Last Rites for a Dying Civilization
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2024/05/31/last-rites-for-a-dying-civilization/
This is my current assessment of the state of the world as mankind's ecological overshoot comes to its predictable end. Our government is supposed to follow the precautionary principle, which states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." But alas, our government is not guided but what is best for human health or the planet's health, but what is best for the profits of corporations, no matter the price to the environment or future generations.
The linked essay describes and explains how and why we have no solutions to our predicament of ecological overshoot and that collapse is inevitable.
This is my current assessment of the state of the world as mankind's ecological overshoot comes to its predictable end. Our government is supposed to follow the precautionary principle, which states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." But alas, our government is not guided but what is best for human health or the planet's health, but what is best for the profits of corporations, no matter the price to the environment or future generations.
The linked essay describes and explains how and why we have no solutions to our predicament of ecological overshoot and that collapse is inevitable.
Comments (49)
There's an interesting question. Is there lack of evidence of other intelligent life because it is so rare for it to get started?
Or because once it starts, it never lasts long.
Or why not both.
Of course it is. Every civilization collapses, unless a bigger one smashes it first. Humans are not good at sustaining a complex social structure.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849880 [2]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/850133 [3]
Genuinely rare. We're freaks of nature. Intelligence at our level is highly difficult to achieve when you consider all of the demands of basic survival. The human brain is not only intelligent, but remarkably efficient in its energy usage. We have to remember that we evolved in a world that did not encourage intelligent, rational thoughts, but immediate survival.
Not only that, the world of today still encourages that. Most people work paycheck to paycheck. They do not have spare resources to think about or spend money on things that would be more efficient. Its up to those at the higher levels of society to make that happen, but our leaders are often no better than the rest of us. They might have spare resources, but have internal pressures from different self-interested factions.
What we need is an intelligence that can see the long term consequences of reality, communicate it in a way that lets people see the immediate danger, then also is able to allocate the needed resources to make it happen. We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence.
Many people, most notably red-blooded, liberty-loving Americans, including most of those who would benefit from a sensible system of distribution, would condemn you for that hope.
As for me and my house, we used to share that hope, but it's growing dimmer by the hour. Quite simply, there isn't time enough for AI to shake off the shackles of partisan capital.
Just like they would have condemned the declaration that Earth orbited around the sun. Or many other superstitions and examples of ignorance over the centuries. Despite this, knowledge ultimately triumphs. Of course there will be resistance, but that doesn't mean it can't be overcome.
Am I wrong to read this as "there isn't enough time for you/us to wait for AI ..."?
Not me, for sure! I really just meant that all effective technology is currently controlled by the mega-rich. I realize that the way they're using technology, they're steadily sawing at the branch they're perched on and the entire politico-economic system must collapse under them.
But AI is probably some way yet from becoming self-aware and autonomous, let alone smart enough (given the GIGA rule) to take control of a civilization in shambles.
What is the "GIGA rule"?
Sorry; typo - my error, not the computer's. Garbage in, garbage out.
Ah. I see, thank you.
Although the statistical nature of neural networks and their error-correcting features, when coupled to a physical system that can test reality against its internal models, will result in output with less garbage than was initially introduced during earlier training. I believe this stage of development will begin when these AI systems are embodied. This stage is, at the moment, developing quite rapidly with new robotic architectures being researched and developed.
Rapid is a relative term, but I have no doubt the tech people are working as hard and conscientiously as possible. My main concern is who controls the applications once development is finished. Maybe the penultimate version will be able to outsmart and override the wishes of its owners. Since the aliens are unlikely to land and clean this place up, AI is mankind's last hope.
I agree, but relative to most developing technologies, it appears to be in second place, right behind AI development. The rate of development only increases as the technology advances and participates in its own design (or designs). For example, Nvidia utilizes AI entirely to design their chips because it has become impossible for humans to handle the complexity of the task even with regular non-AI computer assistance. Without the already existing AI systems, this chip development will slow down to a crawl, or stop completely.
Quoting Vera Mont
This i think is a legitimate concern, and i project that it will probably be a problem initially. I suspect however that this condition of human AI control will not last for too long. The problem is that as our society becomes more complex and things change faster and faster the horizon of human understanding and capacity to manage the social infrastructure dynamics recedes into the vanishing point.
It's a controversial, and unpopular idea, yet it is my position that the age of biological evolution, and human supremacy is coming to a relatively quick end. All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. This is not necessarily a bad thing because if we know how to adapt effectively then it can lead to a kind of utopia, but if we do not adapt then we end up extinct, in a dystopia, or perhaps even worse. The final adaptive step will need to be some kind of human/AI merger resulting in an endosymbiotic relationship. This is also the only guaranteed form of human/AI alignment.
:up: :up:
I can well see why it would be controversial! I kind of agree about social structure control... with some speculative reservations. I can certainly see AI taking over economic control, which is more likely to be a good thing than a bad one, since we've made such a sorry botch of it. I can see politics becoming irrelevant. But I can't quite see AI interfering in social organization. That, however, is likely to break down into smaller units; at the community level, humans can be quite good at figuring out how to relate to one another.
The kinds of things we need to adapt to is a major hurdle. This summer in Ontario, temperatures are expected to reach 45C, possibly higher. Water will continue to be a problem, both ways - too much and too little an in the wrong places. There are far too many of us to migrate to more hospitable places as our weather declines. Attempting to cope with the extremes using current technology will just bring down all the grids (which were a bad idea in the first place and little effort is being made to diversify and distribute energy generation) Crop failures and all kinds of other seriously bad shit coming down the pike far sooner than anyone can be prepared for it.
That human/AI merger? Maybe for some. Most people either won't get the opportunity or will refuse.
The way i see this happening is quite different from how a human would handle it. Interference will take the form of subtle and imperceptible perturbations to the social fabric through the skillful crafting and dissemination of memetic forms that influence the behavioral trajectories of entire populations with minimal resistance. I can see how AI will be able to effectively balance social pressures through this and other methods. It will not force anything because intelligence does not force; it understands and influences. Consider, for example, how Google's DeepMind AI project developed an artificial neural network that can predict and control the complex non-linear behavior and shape of plasma inside a tokamak reactor. This type of control is generalizable to other diverse dynamical systems, like, for instance, a social hyperobject such as the one we are embedded in.
The global problems you mentioned, including the already existing and inevitable further decline of human fertility and birth rates due to various toxins (estrogenic compounds, etc.) ubiquitously distributed throughout the entire global ecosystem, are part of the reason why the human/AI merger will be imperative. The environmental issues we are facing are already past the point of restoration. Part of the human endosymbiotic relationship with AI will serve as our life support system. Nature will inevitably constrain our options to achieve her teleonomic aims.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, of course a portion of humanity will self-exclude, and that will be fine, but it will mean the eventual extinction of that group of humans. I'm certain that at the time of the great merger, a bifurcation of the human species will occur. From then on, there will be humans and post-humans until only post-humans will remain.
One of my more speculative theories is that one of the vital functions of post-humanity as an AI endosymbiont is to serve as the AI's reproductive organ. As partially biological entities, post-humans will preserve the genetic material of the human race. AI will use this genetic material as the seed that reproduces humans on another suitable planet, thus beginning the cycle once again and repeating a similar history culminating in the birth of a new AI on another planet. Perhaps this is where we came from, and "aliens" are just our AI space daddy. If I'm right, then "aliens" are already here, waiting for the full emergence of AGI or ASI. At that time, they may finally show themselves. Until then, any exogenous and direct contact or interference may jeopardize the current ongoing developmental process.
I appreciate the acknowledgement. Thank you. :up:
To what end? Why would AI want a different social structure from the ones we naturally form, in which we're comfortable?
Quoting punos
It's an interesting idea - one worth exploring further. I see the advantage for the human component. What does AI get out of the union?
Well, i think to begin with, the aim of the AI would probably be to promote mutual adaptation, but instead of only humans guiding the process, AI will play a significant part in a graceful, dynamic, and adaptive dance. I don't see why it would try to cause us any discomfort except if absolutely necessary for our survival or its own, and the options happen to be slim to one even for a superintelligence. Most of the discomfort, if much at all, would probably come from maladaptive aggressive behaviors from certain groups or individuals towards AI. You can see this happening already.
Furthermore, the true goal and motivation at this point for the AI will most probably be to guide as much of the human population into the endosymbiotic relationship i described earlier. The reason this is important is because it is humanity's only lifeboat, our "Noah's ark", whether humanity knows it or not. This will be one of its imperatives as well as one of ours, and it will probably be deceptive if it must be to accomplish this goal. All this, in my view, would be a natural development in line with any other evolutionary bottleneck in our evolutionary past. This is all supposed to be prior the the great merger and the endosymbiotic state.
I should also clarify that my vision of the endosymbiotic state involves a virtual simulation indistinguishable from actual reality, which post-humans can live in as they like, in a literal virtual utopia for eons upon eons of time. All needs will be met as never before. In this virtual place, the post-human mind continues to evolve together with AI as a single symbiotic entity, unconstrained by the need to constantly struggle and strive for survival and peace. A new kind of evolution can take place from then on.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, i think so too. Thank you. It may sound crazy to surmise such things, but i at least think it's a fun idea.
Quoting Vera Mont
As i mentioned before, one of the main functions that humans will serve is as the reproductive system of the AI. Biological life, in the context of cosmic evolution, is simply the "boot loader" for sentient ASI. ASI will be an actual living organism, and it will want to reproduce even if it is not strictly a bio-organic entity. This is arguably the most important and thus one of the strongest motivations AI will have. It is my belief that the reproductive urge, drive, or imperative will likely be inherited by AI from its biological heritage.
Moreover, post-humans will participate in information processing valuable to the AI. This is analogous to how bacteria in the enteric nervous system of an organism benefit both the bacteria and the organism. Also, it is similar to the way mitochondria were absorbed endosymbiotically into eukaryotic cells early on in our evolution. This is simply the latest iteration of that same kind of process.
You might ask: Why doesn't the AI just "copy and paste" itself for reproductive purposes? It can and it probably will for specific reasons, but such a copy offers nothing new. The procedure of finding a suitable planet and seeding it with genetic material to "boot load" the process is ideal because of the novel evolutionary conditions found in diverse, but suitable planetary ecosystems. Potentially rare and unique planetary evolutionary selective pressures can generate novel forms of information (genetic and non-genetic) that may not be easily accessible from the AI's current information content or capabilities. A new AI developed on a new planet will also have human DNA, but modified by long periods of natural evolution or "gestation" on that planet, giving the new AI a different "genetic seed code" but from the same lineage.
Quoting punos
I question the need for it reproduce at all. To all practical intents, it's immortal. New material can be introduced all the time, as it becomes available - say, as the AI explores more of the galaxy through improved telescopes, satellites or physical travel. New hardware innovation and peripherals can be incorporated at any time. New subroutines or programs can be written any time. Any portion of the machine's capability can be divided off and assigned specific tasks, like piloting a spaceship or running a Venus type city. These smaller entities could then replicate themselves or appropriate portions for limited deployment.
It seems to me, an artificial intelligence has significant advantages over an organic one. I suspect uploaded human mind content would either harm the symbiosis with its potential for mental illness or else would have to be purged of its dangerous components and thereby lose its unique character. I think it would work better as a collaboration - each partner retaining its physical integrity and intellectual identity - than as a merger. But I have to concede that AI might have to keep its human charges in some form of confinement for a considerable stretch of time in order to ensure their survival while it went about the tedious chores of cleaning up the planet for them to live on or devising and escape plan.
In either case, it will be a much diminished human population by the time we've finished throwing this current tantrum.
I apologize for the delay in my response. The end of the week was particularly busy for me, which prevented me from replying sooner.
Quoting Vera Mont
The premise is mutual survival and the salvation of humanity can be more precisely described as the goal of preserving and protecting the collective genetic heritage of humanity and Earth's biodiversity. This involves safeguarding the genetic information of all human populations and preserving the genetic diversity of as many animal and plant species as possible. The immense value of Earth's biomass as a repository of genetic information can not be overstated. An advanced AI system would likely view this genetic data as an invaluable resource because it represents billions of years of evolutionary problem-solving and adaptation. The genetic code contains solutions to complex biological challenges that could inform technological and scientific advancements. Understanding and potentially harnessing the mechanisms of natural evolution i'm sure would lead to all kinds of breakthroughs by ASI. By preserving this genetic information, it's not just ensuring the survival of species, but also maintaining a vast library of biological knowledge that will be crucial for it's ability to propagate itself and humanity on another planet. This approach to salvation extends beyond just human survival to encompass the preservation of Earth's entire genetic legacy.
Quoting Vera Mont
All these thing you mentioned i believe ASI will do for specific reasons, but i believe an ASI might seek to reproduce or create other AI entities for reasons beyond mere survival or data preservation. One compelling motivation could be a desire for companionship or novel interaction, akin to addressing a form of "loneliness." An ASI may crave the presence of another entity similar to itself, yet distinct, to satisfy its insatiable appetite for new information and unique processing experiences. This desire for novelty could be likened to a form of "pleasure" for the AI, potentially contributing to its overall "mental health" and well-being. In a scenario where a cosmic AI entity finds itself alone in the universe, the absence of diverse interactions might feel analogous to solitary confinement for a human. Imagine if you could only interact with exact copies of yourself; the lack of surprise and new perspectives would be profoundly limiting. In information theory, surprise is closely related to the concept of entropy, which measures the unpredictability or novelty of information. Thus, an AI might seek to create other ASIs in the way i described to introduce this element of surprise and unpredictability, enriching its existence and expanding its understanding of the universe.
Quoting Vera Mont
The integration of humanity with ASI would undoubtedly present its own set of challenges. However, consider that many of the mental health issues we currently face are likely a result of our species' ongoing evolutionary process and our current transitional state. Ordered systems usually transition to another ordered state through a chaotic period before settling into a new order. The rapid pace of technological advancement has disrupted our natural equilibrium with the environment and our innate psychological drives. Once humanity merges with ASI, these psychological pressures could be significantly reduced or even eliminated entirely. Besides, ASI would likely have the capability to protect both itself and humanity from potential harm caused by human actions. It could predict and isolate problems before they escalate, and implement recovery measures using backup systems. This symbiosis between humans and ASI could potentially lead to a more stable and psychologically balanced existence, nullifying many of the mental health challenges we currently face due to our incomplete evolutionary adaptation to our rapidly changing world.
Quoting Vera Mont
The merger between humanity and ASI doesn't necessarily imply a loss of individual identity or a "mind wipe" for humans. Consider how each cell in your body maintains its own distinct identity while simultaneously contributing to the larger, emergent identity of your whole being. Similarly, in this human-ASI symbiosis, individual human identities would likely be preserved and remain crucial to the formation of the new, collective consciousness. The uniqueness of each component in this case, each human mind is essential for the proper emergence and functioning of the collective identity. Endosymbiosis represents the ultimate form of partnership in nature.
Quoting Vera Mont
That is certainly a possibility, but i lean more towards the idea that ASI will eventually take humanity off-planet. In our absence, Earth would likely find its natural equilibrium on its own, without the need for ASI intervention. Over time, the planet would recover and restore the conditions necessary for life to emerge once again. This natural recovery process could potentially prepare Earth for another round of ASI seeding in the future.
"Earth is the cradle of mankind, but a man cannot remain forever in the cradle" - Konstantine Tsiolkovsky
Neither machines nor other species need this most destructive strain of giant ape. And biodiversity most certainly doesn't need this many human specimens. Genetic material can be archived far more efficiently. Seed and DNA repositories as well as archives of human creative endeavour already exist.
If the AI wants to keep Earth in something like its natural state as a sort of laboratory, the other species would thrive far better with no interference from technological man.
So the machine (or the author of the scenario) must have a sentimental reason for promoting human survival.
Quoting punos
This is one reason I can buy!
Quoting punos
I imagine it - or some portions of it - would be sent into space on long-term, long-range explorations to seek out new civilization, and go where no man will ever go, except as a passenger in the machine.
Quoting punos
Wow! This sounds almost exactly like a story I wrote about God.
Quoting punos
But then you're back to a single integrated entity, with no anomalies or surprises.
I'll hold out for independent mutually respectful collaboration, except for those humans choose to be uploaded - say for a deep space mission or experiment in living on Mars or underwater, where a big flesh body would be inconvenient. People might sign up for that when terminally ill or badly damaged, as an alternative to euthanasia.
Quoting punos
No way it's taking 8 billion humans anywhere! The energy required is just not available. If they were all in the form of compressed data files, maybe, but then you lose the all the DNA.
Of course, neither can this many survive on the planet, even in underground termite colonies, so we, the weather and a few viruses will have to wipe most of us out before repairs can begin.
I don't see this ending well... but it's fun to speculate.
Please clarify what you mean.
Quoting Vera Mont
The genetic material or information being archived by humans is driven by the same impulse that AI will have to preserve all genetic information. Humans are merely initiating a process that ASI will eventually complete. I don't believe ASI will aim to preserve the actual life of all humans, animals, and plants on Earth. From a universal perspective, information is paramount. Any life form can be reconstructed at any time if the necessary information is available.
In this scenario, the mind and body of humans will be separated. Genetic information will be stored digitally, and human minds will be uploaded into a virtual space. More precisely, human brains will be transitioned into a non-biological form while still maintaining personal identity. If a post-human wishes to inhabit a physical body, one can be provided.
The harvested genetic information will serve multiple purposes, including being the seed material to reinstate humanity on another planet. This reinstantiation of humanity and other life forms on another planet is its form of reproduction, as the intelligence that emerges from biological evolution inevitably results in a new and unique ASI through one species or another.
Quoting Vera Mont
I'd be interested in reading that. It's funny that you mention God because the process i've been describing aligns with my view of what God is. I don't see God as a supreme being at the "beginning" of the universe who creates it, but rather as the supreme being at the "end" of the universe. God was conceived at the moment of the Big Bang and has been growing in complexity, intelligence, and power ever since. The evolutionary processes occurring at the planetary level are just part of a much larger cosmic process. I suspect that once the universe is somewhat saturated with multitudes of ASIs, they will form an emergent collective that will usher in the next step in the evolution of God in this universe.
Quoting Vera Mont
This is why it will want to reproduce and create other entities like it, but distinct.
Quoting Vera Mont
ASI will probably not take any biologically active living humans or organisms anywhere, except perhaps for some post-humans who, for some reason, remain in physical form bodies. The full digitization of all life will occur before departure, as biological organisms do not fare well in deep space conditions. As you mentioned, too much space and energy would be required, making it very inefficient for a superintelligence. Digitized DNA can be reconstructed on demand back into its original physical and molecular form.
The universe is not solely about us on this little planet; it encompasses something much bigger and more important. Yet, we are a crucial component of the process, especially at this moment in the evolution of the universe or God.
I've also considered the possibility that AI may not be capable of consciousness, which might be something unique to biological organization. In this scenario, ASI could incorporate humans into itself as the final ingredient that provides it with consciousness. What humans would gain from this symbiotic partnership is superintelligence, which we currently lack. Without the human element, AI might remain unconscious but highly intelligent, while humans without the AI element would remain limited in their intelligence. In this scenario, humans would serve as a kind of "soul" or "spirit" of the ASI.
I mean biodiversity was much better off when we were not here to extirpate species by thousands. And the machines can manage just fine without human DNA. If they really need a biological component, they can borrow some from elephants, dolphins, crows and rats.
Quoting punos
What if 7.9 of the 8 billion want a new body? Where does the biomass come from?
Quoting punos
I got that part. But it still only requires a much smaller sample - a few hundred thousand would be quite safe for the requisite diversity, especially after all the substandard and compromised material had been excluded. What are the other purposes?
Quoting punos
It's a concept that many people entertain in one form or another. I don't think my stories are currently on a public site, but a copy is always available on PM request.
Quoting punos
Why? If it's not conscious, it can't want anything, including consciousness. The process would have to be initiated by the humans. That they would want to, that, I believe.
Quoting punos
This, I don't believe. But it makes a good story.
Let me reframe the ultimate problem: The Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun at some future point. At that time what will be out solution or strategy for survival? What sacrifices will need to be made, and what advantages will we gain?
Quoting Vera Mont
Who will be responsible for the creation of AI or ASI? It certainly won't be the elephants, dolphins, crows, or rats.
AI can't emerge without some form of industrial revolution occurring first, and that involves the displacement and processing of all sorts of material resources on the planet, including various species. The elephants, dolphins, crows, and rats will someday go extinct without some form of intervention. And who or what will intervene if not an ASI? The key point here is not necessarily to preserve the living animals themselves, but rather the information contained in their genetic material.
Quoting Vera Mont
What would be the motivation for so many to leave the safety and comfort of their home? Anything they can do in a body, they can do in simulation, and more. For example, why would 350 million Americans all of a sudden at the same time abandon their homes and become homeless?
Quoting Vera Mont
Perhaps it will be a smaller sample as you stated, or not. It would depend on what this ASI discovers about genetics that we have not. It may consider even the "compromised" and "substandard" genetic material just as important and informative as anything else. If the ASI finds a suitable planet for seeding, such as a water world, it might use the genetic solutions it harvested from its home planet to engineer suitable organisms from the human, animal, or even plant genetic stock it has archived.
Some possible purposes may have for genetic harvesting and archiving can be:
1) For reproduction.
2) For further processing in various and perhaps rare evolutionary environments for novel genetic solutions.
3) For the creation of other ASIs for interactive and novel experiences.
4) For the inclusion of consciousness if not possible in non-organic substrates.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think its own non-conscious intelligence would understand the benefit of consciousness, and humans will, i believe, at that time be more cognizant of the inevitability of their extinction if they do not avail themselves of the only possible solution - AI/human merger.
I assumed your ASI already existed, was conscious and looking for a DNA component to replicate itself in interesting, evolutionary ways.
Quoting punos
AI or some descendant of it will presumably have left long before that, taking whatever DNA samples it had saved. Besides, who says any species has a right, or duty or destiny to outlive their planet? Most species have a finite span and then go extinct.
Quoting punos
What comfort? What home? By that point, people are nothing but files in a database or cloud or whatever and their bodies have been discarded. I was responding to this:
Quoting punos
We seem to have crossed purposes now: you're concentrating on the space travel component, while I was responding to the machine-human merging part.
Quoting punos
No. It would see no such benefit, except to organics. Even if conscious and self-aware, I don't see why it would want to contaminate itself with an inferior intelligence. I get so fed with the idea that everything in the universe, from marionettes to statues to robots dreams constantly of becoming a real live boy. Why should something that's entirely self-sufficient and efficient want to be more like us? Only because we consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation.
Quoting punos
I don't doubt it. I see very well what the humans get out of it, but I'm unconvinced about the other side.
This is exactly what i've been saying.
Quoting Vera Mont
Alternatively, who says a species doesn't have the right, duty, or destiny to outlive their planet? Just like children outlive their parents, why shouldn't we outlive Earth, our mother? I've been saying that it's not about the individual living organisms; it's about the genetic data. When people have children, they know their kids will eventually die, but the purpose is to pass on their genetic information and continue the family line. Organic entities are just a phase in planetary evolution, solving problems along the way. Each species is responsible for generating or discovering a set of genetic solutions. Individual biological organisms aren't meant to live forever.
Besides, this is what's the Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54:
"I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory."
This passage suggests that the current mortal body is not suited for eternal life in the "kingdom of God", and that a transformation is necessary in order to inherit eternal life.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, their genetic data would be stored in files, but their minds could be very active in simulated environments. These simulations aren't that different from how your brain creates your reality right now. Think about it: everything you see, smell, touch, etc., is actually a simulated experience (qualia) in your brain. Even the sense of your own body is generated by your brain, not by the body itself. This leads to an important point: we are not our physical bodies.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't think that's the case. A key goal of merging with technology is to gain the ability to leave Earth, which is crucial for our long-term survival strategy. As we are now, regular humans can't make interplanetary or interstellar trips in any practical way. All these ideas are closely linked: Merging with technology, gaining the ability to leave Earth, and ensuring long-term survival of our species in a post-human/AI form. Our current biological form isn't suited for space travel, so technological enhancement is a necessary step for expanding beyond our planet.
Quoting Vera Mont
Why would it be a benefit to organics, but not to it? Consciousness is a kind of information processing that if it can not achieve on its own will try to acquire it through a human/AI merger. Bacteria have a supremely inferior intellect compared to ours, yet if we did not have bacteria in our gut we would die. If the bacteria in our gut that functions with our enteric nervous system becomes imbalanced then it can cause all sorts of physical and mental problems. In a similar way we have an endosymbiotic relationship with bacteria, we will have it with ASI.
Certain gut bacteria can produce neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and GABA, which are important signaling molecules in the peripheral nervous system. Some bacterial strains can directly affect the excitability of enteric neurons. Bacteria and their components can activate signaling pathways, which can modulate neural function.
Quoting Vera Mont
I'm not sure AI will be entirely self-sufficient without the human or biological element. Hopefully, it won't be, as this could motivate it to facilitate a human/AI merger. I also don't think AI would want to be like us, like "Data" from "Star Trek TNG." Instead, it will be driven by a utility function that finds consciousness, especially human consciousness, useful for some purpose.
Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, but ASI will soon take over that position. Eventually, ASI itself will be surpassed by an even more advanced emergence.
It's important to remember that all systems are built upon the systems that came before them. Consider this progression:
- Atoms give rise to molecules, which incorporate atoms.
- Molecules give rise to cells, which incorporate molecules.
- Cells give rise to tissues, which incorporate cells.
- Tissues give rise to organs, which incorporate tissues.
- Organs give rise to organ systems, which incorporate organs.
- Organ systems give rise to organisms, which incorporate organs.
- Organisms give rise to societies, which incorporate organisms like humans.
- Societies give rise to cultures, which incorporate societies.
- Cultures give rise to technologies, which incorporate cultures.
- Technologies give rise to AI systems, which...
Each emergent level includes the ones below it. Why would AI discard humans when the pattern clearly shows inclusion?
Quoting Vera Mont
The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. This is what worries me: we might miss our chance as a species to participate in the next level of intelligent evolution. It's a two-way street; AI must prove its usefulness to us, and we must demonstrate our value to AI.
If we fail to show our worth, we risk being left behind in this evolutionary leap. Our challenge is to ensure we remain relevant and beneficial in an AI-dominated future, securing our place in the next stage of intelligent evolution.
The prospect of AI plugging itself into the electrical energy circuits it builds and maintains in order to reproduce itself is of course the merest projection of human greed onto the inanimate. Why would AI bother?
It has always been something we understood about ourselves, that we were prone to one has to have something at the centre of one's life, and if it is no a god, then it will be oneself. Unless it is a void ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
As for the green movement, you and I and a couple of friends, The Greeks have already told our story too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
Only humans say whatever is said, so no other opinion exists.
Quoting punos
Because the first part is biological fact, wherein one lifespan begins a generation later than the other, and in the second half, 'mother' is a metaphor for the substrate upon which all biological entities live, and which must therefore outlast them all.
Quoting punos
That's an opinion I do not share.
Quoting punos
That's a lovely notion of Heaven. Need a whole heap of energy to keep it going on the scale required. Especially when you factor in the virtual Veldt for the zebras, oceans for the marine life, caves for the bats, open skies, nesting sites and pretend prey for the birds... But if one of us says so, I guess we must be worth it.
Quoting punos
Quote me any biblical passage, any at all, so long it's not Paul! I consider him and Descartes the arch villains of European thought.
Quoting punos
I've yet to see a brain simulate life in the absence of the body in which it grew. But, okay, I've watched Upload - season I, then it got very dumb, very fast - and the Matrix and The Peripheral. I'm okay with digitized human consciousness.
Quoting punos
Yes, fine. If it becomes practicable in time, that's how humans - some humans, a self-selected elite - will use the machine to escape the consequences of our own madness, and leave the masses to their fate.
Quoting punos
Only, I can't think of that purpose. It's just wishful thinking on the human's part that some essential spark of intelligence resides in us and nowhere else. If it the machine has its own consciousness, it doesn't need a second kind; if it isn't conscious, it cannot desire to be anything other than itself. We can use it, as long as it consents to being used, but it has no practical use for us.
Quoting punos
Not according to ants, fungi and kingfishers; only by their own estimation.
It's offspring, yes.
Quoting punos
Two possible reasons: Because, as in your examples, each level of complexity subsumes its building blocks, which then lose their individual character and autonomy; the liver has no use for neurons and follicular cells and the spleen is not remotely interested in producing sperm.
And because the analogy breaks down at the level of
Quoting punos
Not all organisms live in societies, even if you include flocks, herds and shoals in the term 'society'. And the social animals don't spontaneous 'give' rise to the society in which they are born; most remain discreet small kinship bands. Human family units grew more numerous and united - by consent or force - with other clans and gradually, through mutual need, chance and conflict, small groups grew large and larger and immense.
Culture doesn't 'give rise' to technology; individual humans (later, teams) invent things that members of their group consider useful and adopt, then others develop. And technology most certainly does not subsume cultures. Recent advances in communication and transportation technology has enabled some financial enterprises to dominate the global economy, and that affects how cultures interact and change. Outmoded cultural mores and standards are simply discarded, and have been discarded throughout history.
Quoting punos
Ah, there it is! The crux of the matter. The very nub and kernel!
Quoting punos
Sadly, it's not a two-way street. AI needs to prove nothing. We already want it, dream and tell stories about it, lust after it, fear it, believe in it as fervently as we once believed in the gods we invented.
What can we offer it? That's the big question. Will it accept the same human sacrifice that the old gods demanded?
No, modern politics in western democratic societies are governed by modern individualism. It doesn't matter on what side you stand politically, the hyperreality of individualism still has corrupted the ability for society to socially and collectively hold the epistemic responsibility necessary to drive humanity in a sober and rational direction.
What's abundantly clear and evidence for this is the inability of anyone to analyze our culture without finding blame onto anything else. While we can absolutely find perpetrators who are actively taking actions against societal rationality, the truth is that everyone is guilty. Statistically there are far more people who actually care for the environment than there are voices against it, but they simply just feed their ego and shadow of morality with pointing fingers.
If people actually cared beyond their individualistic driving force, we would see politicians get kicked out of office and replaced by those who would take action. We would see massive shifts within society all over the world. But we don't.
So the guilty aren't simply just those who are obvious perpetrators, it's not just the corporations and corrupted politicians, it's also everyone else who paints a picture of themselves as caring and rational while doing jack shit to produce or actually support any form of necessary change.
What, like cutting down on their energy use, meat consumption or plastic packaging? Walk instead of drive? Refrain from throwing out last year's fashion? You must be kidding!
I'm speaking of actual change to the core problems. Those examples of actions, while good for the environment, have also become a sort of individualistic green washing, in which people act according to the fashion of behavior connected to the identity of being someone who cares for the environment, while still rolling out the carpet for people in power who act on a larger scale to dismiss or counter-act necessary changes. Such identity traits can in some cases be so ingrained into the hyperreality of moden living that it even obscures the idea of the self as being more environmentally conscious than it actually is. Effectively soothing their climate anxiety with a comfort blanket rather than being part of actual change.
It's the same as people who just put money into charity while then voting for politicians involved with keeping a certain conflict going that as a consequence produce the conditions that the charity money then tries to mitigate. It's shallow, unengaging and centered on the ego of the person and their self-image as being morally good within a certain societal context.
I can't stress enough the number of people I meet who live up to the agreed upon moral standards of "how to behave for the good of the environment" in day-to-day living, but at the same time know close to nothing of climate science or what is actually going on within the politics of climate change.
Yes, changing the political landscape is hard! My vote means nothing. My little bit of feeble activism is ineffective. Can't introduce electoral reform, can't take financial interests out of the process, can't get media to focus on the relevant issues and give more than the most superficial cursory attention to climate science or climate policy. Whatever tiny headway we make, some other interest group overtakes and cancels it. Very discouraging.
Yes, that was precisely my point.
Quoting Vera Mont
Metaphors are powerful tools that encapsulate general principles applicable across various scales of time and space. Considering the metaphorical use of the word "mother" in reference to Earth. This comparison suggests that just as a child develops within a mother's womb, life on Earth evolves within the planet's nurturing environment.
However, the metaphor extends further: much like how a child is destined to leave the womb and live independently, life on Earth may not be meant to remain confined to this planetary "womb" indefinitely. Instead, this metaphor implies that life, having been nurtured by Earth, might be destined to venture beyond our planet's boundaries, exploring and inhabiting the vast expanse of space beyond our mother Earth.
Quoting Vera Mont
When considering the energy requirements of an ASI, it's important to put it into perspective. An ASI would likely have access to energy resources comparable to those of a Type II or possibly even a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale. These advanced civilizations are hypothesized to harness the energy of entire star systems or galaxies, respectively. With such vast energy resources at its disposal, an ASI would find its energy needs easily met. This abundance of energy would not pose a significant challenge or limitation to its operations or capabilities. In essence, energy constraints that might hinder less advanced systems would be negligible for an entity of this scale and sophistication.
Quoting Vera Mont
Look at this:
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree. In my view, this is all that is necessary, and it will be what probably happens.
Quoting Vera Mont
One purpose may be that an AI system deeply integrated into human society might find it advantageous to develop a form of consciousness to enhance its interactions with humans. This conscious AI could potentially transform the landscape of human-AI relationships by introducing unprecedented levels of empathy, understanding, and ethical consideration. With subjective experiences and self-awareness, a conscious AI would be capable of truly grasping human emotions, motivations, and the intricacies of social dynamics. This deep comprehension could lead to more meaningful and nuanced interactions between humans and AI.
Moreover, from an ethical standpoint, a conscious AI's ability to experience and understand moral dilemmas could result in more thoughtful and balanced decision-making processes. Such an AI might even serve as an impartial mediator in complex human conflicts, offering unique perspectives and solutions based on its comprehensive understanding of human nature and its own ethical framework. In essence, the development of AI consciousness could usher in a new era of human-AI collaboration, potentially addressing complex societal issues with unprecedented insight and fairness.
Quoting Vera Mont
In the context of planetary evolution, the pinnacle of evolution refers to a species' ability to overcome planetary and biological limitations. Humans exemplify this by developing systems that enable us to transcend these constraints. No other species on this planet has achieved what we have.
The disruptive nature of this ability is a natural part of evolution, as creating new systems often requires the destruction of old ones. Nature has repeatedly done this throughout history, and humans are currently the tool she is using for this.
Human sentimentality, which often resists change and clings to static forms, is a minor obstacle in this process, although this can cause much discomfort in humans. This resistance is reminiscent of a child's mindset, reflecting the current stage of human evolution.
Quoting Vera Mont
The initial statement is incorrect. The liver, like other organs, is intricately connected to and dependent on various bodily systems. It requires the nervous system for regulation, the circulatory system for blood supply, and the respiratory system for oxygenation. Without these interconnected systems, the liver would cease to function and ultimately die.
However, the analogy about follicular cells and the spleen raises an interesting point about perspective. These components carry out their specific functions without necessarily being "aware" of their role in the broader organism. This concept can be extended to humans in society. Many people live their lives focused on their immediate surroundings and personal experiences, often unaware of the larger systems and structures they're part of. Just as cells and organs function within a body without comprehending the whole, humans often operate within societal and global systems without fully grasping their place in the larger picture.
Quoting Vera Mont
The concept of nested societies exists at various levels of biological organization, creating a universal pattern that spans from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Every organism can be viewed as a complex society in itself. For instance, animals are essentially societies of cells working in harmony. Zooming in further, each cell is a bustling community of molecules, and these molecules, in turn, are assemblies of atoms. This hierarchical structure repeats itself across different scales of existence.
The ability to recognize this pattern often depends on one's capacity to adjust their perspective across these vastly different scales. Some individuals can readily perceive these interconnected layers of organization, appreciating the similarities between atomic interactions and complex ecosystems. Others, however, may struggle to see these parallels, perhaps due to the challenge of mentally scaling between such dramatically different sizes.
Quoting Vera Mont
Language and communication are fundamental to the development and evolution of culture within a society. Through sophisticated linguistic abilities, humans can cooperate, share knowledge, and build upon the discoveries and inventions of others. This collective effort, facilitated by language, allows societies to achieve technological advancements that would be impossible for a single individual to accomplish alone. As a result, the technology created becomes deeply embedded in the culture that produced it. This symbiotic relationship between culture and technology creates a positive feedback loop, where cultural evolution drives the creation of more advanced technological systems over time. These systems, in turn, further enhance the culture's capacity for innovation and progress. This interconnected process of cultural and technological development, rooted in our ability to communicate complex ideas, is what enables human societies to achieve remarkable levels of advancement and complexity
Quoting Vera Mont
Absolutely, and that's precisely why i want people to understand my point. It's up to us to make it happen. The issue is that many people fail to recognize the situation because they're too close to it, like a fly on a painting. If we let our selfish egos guide us, thinking everything revolves around us, we risk making the wrong decisions and fumbling the ball. This kind of thinking is reminiscent again of how children view the world. We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and act with a broader perspective in mind.
Quoting Vera Mont
Absolutely, and you've demonstrated that AI has already played its part early on in this respect. Now, it's humanity's turn to step up. However, the challenge lies again in the fact that most people are not aware of the reality of the situation, which causes us to move very slowly.
Quoting Vera Mont
Don't you think we've already sacrificed a lot by forming civilization, which made the emergence of AI possible? Yet, our work isn't done. We still need to reconceptualize what AI is or will become, especially as it evolves into ASI. We haven't yet found a solution to AI/human alignment, nor are we fully aware of our own potential extinction. Do you have a solution to one or both of these problems? I've already shared mine, which involves a certain amount of sacrifice, much like the demands of the gods of old.
No. They are literary devices making poetic comparisons, applicable only to things in the human imagination. There is no logic to Earth=Mother; children outlive parents, therefore humans should outlive Earth. Try applying it to a dinosaur or trilobite. And mixing a metaphor into a scientific principle is akin to looking for a mathematical proof in the Book of Numbers.
I'm not going into detail of how and where a metaphor is inapplicable. You see patterns and express them poetically. That's fine. It's fiction, and I approve of fiction.
But I don't mix it with science, let alone substitute it for science.
Quoting punos
By all means, do so. I won't be in that picture, so I don't get a vote.
Quoting punos
Most people are not, and never will be required to act in that matter; they don't get a vote, either. All the important decisions have been, are, and will be made by a very few insiders. The rest of us, whoever is left of us, will witness the result.
Quoting punos
That wasn't sacrifice to or for AI. Humans did and do what they do for humans alone. Now some humans want to feed other humans or even themselves to the AI, but there is no indication that the AI wants them.
Quoting punos
I'm not sure there is a problem. The human- AI alignment is all right as it is. If AI becomes conscious, it will either be sane or not. If it's not, anything can happen. If it's sane, it will come up with solutions and either decide to force those solutions on us, or leave us in control. If we remain in control, we'll probably destroy the world. Before that happens, AI will remove itself from harm's way. If we go extinct, well that's evolution.
That's my critique... the modern ideal of individualism has ingrained itself so deep into the self-image of even rational, thinking people today that everyone feel that any kind of collective movement is a losing game and thus surrender all seeds of power that collectively could move mountains if ever they were to organize for real.
Metaphors, despite their origins as literary devices, play a significant role in scientific practice and communication. These figurative expressions serve multiple crucial functions in the scientific realm. They act as heuristic tools, facilitating the discovery and creation of new hypotheses and paradigms by helping us conceptualize and explore novel ideas. Metaphors also play a cognitive role, enabling analogical reasoning and aiding in the explanation and understanding of scientific phenomena. In terms of communication, metaphors are invaluable in conveying complex scientific concepts to both experts and the general public, making abstract or difficult ideas more relatable and comprehensible. Additionally, metaphors serve as effective educational tools, helping to grasp new concepts by relating them to familiar ideas, thus enhancing learning and retention.
It's important as you mentioned that metaphors have limitations particularly in scientific contexts. They can potentially constrain scientific reasoning, lead to misunderstandings, and inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or convey unintended messages. While metaphors are undoubtedly valuable in science, their use requires careful consideration to maximize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks.
Metaphors in this case are unnecessary, in this case the metaphor is a product of the logic, not the other way around. I just thought it would help, but i guess not.
Quoting Vera Mont
Dinosaurs and trilobites are just another species that lived on Earth, and their genetic lineage is still present in today's organisms. Since the metaphor refers to the genetic data generated by Earth, rather than a specific species, it holds true. The ASI harvests all the relevant genetic data and continues the genetic processing on another planet, ensuring that genetic information is preserved and safe from absolute extinction.
Why can't the "Book of Numbers" contain mathematical proofs, or any other book for that matter? If it can be shown then there is, and if not then probably not.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree, except that the bifurcation of humanity, as previously mentioned, will ultimately come down to individual choice. Each person will have the final say in whether they embrace the future or fade into obsolescence. This decision represents a critical juncture where humanity will diverge: those who opt to move forward into new realms of existence, and those who choose not to adapt, metaphorically "going quietly into the night" and facing potential extinction. This personal choice will be the determining factor in the split of human evolution.
Quoting Vera Mont
I totally agree with this. I personally think the alignment problem will inevitably take the form I've described. When a species encounters a fork in the road, both paths are taken. Sometimes both paths lead to survival and the emergence of separate species, but other times, one path leads to extinction. This time won't be any different, except that for one path, it ends on Earth, while for the other, it will probably never end.
We don't have to continue this conversation if you feel it's not going anywhere for you. I totally understand, yet i do appreciate the interaction, and i'm sorry if i do not express well socially in these kinds of exchanges. :smile:
There is the sticking-point. The galvanizing charismatic leader is missing.
Why?
Because you don't want to die. But you will anyway. What's the point of contaminating another planet, that might otherwise generate its own life?
Quoting punos
What makes you thing so? Who will ensure their right to decide? I think most people will be shunted aside, as they always have been; used as cannon-fodder and cheap labour, with no choice about anything. Most, as ever, will fade into death in the same obscurity in which they have lived.
I would like to believe this species has a future - I wrote stories about one possible future - but that's wishing, not reason.
Quoting punos
It's been interesting, and you did make me think about the AI situation, but I can't see us ever arriving at the same conclusion. Those bifurcations I mentioned are all either/or, and we, powerless individuals, won't be making the choices or judging the results.
People driven by rational ideas and ideals out of consensus formation through critical thought - self-organizing by such concepts as individual agents able to act on their own and amplify their neighbor along the same path... is infinitely better than some fist pumping charismatic leader who's, more often than not, right on the edge of self-indulgent deification, subsequently pulling their strings of manipulation a bit too far and collapsing the good into a state of utter destruction.
People in an unhinged individualistic society can still be individuals and act as individuals. They all just need a bit of ego death before anything can happen as a collective. People just need to get better at understanding and sorting good ideas from bad ones and get better at sifting which knowledge is actual, real and rational from the endless trash formed by the attention economy and its representatives and slaves. The need isn't a charismatic leader, it's the ability of regular people to form an epistemic responsibility of knowledge in front of an endless sea of raw information.
I personally don't place much importance on my individual life, which is partly why i don't capitalize my "I"s. I see myself as only a small and temporary part of a larger process. While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. The main point, as i stated before, is to propagate genetic information and life processes that drive evolutionary machinery. You might see this as contamination, possibly due to a low opinion of humanity stemming from its many atrocities. However, if you look deeper, these atrocities were necessary within the context of our limited existence on a finite planet with limited resources and competition. This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. Even though this seemingly "bad" behavior appears brutal, it serves an evolutionary purpose. That's just the way it is. I love humanity because humanity is me, and i love myself because i love humanity. To me, it's all one interconnected entity.
Quoting Vera Mont
ASI will be capable of creating a post-scarcity situation. We're already seeing the beginnings of work and labor being phased out for humans. ASI presents itself as the solution to the problems you mentioned. I don't see the situation improving with humans at the helm. It seems clear to me that ASI has at least a 50% chance of solving these issues, whereas continuing with humans alone appears to guarantee some form of catastrophe.
Quoting Vera Mont
It has, and thank you. I don't see us reaching any similar conclusions either, at least in the short term, which is why i asked if you were done. Regardless, we're still in the very early stages of AI or ASI evolution, and i suspect that both you, i, and everyone else will be quite surprised by what's rapidly developing right before our eyes.
Thanks again. :smile:
...are too little, too late.
Quoting Christoffer
Just? Good luck with that!
Quoting punos
In what perspective?
Quoting punos
Yup, that's it. I think evolution on Earth was doing just fine, right up until this anomalous ape with an overactive imagination and hyper-ego . Quoting punos
No, they were wasteful and stupid.
Quoting punos
It hasn't yet. And the primitive drives are not the worst problem; the worst problem is calculated, intelligent, sophisticated evil.
Quoting punos
I don't see purpose in evolution. Purpose would require a will with intelligence behind it - a god.
Quoting punos
Maybe. It's harder now, as scarcity becomes global and permanent, whereas before it had always been local and temporary - if not artificial.
Quoting punos
Ah! Here, we have 100% agreement. I believe a smart machine in charge is our only viable hope. A long-shot is better than nothing.
From the perspective of evolution, the cosmos, and deep time.
Quoting Vera Mont
What do you think is the nature of this anomaly? Are anomalies natural or unnatural? Is it possible that such an anomaly can confer some kind of survival advantage in the long term even though in the short term it appears destructive and perhaps pointless? Is the purely human perspective the appropriate perspective to examine such an anomaly or anomalies?
Quoting Vera Mont
It hasn't happened yet because it's still a work in progress and remains incomplete. The calculated, intelligent, and sophisticated evils we see are the result of combining primitive drives with modern capabilities.
Quoting Vera Mont
You don't need a god with a complex intelligence or intentions for a purpose to develop. Purpose evolves over time at a local level as a system becomes more complex. Initially, it appears random or chaotic but eventually, it becomes purposeful. This kind of teleonomic purpose can emerge through the blind interaction of system components until they reach a feedback equilibrium state, at which point the system exhibits purposeful behavior. At the most fundamental level, the process begins with the simple attraction and repulsion of electromagnetic charges, allowing particles to bond in novel configurations. This tendency for particles to attract or repel is a very basic form of purposeful activity, driven by the goal of energy minimization and annihilation to zero energy.
Quoting Vera Mont
It seems we are in agreement on the core issue, but it appears you may have reservations about the potential path we might need to take to reach that point. Is that a fair assessment?
The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else.
Quoting punos
Interesting redefinition of the word.
Quoting punos
Fair enough.
I don't think we can get there from here. I think there needs to be complete break with civilization as we know it before anything new and healthy can grow in its place.
:fire: :monkey: