How do you see the future evolving?
I see the future as pretty darn bright. Thing like the end of the fossil fuel age don't really concern me. It's just basic economics, as long as it's cheap and the cost benefit allows it to evolve, then we pursue that avenue. My conception of the future is quite, well, futuristic. Namely, I see the advent of AI as bringing forth enormous amounts of prosperity, for the masses and not the few, since you can't patent AI and it's self evolving, meaning that you can't really control it either. I also see enormous potential changes in the energy sector as new methods of fusion based devices will enable prosperity for the many.
I used to subscribe to the singularity movement where many things will happen at once when AI arrives on stage; but, my personal opinion is that it might take longer than an instant for things to change. I also think we will likely become a multiplanetary species within the next decade or more.
How do you think changes will occur, or what is your conception about the future as you see it? I am also quite interested in seeing what happens to the current education system, as I think it will have to evolve or change to become relevant in this new coming time.
I used to subscribe to the singularity movement where many things will happen at once when AI arrives on stage; but, my personal opinion is that it might take longer than an instant for things to change. I also think we will likely become a multiplanetary species within the next decade or more.
How do you think changes will occur, or what is your conception about the future as you see it? I am also quite interested in seeing what happens to the current education system, as I think it will have to evolve or change to become relevant in this new coming time.
Comments (73)
The longer it takes, the better. A hard takeoff singularity is probably disastrous, as they're no way human society can adapt that quickly, and you end up with powerful technologies run amok. There's plenty of dystopian fiction exploring that sort of thing, and the friendly AI movement hopes the proper precautions are in place before we have general purpose AIs.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I have my doubts. Mars is less hospital than the center of Antartica in the middle of the winter, and it's much farther away. That makes it very expensive and risky, and for what? To have a dozen or so humans call it home? They will be confined indoors on inside a suit at all times.
Exploring Mars with better robots and at some point human beings, sure. But living there? Maybe in the long, long run when we can terraform the planet.
Quoting Posty McPostface
People at the turn of 20th century were similarly optimistic, then we had two world wars, a nuclear arms race, and wide spread environmental concerns. We could still have WW3, and an environmental collapse is a definite possibility.
That being said, I'm more on the optimistic than pessimistic side about human civilization persisting and advancing, despite whatever difficulties the 21st century holds. But we really don't know whether civilization is inherently unstable and always leads to collapse, no matter the level of technology. It has so with all past human civilizations. We don't anything know about alien ones, if they're out there. But one possible resolution to the Fermi paradox is that civilizations don't last, or there's a great filter ahead for us.
Or maybe when we achieve a post-singularity world, they'll welcome us into the galactic club. However, imagine what a post-singularity world war would look like. Weaponized AI, gray goo, antimatter bombs, super virues, and I'm sure nukes can still have their place.
Yeah, I think you're right about a hard takeoff being too much for humans to adapt to at the get-go. However, the rise of AI cannot be in some sense slowed down. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing for us, as long as the alignment problem can be solved. I don't think the control problem can solved either. It will do as it wishes and if that includes a psychopathic 'desire' to eradicate us, then there's no hope.
Quoting Marchesk
Well, as long as people want to explore Mars, then you can't really deter them from that desire. People still desire to climb mount Everest, for whatever reason, so let it be?
Quoting Marchesk
Well, to dumb it down (not that you need it be dumbed down, no insult implied) we have three events facing us as a species.
1. The rise of general artificial intelligence.
2. Ubiquitous energy for all, through fusion and renewable energy sources.
3. Becoming an interplanetary species.
1, Is the most problematic, in my opinion, since I agree with Musk and others that AI is a real concern for us as a species. I have some ideas as to how to mitigate this problem. Namely, I think that if the human brain can be simulated, and thus give rise to AI, then AI will have human emotions equipped in it to relate to us humans. In some sense it will have a soul or 'psyche' which can be related towards and reciprocate towards.
2 and 3, aren't inherently dangerous, so again the main concern is #1.
Quoting Marchesk
I'm also optimistic. I think civilizations can persist if we can overcome some literally, MAD policies towards each other. It's like game theory in terms of the prisoner's dilemma, and the sooner we can have a remanence of civilization live off world, then MAD becomes useless.
Quoting Marchesk
I have some science fiction ideas about humanity experiencing a revolution in our nature via AI. I don't think any civilization can survive with violent tendencies. If we can overcome that, then half of our troubles with our survival as a species, would look more fortunate.
Quoting iolo
That's a reasonably good estimate.
It will not be evil, stupid, or short-sighted actions that we will undertake in the future that forecloses our future. What forecloses a human future are actions we took in the past--beginning 200 or 300 years ago into the present. We didn't know in 1780, 1840, 1910, or 1950 what the long term consequences of the industrial revolution would be.
Some people discovered the existence of mortal danger in CO2 emissions around 30 years ago. They happened to be scientists working for very large energy companies. Revealing what they discovered was unthinkable to corporate leaders.
An Inconvenient Truth was released 12 years ago. The Paris Climate Accord was finished 3 years ago. It has become increasingly apparent that levels of CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases are continuing to rise, and with each part per million (PPM) increase, catastrophic global warming becomes more likely. In 1959 the CO2 level was 316.98 PPM (well above pre-industrial levels). 60 years later, we are now regularly above 400 PPM.
We could, of course, stop emitting CO2 and methane. Simple: Cease burning coal, oil, and gas immediately. No cars, no trucks, no planes, no trains, no tractors, no barges, no heat, no electricity. We would have to abruptly depend on existing wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation, which is far, far short of current usage. Life as we know it would come to a screeching halt all over the world.
We are not going to stop using all the energy we need.
What is the upshot of this state of affairs?
The upshot is that we are doomed. Not this week, not next month, not by 2020, not by 2050. If we are lucky, not by 2100. But the climate has already begun to change inconveniently and erratically, and the trends will continue, grow stronger, and become more disruptive. We have likely passed the tipping point where the measures which are FEASIBLE can have a significant effect on the future.
The world won't come to an end. 300 years from now it will still be spinning and will still be orbiting the sun. The moon will wax and wane. The tides will rise and fall. Most likely we will not be here any more, and many other creatures will be absent as well.
There is nothing inevitable about artificial intelligence. If it ever exists, it will be a product of some large company, or consortium. It will be designed to suit the interests of the class which owns it. It will not exist on its own, "out there", growing like kudzu, burrowing into human civilization and undermining its foundations.
There is probably not time to develop fusion power (it's been just around the corner, almost ready, all-but working, etc. for decades. That goes for a lot of technological innovations: as global warming becomes a larger and larger threat to existence, fewer and fewer resources will be applied to long term projects which do not address survival.
We won't be going to mars to escape from earth. There actually isn't any reason to go to mars in person.
Science fiction, as you say. Remember, it's more fiction than science.
What do you mean, "any civilization can [not] survive with violent tendencies"? The Roman Empire was not run by Quakers, the last time I checked, and they lasted for 1400 years as a going concern, and a few centuries more in the East. The Romans cast a 2000 year-long shadow.
I'm pretty neutral. The human condition remains a constant. It's an imperfect condition. Technology has always been used for human flourishing and destruction alike. It's hubris to assume that the sheer depth of complexity of tech will bring about a state in which the human condition is improved. Tech that's more and more advanced just means more and more advanced means with which to either further human flourishing, or prevent it. It's the grand ol' enlightenment charade still at work, which is baffling, but really, not that baffling at all. One element of the human condition is that we're all stupid and none of us learn. Which is a harsh way of saying that the new generation doesn't learn from the old generation, ad infinitum.
The future seems to be defined by hubris. Which is not new.
I don't think climate change is all that bad. I speak dispassionately because that's the only stance one can assume in this scenario. But, it's a no-win situation. We seem able to adapt to various conditions and have in the past, and this time will be no different. Holland is already preparing for floating cities, and other nations are calculating the cumulative losses.
There was a time in the past when Africa was covered with lush forests, and that might become a reality once again if enough CO2 is released into the atmosphere. I've done some research (a little) and the countries that stands to benefit the most are Russia, Canada, and China from the new climate that awaits our grand grand children (won't have any BTW).
We will just have to adapt, and it's possible that billions of lives will be taken from the inaction, which is likely becoming a reality. It'll be one of those comic book deaths, where the superhero dies, and then returns in some sequel. Ho-hum, what else can be said about such a dark and daft situation without insulting anyone's sensibilities?
One scenario that is likely to occur in my opinion is that we all just detach ourselves from this reality and engage in a virtual one, where our minds are uploaded into some mainframe or cloud computer sufficiently complex. I don't think it's a very edifying future; but, one where we can 'survive' nonetheless.
Why is survival presumably a good in that scenario?
To each his own? IDK, these are hard questions that aren't being discussed even in academia (let alone in policymaking and places of government) nowadays, what else can be said?
Lots can be said. The fact that these issues aren't being discussed highlights their importance; they're elephant-in-the-room questions. Questions that touch on the nature of the human condition, how technology interacts with that, and what technology should be used for are not "to each their own" questions. They're questions with definite answers. Again, what would be the "good" afforded to the human condition by uploading brains to some mainframe situation? Are you assuming that the people in power with control over the "brain uploading scenario" are people with good intentions? I don't see any reason to make that assumption. Bringing the state of the human condition back into the picture, it seems wise to assume no good will; it's wiser to maintain a neutral stance until goodwill can be reasonably demonstrated. What's worse, I think, is that Musk, Zuck, and co aren't particularly of good will or bad; they're moral toddlers playing in a morally doctorate-level game.
Morally, there isn't much that can be acted upon here. That was my intention in posting that quip. Millions if not a billion people will die from famine and loss of agriculture. The only good thing is that it's not an asteroid hurtling towards us or some such matter. So, there will be time to adapt if possible.
what quip? Do you mean this?
Quoting Posty McPostface
____
Quoting Posty McPostface
I get very tired of these fake posturings where "the future of the race" is held up like a religious symbol. What content does that symbol have? In order for a future that doesn't include you to have content for you, it has to include you. It doesn't make sense. No one is fooled into thinking that (proverbial) you is so selfless that he only wants the best for the human race, regardless of whether you will actually participate in that future world yourself. That putting-off-of-fulfillment is analogous to a religious sacrifice. It is a literal religious sacrifice, but just not conscious.
It's just a thought to contemplate, regardless of my level of selflessness or what have you not. I'm not Jesus; but, nor am I some sick and twisted person that sees the possible amount of suffering and death that we face as a race as something that gives me a kick or whatnot. I'm just interested in seeing the least amount of deaths and a reduction in aggregate suffering that people will go through due to inaction on climate change. Maybe this is my default depressive mindset just speaking; but, what can I do about such a predicament?
So what? The tepid water of the middle ground is very palatable. That says nothing of it's nutritiousness.
I don't entirely see what we are arguing over. Please enlighten me.
I think I'm more worried about the future than you. That's my understanding. I'm worried that you're not taking the human condition into consideration here.
There's really nothing that I can say that would prove otherwise to what you're claiming. But I hope that the fact that I brought up the topic quells some of your concerns about my intention in making these posts about our future. Even if I decide not to have children I am still interested in people not excessively suffering over a preventable outcome. But then again who am I to make such grandiose claims about preventable outcomes?
Fair enough; apologies if I assumed too much.
Glad we got that settled. So, what are your thoughts furthermore about our future? Do, you think technology will save us or ultimately be a double edged sword? I would like to think that we could utilize technology to help save us from doom and gloom.
The point I'm trying to make is that "technology" has existed since the wheel. I see no evidence that we've "utilized technology to help save us from doom and gloom", for the past several thousand years.
What happens instead is that, because we have a lot of hubris, we allow ourselves to be seduced by the exponentially-increasing technological chops of an elite few, and then assume that that elite power, held by a few, is some kind of religious balm that will heal the masses. It's fucking ludicrous.
Well, I think you have a point here. Personally, I don't believe in trickle down; but, productivity gains do exist through technology. I mean, it's hard to argue otherwise that life is more brutish than it was some hundred or two hundred years ago.
Then I guess it just brings up the question of what the telos of it all is. Increased productivity, for instance, is also morally neutral. Increased productivity to do what? Feed the hungry? Bomb the shit out of them?
Is life more or less brutish than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago? Probably less brutish. Why is that? Is it just because of technology in-itself?
I've always been a closet utilitarian. My conception of what is good, is that people suffer less and enjoy life more. Though, I understand the contention with technology being a means to 'enjoy life more'. We have a lot of spare time, due to the increase in output in terms of productivity of say growing food, agriculture, and other means of labor for a common unit of exchange. I don't think technology is bad or good, it's what we make it to be what matters.
When I said 'to each they're own' earlier in the thread, I meant it in the context of there arriving a day when people will be free to engage in any activity that they desire or think they would do best. Technology will eventually, in terms of having a benevolent AI in the not so distant future, provide for all our needs, and then well... noting much further than that. I guess people will be free from the need to engage in intensive labor. Then what?
I'm not any kind of utilitarian, so I can't agree with this. It's probably a little tangential, but I see "the good" as an objective ideal that isn't attainable within the current state of the human condition. The human condition itself would have to change in a paradigmal way in order for the good to be attainable. So things like "suffering less" and "enjoying life more" are small details in the face of the actual good. What I see as extremely dangerous is the hubristic assumption that technology itself is the causeway which leads to a paradigmal shift in the state of the human condition. It's not so much a spoken philosophical position as it is a general zeitgeist, which is exactly what makes it dangerous. Our petty sweet nothings that we chide on about on this forum pale in comparison to the real, cultural shifts that are happening outside of our own prisonesque philosophies here.
Quoting Posty McPostface
The irony here, per what I've been saying all along, is that technology has absolutely nothing to do with this; it has nothing to do with our ability to freely engage in activity which we desire or think is best. The reality is that we already do this, and mostly we do it horribly, because we don't know what we're doing. That's the human condition. Again, technology is just a neutral means to achieve more power and productivity to do whatever it is we do; habits beneficial, destructive, malignant, etc.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Why assume AI will be benevolent? Again, this is exceedingly simple, to me: humans are morally problematic; humans make technology; technology as an extension of human problematicness will be problematic; it has been; it continues to be; AI, therefore, will also be problematic. It's stupidly simple.
So no crucifixion then. Let's see, what are the current recommendations for hapless optimists?
I owe both of you an apology. For some reason I thought this thread was started by Schop. Given his anti-natalist drive, the positive drift of the opening post suggested he had lurched to the opposite end of the spectrum and gone off the deep end.
So it's just Posty. OK. All is well.
If I discount the severe harms of global warming, over population, nuclear annihilation, and other near-terminal events, can I be up-beat about the future? Sort of.
I don't see any singularity of AI, no help from some vastly superior and benevolent aliens, no 180º turn abouts, no evolutionary leaps. Our "doom" is the capacity for considerable intelligence yoked together with ancient, dominant emotions. Our intelligence and our emotions are good things, settled on us by a more or less indifferent evolutionary process, but their interplay became a lot more problematic when we attained more technical prowess than we could manage (see The Sorcerer's Apprentice).
As long as we were dependent on horsepower and the firepower of cannons firing mere projectiles, we were protected by the limits of our grasp. As our grasp got closer to our reach in the 18th and 19th centuries, we became more dangerous to ourselves. The danger was fully revealed in the 20th century with the capacity (and the preparation) for mutually assured nuclear annihilation. That risk has quieted down (it didn't go away) only to be replaced by the realization that the Industrial Revolution had a much higher price tag than were previously aware of.
Technology is fun and profitable and we have all embraced as much of it as we can get our hands on. In that we are just doing what we do.
I see a brighter future for our species in retrograde development--rolling back, rather than rolling forward. We now have more technical complexity than we can manage. How far back would be a good idea? The Stone Age? Iron Age? Bronze Age? Roman Empire? Medieval period? Renaissance? Enlightenment? Pre-steam engine? Pre-photography? Pre-telegraph? Pre-telephone? Pre-recorded sound? Pre-radio? Pre-television?
I'd be willing to stop with radio and film and forego television, the nuclear bomb, and Facebook. Maybe even Google. Oh, that would be hard. But we all have to make sacrifices if we are going to return to the past.
People will (correctly) say that we can't go back in time. True enough. But we can't jump forward In time either, to some period when we are uploaded into the Cloud (and become the property of the then current Mark Fuckerburg). But it is easier to give up technology that we can't live with then hope for even vaster technology that we won't be able to live with.
I don't have a television anymore, and haven't replaced it with watching TV online. By and large, I am living without network and cable television. Is it painful and difficult? No, it's not. It's actually quite pleasant and productive. Giving up TV gives me time to blather on here.
Speaking of which, time to stop.
Whenever I think of The Future, all i can see is The Present, but in different clothing, holding different tech devices, driving (or not driving) different vehicles. Almost like the very concept of a radically different future doesn’t compute with me somehow. Likewise, I don’t know what the word “community” means or is supposed to mean anymore. To me, it is one of those words that have become almost neutralized, bland, drained of meaning and blood (as have the words “love”, “progress”, “immorality”, etc.). This is despite the apparent importance of the concept itself. But words losing their meaning or their bite is another topic.
So let’s, for this example, replace the word “community” with the word “team”. I think that the team concept is very clear, especially in sports. Individuals comprise the team and are measured by statistics, but there is some tempering of individual desires to maintain a team spirit, a camaraderie. This is done of course in quest of victories on the field or court. A player can be a great athlete, a great team player, or both, or neither.
What I’m getting at with this overextended metaphor is this: right now the best case present scenario is that we are bunch of All-Star caliber talents with little training in how to act as a team. This training and knowledge has been consistently under-appreciated for as long as the oldest citizens can remember. Team spirit in our daily life of course exists here and there through the efforts of people, and perhaps some sort of grace. But we are suspicious of it. What if i give my best for the team, as someone else gets the money or credit? (I don’t exclude myself from this suspicion or failure).
We are the Beatles circa 1969. Full of talent and experience, but also exhaustion, bitterness and quarrels. The earlier Beatles were almost certainly never as jolly and equal as advertised, and were maybe partially formed as a musical street gang. But there was some sort of intense cohesion.
Are we the personification of this line by Monte Burns from the television show The Simpsons?:
“Oh, I'm afraid I've had one of my trademark changes of heart. You see, teamwork will only take you so far. Then the truly evolved person makes that extra grab for personal glory. Now I must discard my teammates, much like the boxer must shed roll after roll of sweaty, useless, disgusting flab before he can win the title. Ta!”
(The rich Mr. Burns had forced his way onto Homer’s bowling team, and despite his incompetence, they won the trophy).
If we are like this, is there a way to change it? Is it some fixable fault? Or is it a fatal flaw etched in our DNA? Have we met the enemy, and they are us? Are a relatively small group of criminals at fault, misleading others and obscuring the facts? Or is this example off the mark? If it is, prior to further technology salves and salvations, what then is the central glitch in the human heart and/or civilization that is causing such angst? Where are the bugs in the software?
Is it me or does that sound incoherent to you? How, why, and to what end?
It's just Posty? How dare you deny my inherent self-loathing nature manifest in imitating Schoppy1?
Pretty much.
We are inventive and adaptable, so we make new stuff and then we get used to it; then we begin to look for a new frontier of invention. Round and round it goes.
The modern market economy is based on our interest in and enthusiasm for novelty, and our rapidly developing boredom with what all we've got.
Maybe the shoddy wording was incoherent, but the idea is coherent in my mind. "The Good" (I don't really like that phrase) is incompatible with the human condition. So for the good to be attainable, the human condition would have to change. I don't know. It's a hard concept to express, either because it's very subtle, or because I'm crazy.
Maybe we're all crazy? I think there's some utility in expressing 'the good'. We all seem to have our own conception of it. One of its forms is manifest in the golden rule and so on. To each his own?
I don't like "to each his own". It's too soft. The world isn't soft; the human condition isn't soft. I'd rather talk about the human condition first, and then talk about "the good".
The human condition... Hmm, go ahead and share your opinion about it if you want. I will assume a quietist attitude here and listen to what you have to say.
Hmmm, that's rather disquieting.
The human condition is a condition in which humans do many things; they create fascinating art, they create beautiful music that evokes a wealth of emotions, they help each other when in need. But humans also can lead governments that kill millions of people in short periods of time, traffic minors and slaves in the modern day, and, perhaps most poignantly, profoundly harm the ones they claim to love the most.
Is this a lame, polarizing caricature of the best and worst of humanity? Maybe, but that's what the human condition is; it's grand, beautiful, terrifying, horrible, disgusting, unspeakable.
Uh oh... i was ascared you’d say that! :smile: I agree that human nature has many weakness. Or to put it optimistically: opportunities for growth. So all we can do is some type of damage control? We seem to lack a sense of priority, perspective, and balance often. When I was a kid, I knew that eating some candy made me feel good. I reasoned/assumed that having 10x the amount of candy would make me feel 10x as good. Of course, it didn’t work that way. Just felt sick. To this day, still trying to learn balance.
Quoting Bitter Crank
OMG! Link? Where can one get such a wonderful device? (whispers to self: balance... balance...) :blush:
It is, perhaps, better to view the human condition at a middle distance, rather than up close. Animal existence (alligators, otters, wildebeests) viewed up close is a chaotic, chattering, bloody mess. In the middle distance Nature is benevolent, graceful, and lovely. Our private first person view is always up close; then we are the star in our inept little farces. Get into a Silent Night mood where all is calm, all is bright, and view the world from a middle distance. The stupid farce becomes a drama in 5 acts.
Why is the middle better? Because it's less brutal?
So, yet again I ask. What's the issue with technology and science here? They are merely tools that we either use positively or negatively to our benefit or destruction.
I agree, but I haven't seen you taking that view; you seem to be taking a more optimistic view of tech. No?
Well, the proof is in the pudding if you will. We're still here even though we came pretty close to MAD. It's just that the rate of progress over the past 100 years in terms of efficiency gains and productivity have been mind boggling. I don't know how the future exactly looks like; but, in my view we have and will continue to make progress to the point where 'work' will be taken over by AI.
It's a rosy POV; but, I don't see exactly how you can deny it by any argument.
I don't know what else to say. Maybe I haven't presented my arguments that well or something. Tech is a neutral tool; we use it for good and ill. The fact that tech has become so much more efficient and productive doesn't change the neutrality of tech's role. So that doesn't look rosy to me at all. It looks neutral. The human condition continues as it has; now doing good and doing ill are both much more efficient and productive. That means there's no positive progression. I don't know how else to put it.
So, we can agree that there's a dichotomy here between human kind or nature and technology that you are trying to outline here. One is stagnant or unchanging since a good while and the other is progressing at breathtaking speeds. So, where does your conception of changing human nature come into play as you've already mentioned? My opinion is that technology has already changed the human condition to a significant extent. I don't believe we are able to keep up with the pace of technological development anymore, and quite possibly we're going to have to converge with technology in some manner or form.
Some people think it will be a dystopian future; but, the dichotomy will eventually cease to exist if our desire to continue living keeps up.
What makes you say that? Don't you use a telephone or smartphone nowadays? You posting this here instead of meeting at a public forum in person already proves my point more or less so.
Yes, how else do you explain increases in economic output, productivity gains, and efficiency improvements in the process of production?
I put it in that fallacious wording, seemingly, because we have not yet erased the dichotomy between technology and human nature. But, the way things are shaping up, we might just become in some manner or form a Borg-like entity in the not too distant future. As it stands, though, humans still operate slow and timidly comparatively to computers and a potentially vastly superior coming of age, AI.
To adapt, if one so wants to, we will have to converge with that coming reality of superintelligence and all that jazz that we hear about what computers can do better than us.
Obviously, not everyone is interested in converging with AI...
What do you mean by that?
EDIT: So, AI is just a term denoting the ultimate creation of humanity. What's not to romanticise about it?
My concept of a change in the human condition is hard to properly describe, and I'm conflicted about the concept itself. My view of it is based in a Judeo-Christian conception of morality, admittedly, even though I'm no longer a Christian per se. I try to avoid that aspect, simply because I want to deal with the ideas as objectively as I can without introducing assumptions and baggage, both my own, and your's/the reader's, etc. Making all of this more confusing, I'm on the fence as to whether the human condition is something that we can change ourselves. I see a conflict between the heights that humanity can arrive at, and the depths that we can fall into. And so I have a fundamental tension in my view of whether we can and should strive to change our condition, or whether it's hubris. BUT, one thing that I'm sure of is that our physical striving to change our condition, tech, is utterly inert and unable to change our condition. I think I've already made my points about that. To the contrary, the human condition is an inner condition, in the sense of an esoteric, rather than an exoteric condition; the human condition is not a material condition; it's a spiritual condition. We live in a world of spiritual poverty. The human condition is spiritual poverty. For that to change from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment would require a profound shift. I don't know how it can be done. But I refuse nihilism on the shear basis of my own living and breathing existence, and so I have to entertain the possibility of a shift from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment. It's apophatic; I know it's possible because I feel it's lack.
You don't really give me much to reply to here; but, I'll give it a shot. AI, comparatively makes no sense to us. Nor will it ever really make sense to us, because of the fundamental nature that it will have, which I don't even have any idea what it might look like.
My take on the matter is that we ought to create AI in our image, as God did us comparatively to Him. Namely, the only form of AI that I would acknowledge as 'true' is one equipped with a brain in silicone or whatever substrate that AI will exist in. To be more precise, if we can replicate our brain, with all the human emotions that we have in silicone, then that will be as close to our image as possible. It might even 'relate' to us or feel empathy or reciprocate kindness with good deeds also.
There are some real issues with this conception of AI though. Maybe it would be too dangerous to have AI also possess human emotions also, like anger, psychopathy, and rage, greed, malice, and so on.
Yeah, there was one Jesus, one Buddha, and one Mohammed. They can't be replicated or even imitated. We do strive towards their image though, in our own way.
To each their own?
OK, now I sound nihilistic or solipsistic. :roll:
From what I know of your philosophy, I wasn't expecting us to gel much here. But I'm not sure what your reference to those religious leaders is supposed to mean within the context of what you quoted from me. When I say the shift from spiritual poverty to nourishment is apophatic, I mean I feel the poverty, which suggests the potential nourishment. Are you just saying that I feel that because of the teachings of those spiritual leaders, or? That because of their idealistic teachings I feel that lack? That doesn't seem like a sufficient dismissal of their teachings. That assumes that the idealism which their teachings evokes is completely false. Which then implies nihilism. Which we can get into, if we must.
Quoting Posty McPostface
No!!! :sweat:
Well, we like to identify with leaders or other people or significant others, yet, we can never be them.
In the context of AI, which I think we're still talking about, my desire is that we be able to relate to it, which you seem to deny on principle (which isn't entirely clear to me or some sharp dichotomy between the two). If we could relate to it, and it relate to us, then confusion and misunderstanding could possibly be avoided, at mostly our detriment.
If a lion could speak we would not understand it.
Will do!
I don't think I try to identify with Jesus, for instance. You could say that he strived for spiritual nourishment, sure; to the extent that I want to strive for that as well, it's just that I want that thing itself which he proclaimed. That doesn't mean I want to be Jesus, or, per Christian terminology "be like Jesus". Rather, I want the nourishment itself that he offered. I think that nourishment sounds pretty great.
Quoting Posty McPostface
We seem to still not be communicating well, then. I'm saying that there's no reason to want to relate to AI, because AI is something we create; it's a part of the human condition. Ergo, it won't give us anything unique or new. The change we want that we think AI can offer is something that only comes from the inner, the spiritual. Regardless of whether it's peddled by Jesus or Buddha or whoever. So yes I deny AI offering a change in the human condition on the principle that AI is an exoteric means to false change, whereas a spiritual mechanism of change would be esoteric, and thus real, actual change. It's a concept that's ascertained intuitively, not logically. It's essentially a mystical conception.
The dichotomy of exoteric vs. esoteric is pretty central to my view on this. Again, it's a mystical view.
I read chapter 5, and some of chapter 8, as prescribed. I can't say really much to the points raised in those chapters about 'machine intelligence' or 'artificial intelligence'. The whole issue seems to revolve around a known unknown, or what makes the machine tick? Does it have intentionality, if not, then what then makes it 'intelligent'? Is it purposeful behavior, then again, does it have intentionality?
Kind of circular if you ask me.
Oh, so it's metaphysics time, again. Sorry, don't have much to offer in that regard.
Do androids dream of electric sheep, is a question that keeps on bothering me when I see your posts with that avatar. Hehe.
It's always metaphysics time.
Quoting Posty McPostface
That's why PKD's likeness is emblazoned so on TPF; to remind the metaphysically small-minded of their lack! :rofl:
:point:
BitterCrank has summed up my perspective pretty well. To expand on that a bit...
The last century was characterized by a knowledge explosion which gave us two things.
1) Many wondrous miracles, too many to list.
2) An extremely efficient method for erasing all the miracles.
I expect more of that is coming, just at a faster pace. More miracles, and more technologies capable of crashing civilization.
We probably can't even imagine many of the coming miracles, just as those of us who grew up in the 60's couldn't have imagined the impact the Internet would have. A lot of very cool new things are surely coming.
On the other hand, the state of civilization will become increasingly fragile. As is the case with nuclear weapons, every technology with the power to crash civilization will have to be successfully managed every day forever. A single failure a single time with a single power of this scale will result in game over, at least for centuries to come. There's really little in the record of human history to suggest such a record of perfection is possible.
The scale of these coming powers is what to focus on, because that's what erases room for error. In the past we could charge ahead at full speed, make mistakes, clean up the mess, and then continue charging. WWII comes to mind as a good example of this.
What's really interesting, and fairly terrifying, is that everyone has basically known all of the above since Hiroshima in 1945, and yet we keep acting as if nothing has changed. We keep gathering knowledge as fast as we possibly can. We keep reaching for as much power as we can possibly get. We keep pushing, pushing, pushing ever deeper in to a process which is going to end our ability to make mistakes and then clean up the mess.
After discussing this for about a decade, I've come to this conclusion (for now). Our best hope may be to have some kind of epic calamity that is big enough to wake us up, but not big enough to kill us. As example, a limited regional nuclear war. Or maybe even a single detonation.
There really isn't much evidence that we're going to be able to reason our way out of obsolete patterns of the past. We're probably going to have to hit some wall with a loud bang, much like the drunk who refuses treatment until he finally kills someone while drunk driving.
It seems to me there will be a lot of luck involved. If we have the small chaos before the big chaos, we might learn and adapt. If the big chaos comes first, well, game over, no adapting possible.
Thanks for sharing this. There are different ways to word the angst we feel, but “spiritual poverty” does nicely. In a way different than the suffering of existence, such as Sartré described, this poverty seems related to morality, but not exactly equal to it. For example, imagine an innocent child born into a family racked by drug abuse. To switch the word “poverty” with “famine”, we as a species somehow seem to be starving on our deepest levels in the midst of plenty.
Nutritional science continues to map the foods, vitamins, minerals, etc. that one needs to be in an optimal state of health. Have we filled ourselves with emotionally and spiritually empty calories, grabbing immediate but cheaper psychological “fuel” and meaning because it is more readily available. What if the healthier options are very limited and hard to find? The body, mind, and spirit all need their various fuels or inputs. Quality is an issue, but a lesser something is often better than nothing. If this condition has been existent for a long time, things like social media, video games, and television itself are definitely factors, but not necessarily the source of the issue. And are fractured families, unemployment, drug abuse, violent behavior, etc actually the source, a symptom, or perhaps both (as in a feedback loop)?
I think a career in the solar industry wouldn't be a bad idea for me. Thinking about going to some occupational school and do the solar voltaic occupation.
Thoughts?
Which is what exactly? I'm afraid of committing if there's something I haven't considered here.
Oh, yeah. I would mostly just be a roofer in regards to solar panel installation. Nothing mysterious about that aspect of the job in my mind.