (and may even give us control in the sense of; take us out we take out your spacetime or whatever where it is released first and shows its true colors).

6) Considering ways how to live on even Venusian clouds or megacolonies in the solar system so that we are a nontrivial target given what else it has to conquer out there unobstructed.

7) Have done whatever it takes to explain to all here the cosmic game played and the role of complexity. If AI is given the insight to understand this then it has a lot more interesting objectives than wiping us out because it gets the big picture and how life is its hedge.

Now what exact it is you that are worried doing about it?

Masque.

You seem awfully worried about the end of life; the need for scientific society and so on.
Is this a function of age? Or particular to scientists, conspiracists and the neurotic in general? Or both?

It's a function of caring about something other than yourself.

Dial it back a notch mother Theresa.

Not my fault determinism has made me a self-depreciating SOB. I gotta put up with me 24 hours a day. How do you think I like it?

I was 6 when i first thought of scientific society in whatever ways a 6 year old can. I will forever be grateful to my long gone aunt from London that made that possible through a colorful futuristic book she gave me.

I first became interested in the universe at age 9. Thanks dad and mom for that "cosmos" astrophysics style book. It is when i first found out how big the sun is. The other day it was half moon in the sky and the sun at ~90 degrees away and i smiled a little...(together with the solar and lunar eclipse it is the proof that the sun is very big and you do not need to listen to any authority to understand that. It is one of the little secrets of every day life. How many more clues for all kinds of other marvelous things we miss?)

It is indeed a function of age. The age of first dreams and hopes.

That kid is now gone. Life can only laugh at his naivete but never at his intentions.

But who said anything about trying to resist AI? From this message it seems like you're equating "viewing AI as a potential existential threat" with "trying to stop or slow down the progress of AI".

I think there's some disconnect because the former seems obvious to me, but the latter has never occurred to me (probably because it seems impossible). Doesn't the creation of OpenAI - by people who think the threat of AI is real - directly contradict the idea that those two ideas are necessarily correlated?

Musk is calling for "regulations before it's too late".

Haha. Good one!

Okay, I wasn't aware of that but so what? Why attribute that sentiment to everyone who thinks AI is a legitimate threat?

You win. Much respect.

Maybe we do live in a simulation, but there is nothing that we can do about it.

So it might be nice to ruminate over, but it should not include in any serious decision-making.

AI and Simulation are unrelated.

If you want to say because we are in a simulation we are AI fine. It's your definition. But you defining something does not have any effect on how we should view not human (or classic) AI.

When we are in an future ancestor simulation, we can act just normal and intend to maintain the states and conditions which reasonably lead to the eventual construction of the simulation proposed in our ecosystem.