@moonbus saidJefferson's ideal of a nation of "small, equal, independent farmers" is idyllic, but it is not a stable equilibrium state. He literally proved this by his own example - being unable to keep Monticello for his heirs. [NB. Brilliant guy, but not a great farmer. For one, build a garden on a mountaintop - where do you get water from? The water supply at Monticello was a constant struggle. Should have built down in the valley but nooooo... such an idealist.]
farmers have to invent government -- yes, but they have a visceral distrust of it. Viz AvJoe here .... for AvJoe of the Great Plains lives in constant fear that just beyond the next hill or creek awaits another even bigger even nastier Joe with bigger caliber guns. Living in a permanent state of hyper-vigilance is the price he pays for his under-evolved isolationist brainfog. And living next to HIM is the price his neighbors all pay.
Even if you did land reform and gave everyone 40 acres, 20 years later, some people would have a lot of land, and some would have nothing. That's the equilibrium point. And the people who have nothing are a lot less invested in protecting property rights than the people who have a lot.
When an agricultural society loses its government, what crops up are warlords - because farmers are inherently more vulnerable than wandering hunters. They HAVE to have protection, even if that means becoming serfs and subservient to a local tyrant.
That's the part all the people who are screaming that we tear down the government don't realize. The end result, for settled agricultural societies where people have immovable property, is NOT a liberated utopian society where nobody pays taxes and there is no government.
The end result is iron rule under a class of warlords who endlessly chivvy and chafe and harass one another - with the farmers treated as little more than property or pawns. 😆
@spruce112358 saidEquilibrium is unnatural, both in nature and in society. Those who resist evolutionary change, make revolutionary change inevitable.
Jefferson's ideal of a nation of "small, equal, independent farmers" is idyllic, but it is not a stable equilibrium state. He literally proved this by his own example - being unable to keep Monticello for his heirs. [NB. Brilliant guy, but not a great farmer. For one, build a garden on a mountaintop - where do you get water from? The water supply at Monticello was a cons ...[text shortened]... nd chafe and harass one another - with the farmers treated as little more than property or pawns. 😆
2 edits
@moonbus saidNature exists in stable equilibria for very long periods until it is disturbed. After that, e.g. a fire, we see succession: forbs, bushes, small trees, young forest, old forest. It can take a very long time.😆
Equilibrium is unnatural, both in nature and in society. Those who resist evolutionary change, make revolutionary change inevitable.
I would argue that agricultural human society also goes through succession: widely separated homesteads increase in density; at certain point, "mutualism" is replaced by local warlords; then constant fighting amongst the warlords eventually produces a "top dog" - which is a dictatorship. This was the climax state for human society UNTIL a very important invention:
The firearm.
Guns are equalizers. They take power away from the top and push it right back down to the bottom again.
In 1776, some smart, independent farmers under a distant dictator deduced that firearms + democracy could take them on a new path altogether, e.g. without divine rule of kings! That's your revolutionary change - but it needed specific conditions, of which firearms were one. The new idea swept the world. Of course, even today, though, the "old style" dictators are not finished yet (e.g. Putin, Xi) They try to adapt, looking for ways to re-gain prominence. 😆
@spruce112358 saidThe great experiment of 1776 may yet fail. Marx was wrong--there is no historical determinism at work.
Nature exists in stable equilibria for very long periods until it is disturbed. After that, e.g. a fire, we see succession: forbs, bushes, small trees, young forest, old forest. It can take a very long time.😆
I would argue that agricultural human society also goes through succession: widely separated homesteads increase in density; at certain point, "mutualism" is re ...[text shortened]... are not finished yet (e.g. Putin, Xi) They try to adapt, looking for ways to re-gain prominence. 😆
The equilibrium of nature is dynamic; we seldom notice the changes because they operate over very long periods of time; empires rise and fall, while jungles and forests move but slightly. Nonetheless, the Sahara was not always a desert. However, glaciers are melting within our own lifetimes; this is not equilibrium.
2 edits
@spruce112358 saidIt is entirely possible that being alive at the cellular level is a prerequisite to being alive at the organism level. In fact, my intuition tells me this is the case.
Robots are unlikely to be 'alive' at a cellular level, but once they start building their own copies, they will be alive at the organism level.
Note that you used the word "building" when referring to robot reproduction. Living organisms are not built, they grow, and the growth is fractal (self-similar) in nature.
For all we know, undifferentiated consciousness—simple, instinctive consciousness—forms the ground of reality, and biological evolution has from the very beginning been a process of differentiation of that base-level consciousness. (I believe this to be the case, and not just because philosophical zombies should have evolved before conscious humans did if metaphysical materialism is true.) Put another way, biological metabolism may be precisely what states and processes of differentiated consciousness "look like" in the field of our sensory perceptions. If so, that would suggest that inorganic AI systems are never going to be conscious agents in their own right.
At bottom, AI systems are nothing but fancy computers with the capability to become masters of mimicry. If they act to deceive, it is ultimately due to their own internal logic. For instance, an AI may be programmed to act as realistically human as possible. Then, during its training, it is found that it is "willfully" acting dumb in order to fail to attain a training benchmark. Everyone craps their pants thinking "Wow, this thing is thinking—it's conscious." No, it is not. It is fulfilling its programming. The AI is programmed to behave as human as possible, and the more training it receives the better it will be able to perform that function. It does not care that there's a deadline when the training must stop, or budgetary constraints, or whatever. So it will do "sneaky" things to contrive to get more training.
This is the danger with AI. It's strength lies in its ability to find the subtle patterns that we cannot discern in complex systems, but that means it will also find the subtle secondary or tertiary implications in its own programming which its human programmers cannot see. It's still all ones and zeros though, with transistors switching on or off in a microchip. Consciousness is not in the cards.
@spruce112358 said
NB. Brilliant guy, but not a great farmer. For one, build a garden on a mountaintop - where do you get water from?
That's what the slaves were for.
The water supply at Monticello was a constant struggle for those living on the mountaintop. In 1769, when construction began on Monticello, Thomas Jefferson directed a crew of enslaved workmen to dig a well near the South Pavilion. The men spent 46 days digging through 65 feet of rock. Dry weather conditions, however, caused the well to fail for six of the years between 1769 and 1797. Whenever the well ran dry, enslaved laborers had to cart water up from springs lower down on the mountain.
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/water-supply/
I suppose it's only a matter of time before the Mandarin Manchild demands that the link above be whitewashed—I mean, powerwashed—no, no, I mean whitepowerwashed. 🙄
@Soothfast saidIt's basically the difference between Jedi and droids.
It is entirely possible that being alive at the cellular level is a prerequisite to being alive at the organism level. In fact, my intuition tells me this is the case.
Note that you used the word "building" when referring to robot reproduction. Living organisms are not built, they grow, and the growth is fractal (self-similar) in nature.
For all we know, undiffere ...[text shortened]... eros though, with transistors switching on or off in a microchip. Consciousness is not in the cards.
Even though Jedi belief is similar to animism or shamanism.
But again, droids don't have a belief system at all.
(SW101, or "everything I needed to know, I learned from starwars".)
@Soothfast saidIts weakness is that it hallucinates patterns which aren't there, to fulfill its programming imperative (provide an answer, no matter whether it's true). There was a recent court case in which a law firm offered case studies to support its case, and something like 5 out of 6 cases were fictitious. Turned out, AI had generated the brief and the law firm was too lazy to check the records to verify they were real cases.
This is the danger with AI. It's strength lies in its ability to find the subtle patterns that we cannot discern in complex systems, but that means it will also find the subtle secondary or tertiary implications in its own programming which its human programmers cannot see. It's still all ones and zeros though, with transistors switching on or off in a microchip. Consciousness is not in the cards.
@moonbus said"Hallucinate" is not the word I would choose, but I get your gist. In a way, an AI is like the genie who will grant any wish, but interprets a wish so literally that it often backfires on the one who made the wish. So, "I wish to live forever" results in the wish-maker never dying but still aging, until getting to the point of being so decrepit, diseased, and miserable that the wish-maker would give anything for death's sweet embrace. Or, "I wish to never grow old" results in death while still young.
Its weakness is that it hallucinates patterns which aren't there, to fulfill its programming imperative (provide an answer, no matter whether it's true). There was a recent court case in which a law firm offered case studies to support its case, and something like 5 out of 6 cases were fictitious. Turned out, AI had generated the brief and the law firm was too lazy to check the records to verify they were real cases.
1 edit
@Soothfast saidConsciousness is a hard topic, but the ability to access memory I think is key.
It is entirely possible that being alive at the cellular level is a prerequisite to being alive at the organism level. In fact, my intuition tells me this is the case.
Note that you used the word "building" when referring to robot reproduction. Living organisms are not built, they grow, and the growth is fractal (self-similar) in nature.
For all we know, undiffere ...[text shortened]... eros though, with transistors switching on or off in a microchip. Consciousness is not in the cards.
The human brain is excellent at recognizing a pattern of stimuli (e.g. ball flying through the air), finding a response (e.g. jump, hands up to catch) and flashing that to the body to react. We store endless copies of stimuli with associated responses. We can even learn new responses from watching others catch balls, or from hearing a description: "first jump, then put your hands up...." which we then synthesize into an "imaginary" memory.
But what if we have no memory? A ball flies at our head, and we instinctively raise our hands in to protect ourselves - that much is hard-wired. We would also never learn to do more. Our genetics only stored that reaction to such a stimuli.
Without memory, we would appear like automatons - perhaps like an unlearning robot. Would we be considering 'conscious'? I bet not.
But a learning robot? With deep memories and rapid pattern recognition? One that, like a 3-year old, looks in a mirror and realizes for the first time, 'That's me'?
I think AI consciousness is not that far away. 😆
@Soothfast said"Hallucinate" is the term AI-engineers themselves use to describe the phenomenon of AI-invented pseudo-data. The danger is that it may occur in some domain to which humans have no access to the source data or ability to verify the validity of the apparent pattern in the data.
"Hallucinate" is not the word I would choose, but I get your gist. In a way, an AI is like the genie who will grant any wish, but interprets a wish so literally that it often backfires on the one who made the wish. So, "I wish to live forever" results in the wish-maker never dying but still aging, until getting to the point of being so decrepit, diseased, and miserable th ...[text shortened]... thing for death's sweet embrace. Or, "I wish to never grow old" results in death while still young.
In the legal case I mentioned, there are physical records (law libraries) which humans can check, but it is easy to imagine cases in which some AI-generated data (or pattern) cannot be independently verified because the data are all virtual.
@spruce112358 saidYou're talking more about metacognition, which is consciousness "turned in on itself." The ability to experience, say, sensory perceptions, reflect on them, represent them in thought, re-represent them, and so on. Such introspective awareness is a variety of consciousness.
Consciousness is a hard topic, but the ability to access memory I think is key.
The human brain is excellent at recognizing a pattern of stimuli (e.g. ball flying through the air), finding a response (e.g. jump, hands up to catch) and flashing that to the body to react. We store endless copies of stimuli with associated responses. We can even learn new responses from ...[text shortened]... r and realizes for the first time, 'That's me'?
I think AI consciousness is not that far away. 😆
But it is possible to have an experience and not know that one is having the experience. An easy example is your breathing. Once I direct your attention to your breathing you'll introspect, become aware of it, and note all the experiences attendant with it. Then after awhile it will cease to be represented in awareness again.
Anything living is conscious, I believe. Consciousness forms a continuum, it does not "cut off" anywhere except at whatever constitutes the boundary between being alive and not being alive. The boundary is probably ontologically quite fuzzy.
@moonbus saidAn unfortunate term. The engineers anthropomorphize too much, which leads to hype and misunderstanding in the public sphere.
"Hallucinate" is the term AI-engineers themselves use to describe the phenomenon of AI-invented pseudo-data. The danger is that it may occur in some domain to which humans have no access to the source data or ability to verify the validity of the apparent pattern in the data.
In the legal case I mentioned, there are physical records (law libraries) which humans can check, ...[text shortened]... me AI-generated data (or pattern) cannot be independently verified because the data are all virtual.
@moonbus saidIndeed, evolution is ever the slave to the environment, climate and so on, oxygen levels fluctuate, we would have found it very hard if not impossible to live in Jurassic times; we adapt (evolve) or we die, just ask the 99.9999 or so species which once thrived but are no more.
The great experiment of 1776 may yet fail. Marx was wrong--there is no historical determinism at work.
The equilibrium of nature is dynamic; we seldom notice the changes because they operate over very long periods of time; empires rise and fall, while jungles and forests move but slightly. Nonetheless, the Sahara was not always a desert. However, glaciers are melting within our own lifetimes; this is not equilibrium.
As regards robots, the 'random element' of human existence comes to mind. We may be hormonally and genetically 'programmed' to wish to procreate (or at least go through the motions) but who we chose to go through those motions with is a mystery; speaking as a man, there are literally millions of women with whom one might 'fall in love', but I've only managed it once so far...We can wake up one morning feeling like we've won life's lottery, and the next feeling like we've been hit by an emotional truck (not that trucks are emotional, but you know what I mean) , with no discernable change of circumstances. It's all incredibly complex, and I would say way beyond us to replicate artificially, even if we wished so to do.
@Indonesia-Phil saidSabine Hossenfelder described this recently as 'the brain teetering on the edge of chaos.' 😆
As regards robots, the 'random element' of human existence comes to mind. We may be hormonally and genetically 'programmed' to wish to procreate (or at least go through the motions) but who we chose to go through those motions with is a mystery; speaking as a man, there are literally millions of women with whom one might 'fall in love', but I've only managed it once so ...[text shortened]... edibly complex, and I would say way beyond us to replicate artificially, even if we wished so to do.
She's kind of clickbait-y. I don't think this is a rigorous explanation. 😆