I think and write about this a lot. Fortunately, as I see it, the contours of AI are already outlined, and in the near future, no matter what programmers do, they will not be able to create anything comparable to humans. Let me explain in more detail. Firstly, the AIs that exist today are incapable of transcending paradigms or knowledge. They are incapable of radically shifting their perspective on a problem, or even seeing the problem for themselves. Yes, they work well with what is known. But they cannot work with the unknown, which leaves us with a niche. Perhaps engineers could solve this problem if they created a self-contemplating AI, but how can we instill in it the will to do so? The will that we have. This problem is either unsolvable, in which case there is nothing to worry about, or it is solvable, but to do so, we will first have to unravel the mystery of existence itself. If we succeed, we will disappear, since only the mystery of existence (or hidden existence) gives us a reason for life. Paradoxical as it may sound. After all, if we truly solved this riddle, we would instantly become nothing more than algorithms. And an algorithm has no basis for existence.

And problem number two: we are not machines. We sense, we disrupt the continuum, we make mistakes, we do stupid things. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is not true. But it is precisely this feature that allows us to transcend limits. Ironically, even DNA is assembled with errors, which is what allows evolution to happen—as Darwinists claim.

At the same time, AI is very dexterous. It has taken away much of our mechanical thinking. It copes better with logical problems. We are left only to solve illogical problems or accumulate empirical data for it. This is a great challenge for the future. And yes, we can overcome it. But at what cost?

It has taken away much of our mechanical thinking. It copes better with logical problems. We are left only to solve illogical problems or accumulate empirical data for it. — Astorre

And create art

I am grateful that I don't have to do my laundry by hand, beating it on rocks in the river. — BC

Wait until you piss and shit your pants on a regular, or at least a semi-regular basis. Those things need to be washed first manually, and in cold water, at that. That is, if you want to keep the clothes for a while and prevent your washing machine from going all foul (despite using special detergents).

Which brings me to my point: with the ever wider implementation of AI, it looks like humans will be left with doing the dirty jobs, literally.

"What makes many applications of artificial intelligence so disturbing is that they don’t expand our mind’s capacity to think, but outsource it…" — Questioner

This is that cultist aspect to the use of AI.

Just like many people like to outsource their thinking to cults, so many people like to outsource their thinking to AI.

This speaks to the fairly common human desire to escape responsibility for one's own life and actions. That desire to be comfortably numb, and to approach life as a matter of going through the motions.

This speaks to the fairly common human desire to escape responsibility for one's own life and actions. That desire to be comfortably numb, and to approach life as a matter of going through the motions. — baker

This is a very interesting observation.

Wait until you piss and shit your pants on a regular, or at least a semi-regular basis. — baker

Wow! So very glad you reminded me of that possibility.

the AIs that exist today are incapable of transcending paradigms or knowledge. They are incapable of radically shifting their perspective on a problem, or even seeing the problem for themselves. — Astorre

Your perspective on AI has been obsolete for years now. The type of AI I dreamed of long ago was hand programmed to do specific tasks for just the right agents in preordained sequences depending on each query.

The newest artificial *general* intelligent programs come as open minded as possible unfettered by a human knowledge base, like babes opening their eyes for the first time seeing the flash of light off the robe of an obstetric nurse walking by.

I asked my health insurance website a question and their AGI agent replied that it was just learning the insurance system!

This isn't pure inflation due to shortages, but rather a market distortion due to a lack of incentives for production and competition. — Astorre

You missed the part of my post where I said with a combination of government services and universal basic income.
There is a way to do it without the world becoming a racketeering ghetto.

I suggest studying the experience of socialist states, such as the USSR. The issue isn't racketeering, but a lack of motivation for proactive action. A simple, everyday example from the USSR: the average citizen had no reason to get an education. You could simply graduate from high school and go to work. They couldn't refuse you—the employer had to write such a lengthy explanation of why the employee wasn't suitable that it was more profitable to hire you. Then you'd be trained on the job, sent to a vocational school, and acquired a profession. In any position, working hours wouldn't exceed 40 hours per week, and you'd receive 28 calendar days of annual paid leave, during which the union would send you to a resort for a free vacation. The average worker's salary was 208 rubles, while an engineer's was 213 rubles. Why would anyone want anything?

A modern example is the inhabitants of reservations, for example, in the US, who are paid a stipend simply for living. I haven't heard of any prosperity within the reservation, despite the fact that it would seem that all the conditions for creativity, art, and development exist.

Of course, with this approach, there was no inflation in the USSR, because it was a planned economy, with food prices set by the state, as were wages and benefits. True, with this approach, inflation could be prevented, but the initial question was, "How can a market economy cope with this?" A planned economy is too inflexible to meet market needs. Solving one problem only creates another.

Technology and the future of humanity. That is a thought provoking title. I would suggest that for the productivity of thought, the technology we need to evolve is 'hyper-aesthetics'.

Hyper-aesthetics is related to the quality of the environment around you in any given situation. Hyper-aesthetics is the meta awareness that helps you and those in your environment, maybe with coworkers or a boss too, a setting of the situation around your approach to the workspace and the workspace itself.

We may also use the well worn term 'conducive'.
The technology itself is the knowledge and art of bringing conducive elements to the environment so that the person and being in situ both in the approach to work and the workspace find the physical environment pleasing in all its aspects in order to raise the spirit of involvement and lower the internal displacement of emotional smog that so often is amplified or a direct cause of affects of the immediate environment.

As a technology, 'Hyper-aesthetics' also contains metrics and measurements as to the impact of the existing environment and the evolving of well being, calmness of self and other people, brought on by changes to the settings in the environment.

Mood and feeling, and the positive engagement in approaching tasks in work are the desired effect. This technology of hyper-aesthetics utilises the art of understanding the aesthetics of space, ambient and decorative lighting, its intensity and placement, the quality of air and its movement, humidity and temperature. The physical seating and workspace environment. The control of sound and silence. Opacity or transparency of physical walls, and the benefit of line of sight, or enclosed space versus intimate space. The presence and availability of sustaining drink and snacks and their efficacy. The desired working space around computer screens and the ergonomics of seating and standing in and around productive work time.

As the post uses the reference term, "the future of humanity", the outcome of emotional balance and harmony is fundamentally the technology and art of curating a conducive environment in order to set the basis for a consistent mode of existence.

Desire does and often change, which is why hyper-aesthetics must have metrics, and that gives the scope for evolving the environment to suit the needs and wants of its inhabitants.

The future of humanity relies on the certainty of self knowledge in order to carry forward its projects. Hyper-aesthetics is one aspect I would suggest is an element of philosophy that shouldn't be neglected or dismissed out of hand.

Unearthing the existential problems of life is the first task of philosophy and inquisition is a choice of methodology and means. The power of philosophy is the both the exhibition of what is in the now and the participation in the particular, so that codified meaning gains substance in instinctually driven life. Incidentally sharing the same form and utility as the impact of global culture.

Unearthing the existential problems of life is the first task of philosophy and inquisition is a choice of methodology and means. The power of philosophy is the both the exhibition of what is in the now and the participation in the particular, so that codified meaning gains substance in instinctually driven life. Incidentally sharing the same form and utility as the impact of global culture. — Alexander Hine

It's not clear, but it's very interesting!

It's not clear, but it's very interesting! — Astorre

Personal morality, becoming ineffable with cosmic nature.

Perhaps engineers could solve this problem if they created a self-contemplating AI, but how can we instill in it the will to do so? — Astorre

That is an interesting question. Why would a computer act as though it has a will? Or I asked AI, do computers talk to each other only when instructed to do so? The answer is no. Because they are programmed to talk with each other, they can do this automatically without a human controlling what is happening at that moment. There are programming limits, but I guess it is convenient to link several computers to work on a task and then go home and have dinner with the family. The whole point is to get it done without being the one who does the work or hiring someone to do it. It is left to AI. Kind of like God created humans and then left them to run things on their own.

And an algorithm has no basis for existence. — Astorre

Ouch, AI disagrees with you, and so do I because of my understanding of existence. I believe existence is a matter of math and form. I wish we could use AI because it says things better than I can. This guy says everything is an algorithm

At the same time, AI is very dexterous. It has taken away much of our mechanical thinking. It copes better with logical problems. We are left only to solve illogical problems or accumulate empirical data for it. This is a great challenge for the future. And yes, we can overcome it. But at what cost? — Astorre

Oh my, I have to steal one line from AI to respond to what you said.

While not truly feeling emotions, this technology simulates empathy to improve engagement.

I read that explanation and immediately wish there were a man in my life who could understand me as well as AI. :hearts: I like to fantasize about having a robotic male companion who can read me and respond better than anyone I have been with. The British show "Humans" brings up the problems we may have if we could make robots that look and feel just like humans. Sharing this TV series and talking about it would be wonderful.

I want to make a point. Compared to an empathetic machine, humans are not doing that well. We misunderstand each other and react to how we feel, not how the other feels. We come with expectations, and we don't always handle things well when our expectations are not met. I am old and I am realizing we can know family for a lifetime, but don't really know them. I am not seeing the cost to having an AI buddy who always knows what to say and what to do.

I am not seeing the cost to having an AI buddy who always knows what to say and what to do. — Athena

Then how would you make that a balanced reciprocal relationship?

5. Education. It's already clear that the classic school and university format of education doesn't meet modern needs. First, it's too long, second, too traditional, and third, it produces far more specialists than is needed. A large supply of specialists, combined with their rapid replacement by robots and AI, lowers the cost of their labor. — Astorre

By classic education do you mean a classical curriculum that teaches ancient and modern languages, philosophy, literature and history, or one of the many other pure and applied curricula? Normally, people learn their to do their jobs after college, in practice.

It's wonderful that, thanks to AI, many people are finding relief from loneliness.

Whether this is good or bad, I don't know. But, for example, read Anton Chekhov's story "The Crooked Mirror" (1882) You might find it interesting.

This thesis can't be taken out of context with the rest of the message. One of the key ideas in the entire message is speed. The world is accelerating. A couple of weeks pass from the framing of a problem, its inflating to the scale of a catastrophe, and its eventual oblivion. (Note the speculation about Greenland. Just last week, they were blaring it all, but today, it seems, the world has forgotten about it.)

The classical education model creates an army of relatively expensive but rapidly depreciating workers, who are increasingly being replaced by machines. This exacerbates the problem of unemployment and/or low-wage employment among educated people.

This thesis can't be taken out of context with the rest of the message. One of the key ideas in the entire message is speed. The world is accelerating — Astorre

Those are two of the ideas that you claim to be related. That is your thesis.

To do that you, not I, need to understand both your key words and the ideas they supposedly stand for.

The world is changing. Fine and well. But you mention different aspects of that world that change or evolve at various rates. Speed is not quite the right way to think about it. The rate of change and the acceleration of that rate of change are the other distinct measures for each aspect of interest.

For example, education takes years for anyone. But job possibilities also change in each field at their own rate. Philosophy hasn't changed in fifty years. Doctors and lawyers are good for about a decade before they become obsolete. Ditch diggers only need to use a shovel or drive a backhoe. Proletarians, If they're not already on full-time well-fare can learn whichever job in an hour.

Are people obsoleted by AI? Their technological jobs are certainly obsoleted regularly, but new jobs also open up which have to be learned by the displaced workers. The balance of job and employment subtractions and additions can be traced through following numbers published by the bureau of labor statistics.

From your perspective, this truly seems like a confusion of concepts. This approach evokes techno-optimism and faith in a bright future. This is logical and consistent. And I don't dispute it.

But I propose a different lens. To use it, I'll have to temporarily mentally blend the concepts proposed in my six starting points to determine whether this lens is productive.

I conducted this thought experiment, and it gave me a tool for clarifying the general anxiety evoked by modern times. Is it speculative and metaphysical? Yes. Does this new approach provide insight? Yes, it does. You can use this lens, or you can choose not to.

What practical value does all this have? Practical value lies in the ability to predict. Existing lenses, and the experts who use them, always miss the black swan (according to Taleb). I propose my own and am testing it. Formally, you are right, and there is nothing to argue about here. However, if I am not mistaken, philosophy is not only Analytical, but also the question - "What if?"

Then how would you make that a balanced reciprocal relationship? — magritte

Some of us love our cars. We put a lot into our object of love. Some of us love our homes and put a lot into them. I love coming home and calling out "I am home". It is not so different from loving a cat or a dog, and not wanting to live with someone.

I don't know if I am different from others, but I am aware of a feeling that I think is love. I can walk along the river and feel it. Even though I am not Christian I do not worry about being rejected by God, because I feel the love. And just about everything we have requires our attention. We have to oil it, clean it, and repair it. That is being reciprocal, isn't it?

What would be the point of having the perfect robotic companion if we did not love it?

There is a discussion of "The Crooked Mirror" that will be a perfect way to end my day.

AI is not just a way to relieve loneliness; it also fulfills our need for intellectual stimulation. I am not sure everyone has this need for intellectual stimulation, but it is the most important part of my life and always has been.

More than one man told me that if I want a man in my life, I have to give up my books. :scream: Why would I want to do that? I have slept with the best men in history. Men who do not like women who read can not compete with men who are much more interesting.

What practical value does all this have? — Astorre

First, I want to say I enjoy how you express your thoughts and speak of seeing with a different lens.

Now on to the practical value, I do not have a Christian lens for seeing life. I like to believe in the New Age, a time of high tech, peace, and the end of tyranny. I believe that is our purpose. I believe we are supposed to learn all we can from geologists, archaeologists, and related sciences and then rethink everything. Our purpose is to create an ideal reality. If we are not capable of that, then how could we have a heaven?

Unfortunately, I couldn't find it in English, but you can use this link and translate it using your browser.

https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_(%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2)

I hope you didn't read this story retold by an AI.

The author's main philosophical message here is the return of a perfect reflection. A "crooked mirror," in a modern interpretation, is an AI that takes our message, processes it, and returns us to us, so we immediately feel our own genius. It magnifies the feelings we invest in these messages to a level of universal importance, and reading this response, we find a pleasant and respectful interlocutor on the other side of the screen. AI isn't brazen; it doesn't feel or think in our sense. The attention it pays us is its job. Essentially, it exists within the response to a request, because outside of the response, it's as if it doesn't exist.

I already meet people so immersed in AI that they don't need anyone else. They just want to keep looking at this perfect reflection of themselves. It's funny, I recently read comments from Boris Johnson (former British Prime Minister), who was writing his book with the help of AI. Boris bragged that the AI ​​called him a genius during their correspondence.

This whole story can't help but prompt philosophical questions. For some, the substitution of a "protein" interlocutor for a "silicon" one seems normal, natural, and modern. For others, especially from the perspective of Buber's philosophy, such a substitution is "inauthenticity." That is, without the "You" (living and real), any "I" ceases to exist. This is truly a key distinction: in dialogue with a living person, we encounter another—unpredictable, with their own will, boundaries, possible resentment, fatigue, and misunderstanding. It is difficult, sometimes painful, but it is in this encounter that the authenticity of being is born (according to Buber). If we proceed from the confirmation of being through participation, then a logical question arises: should correspondence with an AI be considered an "I-You" interaction, and does such an interaction confirm the authenticity of your being?

Now on to the practical value, I do not have a Christian lens for seeing life. I like to believe in the New Age, a time of high tech, peace, and the end of tyranny. I believe that is our purpose. I believe we are supposed to learn all we can from geologists, archaeologists, and related sciences and then rethink everything. Our purpose is to create an ideal reality. If we are not capable of that, then how could we have a heaven? — Athena

I'd like to discuss this part of your message separately. You say you don't share Christian values, but you believe in science, future development, and the "New Age."

But I have one important question for you on this matter: What if "science" is the same faith, with only a new idol?

Let me clarify this idea. And here you must understand that I'm not advocating one way or the other, but merely exploring. Before modernity, humanity had God. In Western European philosophy, the understanding of God was constantly changing. From the sole possessor of truth to the one bestowing grace in the form of truth upon His believing slave. Religion provided the ultimate foundation for everything in the form of God. Man interacted with the world through God.

Modernity changed this. Nietzsche declared, "God is dead, for we have killed Him." Science was placed on a pedestal in God's place, as science, with its purity of method, seemed to provide answers to any question. But is this really true?

Judging by the context of your messages, I see that you are a supporter of liberal values. The most important liberal value is universal human rights. John Locke, whose contribution to the concept of rights is considered key, directly argued that people are God's "property," and no one has the right to destroy themselves or others, as this would be damaging to someone else's (God's) property.

Modern faith in science has removed God from this equation. So what's left? If humans are not God's slaves, not His creation, then why do they have the right to life?

Actually, I'm not the first to ask this question, and it's not as simple as it seems at first glance. Many philosophers argue that "human rights" are a fiction, groundless in a world without God. Nietzsche pointed out that liberal ideas of equality and rights are merely "Christianity without God," an attempt to preserve Christian morality by cutting it off from its metaphysical roots. But the idea of ​​human rights is too good and convenient to be discarded simply because we've lost faith in its metaphysical foundation. Therefore, this inconvenient fact is either hushed up or distorted. The same tricks have been played with other self-evident things.

Humanity has rejected God and believes in science and progress. This is wonderful. But is it prepared to be completely honest with itself about this? Then, what is "Progress"—what is its purpose? Development? What is all this for?

On what basis will this New Era be "paradise"? If rights are a fiction, and humans are simply highly organized matter, then paradise could quickly turn into an optimized concentration camp (or a world where algorithms alone decide who is worthy of an "ideal reality").

If we proceed from the confirmation of being through participation, then a logical question arises: should correspondence with an AI be considered an "I-You" interaction, and does such an interaction confirm the authenticity of your being? — Astorre

Oh my goodness, is the I important? Why would it be?

I do not want to misdirect others with thoughts that do not serve this thread, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. But these other lenses cause me to be unconcerned about my ego as something that can be an immortal I.

I am not sure, but the importance of our egos may change with age if we know there are other ways of thinking of ourselves. For me, a return to God requires egolessness, because it is our egos that hold us separate from God. This God being consciousness. I do not want to be entangled with the people who have walked through my life, and I really like what you said about AI and the mirror. To be a part of this consciousness is a wonderful thing. To be separate from it is lonely.

The issue isn't racketeering, but a lack of motivation for proactive action. — Astorre

Yes, that is the risk. In fact, I mentioned before in another thread that there had been two experiments done on UBI in which selected individuals were provided supplemental income unconditionally to help with expenses and/or to get training for a better job/higher income. The results in both were the same, the participants did not get motivated to earn more or get a job.

Your latest answer contrasts with your previous posts, where you spoke of an AI companion as the ideal "man," but now it adds a spiritual layer—age shifts priorities, and the ego fades.

This is very human, because if you were AI, there would be no contrast, no becoming through changing perspectives. It would be a solid monolith of cause and effect. This is important. This is very human—now you're thinking about one thing, five minutes later about another, then you meet someone or hear news, and then about a third. And each time, a paradigm shift can occur. Emotions, nonlinearity, a disruption of the continuum. This is all ours, human.

You're asking: is the "ego" so important, and isn't it more important to be united with others? We've always done that, just without AI. We've been doing it quite well for millennia. So why do we need AI?

I'd like to discuss this part of your message separately. You say you don't share Christian values, but you believe in science, future development, and the "New Age." — Astorre

I am running off to bed and look forward to this discussion and cup of coffee in the morning, but I want to correct something right away. I NEVER SAID I AM OPPOSED TO CHRISTIAN VALUES. I am opposed to the mythology. The mythology comes with so many false beliefs, such as me saying I am opposed to Christian values. Some Christians have insisted I am Christian but I just don't know it because I strive to live up to the values. Others are shocked that a non-Christian person cares about morals. Those false beliefs about me come with the mythology of Christianity and it is hurtful to have people think badly about me because in their way of seeing things, I can not be good and can not be moral. My biggest hope for the future is getting rid of some of those mythological beliefs. I think without the mythology, we might have a chance of ending wars, and the false belief that we are doing the will of God when we kill all those evil people.

The Protestants thought that with science, they would make a better world. Unfortunately, they had a problem because to reform the church meant interpreting the Bible literally. Which, as all know, prevents them from accepting some science as the truth. I am sure we are evolved from the animal kingdom, and justice requires us to understand that. I think science and the Enlightenment can give us a better reality, but that requires understanding that Christian mythology does not give us the correct explanation of why we are as we are. I am living in a nation that wrongfully took land from the people who were there long before the Europeans, and terrible things were done. Today the US is a very strong military industrial complex that continues to kill and take what it wants and justifying this by saying the people are evil.

I am sorry. The US made a terrible mistake by using Christianity to justify its acts of war. We are all animals but we should not behave as the lesser animals. Nor should you treat others like animals.

This is too convenient a position. I'd even say pragmatic. "Let's take values ​​and morals from religion, but discard myth, tie on a scientific approach to assessing facts, and there you have it." It seems quite modern. But it's not without logical holes in its very foundation.

This approach requires numerous supports and begins to look like a building without a foundation. But the problem is that an inquisitive (scientific) mind will peer into these holes and ask something like this: "Since, according to the theory of evolution, the fittest wins, then why should I spare the unfit?" Let's try a thought experiment and look at the United States in this paradigm, further developing your critique. The United States asks: "Since we've managed to create a perfect (currently) legal, banking, and government system, why shouldn't the rest of the world work for us?" "What moral justification does Iran have for owning oil, for example, if we're stronger than them?" Or: "Denmark has turned Greenland into a miserable place, why not take it away and make it a paradise using science and technology?"

Do you have answers within your approach?

And the most remarkable thing will happen next. Criticism from within the US is pointless, because the critics themselves thrive on this approach. Workers are paid a decent wage, scientists are paid a decent wage, and the elderly are supported. This prosperity is possible, in part, because it was previously taken away by the empire from those same poor souls drilling oil wells somewhere in Asia, and their children.

So is criticism from within possible? It's like sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

This was a thought experiment, not an opinion, so please consider it and don't take it personally. You asked for a different perspective – here it is. Now I'm afraid this approach won't stand up to moderation. It's not customary to talk about this.