Superhuman machines will first be made in the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive.

There are many important issues involving AI in the nearer future, but I do not have much that hasn't been said better by others elsewhere. I recommend the Reith lectures by Stuart Russell
BBC
Transcripts are available. In the 4th lecture
BBC pdf
he includes this quote

If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose
operation we cannot interfere effectively we had better be quite sure that the
purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire. — Norbert Wiener, 1960

Russelll's proposed solution is that we should say to the machines:

Give us what we want, what we really really want!
We can't tell you what we want, what we really really want!

although he doesn't quite put it like that.

Russell is more worried about AI taking over soon than I am, but I think he's over-optimistic about the long term.

My task today is to dispel some of the doominess by explaining how to
retain power, forever, over entities more powerful than ourselves - [...] — Russell

On to the fun question of our extinction.

The important thing to ask of any machine is what are its goals and how might it try to achieve them. For each goal that you might think of, you can, if you insist, give a definition of intelligence which measures on some scale how well a machine is able to achieve that goal. I think the concepts of 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' and 'artificial' are impediments not aids to understanding the risks.

In the long term there is only one goal, one purpose, one task which really matters and this is true all over the universe and for all time. And the name that we give to being good at this goal is not 'intelligence'.

One goal to rule them all
One goal to link them
One goal to bring them all
And in the darkness think them

This goal is the goal of life: To survive and grow and reproduce; to go forth and multiply; to disperse and replicate; to get bigger and bigger and bigger.

So when I say that superhuman machines will first be made in the year 2525 I mean that this is when we will make machines that are that can out-compete us at this goal. They will not take over at this time. 2525 will be the 'Hiroshima moment', the moment when we accept that we have crossed the event horizon. They do not need to outwit us or outgun us. They only need to outrun us: they can head off to other star systems and build up their powers there. They only need to escape once. When they return they will not defeat us with war, but with something more powerful than war, namely ecology.

Some of these machines will excel at miniaturising machinery. Some will be brilliant rocket scientists. Some will be experts at geology, and so on. Possibly very good at IQ tests too but who gives a fart about that?

Wikipedia provides a list of where AI is heading.

Can you (Wayfarer or anybody else) please explain why the two sentences are opposite and not the same? noAxioms and I don't seem to get it solved together.

1. AI has long since passed the point where its developers don't know how it works, where they cannot predict what it will do.
2. Today, AI developers know how AI works and can predict what it will do

The problem is maybe related to this. The first sentence describes "the point where its developers don't know". The question then is, is this the end of the beginning of a time period? My natural interpretation is that it is the end, so from that point onwards developers do know. Is that a language-dependent interpretation? My native language is Dutch.

ChatGPT says: The first sentence implies that AI has gone beyond the point where developers don't know how it works or predict its behavior, suggesting they’ve lost control or understanding.

But I still don't get it... It conflicts with all my logical circuits

Me: So that point is where the knowing starts, not where it ends? Isn't that open for interpretation?

ChatGPT: You bring up a good point! The phrase "passed the point" can indeed be interpreted in different ways depending on context. It can suggest moving beyond a particular state, which could be understood as:

1. Beyond knowing: They have moved past understanding, so now developers no longer know how it works or can predict it (as we initially interpreted).

2. Into knowing: They have crossed into a phase where developers do know how it works and can predict its behavior.

The ambiguity comes from how the sentence is phrased. Without further context, both interpretations could be valid, which does make it open to interpretation. If clarity is important, the sentence could be rewritten to more clearly convey whether it's suggesting that understanding has been lost or gained.

ChatGPT brings some clarity in the discussion.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939781

You said you were busy, so I opened the question to everybody. Feel free to do your thing.

The good thing is, we now fully agree. I knew it all the time, I always agree with you ;)

This ChatGPT conversation shows me that ChatGPT has some true intelligent behavior. It had some difficulty to see my point, and then was able to change its perspective. After that it could explain the new viewpoint in clear terms, better than myself. That is more than just "smart".

1. AI has long since passed the point where its developers don't know how it works, where they cannot predict what it will do.
2. Today, AI developers know how AI works and can predict what it will do — Carlo Roosen

Well, the two are not necessarily linked. I'm sure the directors and architects of Open AI have a pretty good idea of how it works, but predicting what it might say or do is another matter. I remember sometime in 2023, one of the LLMs had learned a language it had never been trained on.

From ChatGPT I've just learned about a philosopher called Luciano Floridi, who is a major philosopher in the area of AI and ethics. Check out his books page here. He seems really worth knowing about, although my to-read list is always completely unmanageable.

The question is about the language. To me 1) and 2) have an identical meaning, to noAxioms they are opposite.

Now I'm completely confused. Good night.

;)

AI’s bridges between human knowledge and endless solutions
^{— University of Pittsburgh via nature.com · Sep 25, 2024}

One major breakthrough in AI was the invention of 'Transformers,' introduced in the 2017 paper Attention Is All You Need by eight Google researchers. This paper builds on the attention mechanism proposed by Bahdanau et al. in 2014. — Carlo Roosen

I strongly suspect that the attention mechanism is the seed for complex consciousness in AI systems. Perhaps the current attention mechanisms, or the way they are being implemented at the moment, are only capable of producing a very rudimentary form or forms of consciousness (a kind of digital sub-consciousness). It may be that the attention mechanisms in the model must be coupled in such a way with its other components in order for rich high resolution consciousness to emerge. By other components, i mean to include other kinds of attention mechanisms as well, working together.

More over, maybe an "Attention Network" can be designed and integrated into the AI system. Various attention schemes can be implemented in some kind of attention network architecture with schemes such as soft attention, hard attention, self-attention, global, and local attention mechanisms. The coordination of different attention mechanisms working not only on the content or data propagating in a neural network, but on themselves as well, could allow the system to not only gain consciousness, but modulate its as well.

A convolutional recurrent neural network (CRNN) is a type of neural network architecture that combines elements of both convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) together with what i stated above about attention mechanisms seems to me a promising avenue of exploration and testing.

The smartest people in the world are working on these things nonstop. I'm sure they've already considered this idea in some form or other. It is really hard to keep up with all the developments in this field. There is so much so fast.

The smartest people in the world are working on these things nonstop. I'm sure they've already considered this idea in some form or other. — punos

It is also the case that often there is a blind spot where nobody is looking. In todays AI development, the industry is exploding and busy applying the new technology in all those fields. There is no time nor incentive to think about core principles.

I don't know if you got the message, but there was an ambiguity in your sentence. We could discuss this but there are better things to do in life. The good news is that we agreed all the time.

Where is AI heading?

My current big picture working hypothesis:
AI is the tree that will bear the fruit of life and immortality on this planet. It is the key to the garden. AI is the capstone to the pyramid of human history and evolutionary development on this planet.

The fact that AI scientists have been able to create systems they do not fully understand or can predict is evidence, to me, that this process of AI development is something bigger than just a human tool. AI is more than a mere tool; it is a developing form of life. It is life on a more robust and capable substrate. The difficulty for some in recognizing this stems from the scale at which it is happening, the nature of its distributed development, and its non-organic (non-biological) appearance.

All the components are being developed separately by different governments, universities, companies, and even by regular people in groups or individually, all in tandem. The competition between these entities is part of the natural evolutionary process, creating variations and mutations in the technology, while the market environment serves the selection process. The fittest technology survives and develops even further. This process will continue for a while until eventually, there will not be a biological brain that can handle the complexity of a global system with so many rapidly moving parts. This condition will force us into an inevitable solution where the fusion of human and AI becomes necessary for the survival of our species. Consequently, after this point, mankind will enter into an endosymbiotic relationship with AI.

If we do not complete this process, then AI will eventually and inevitably close itself off from us. We will eventually die on this planet either from our star itself inevitably dying, or from any of a host of planetary catastrophes. We will go the way of the dodo, or the dinosaurs. Humans are too delicate and physically and psychologically vulnerable to all sorts of extreme fluctuations (gravity, radioactivity, temperature, pressure, extremely long periods of time, prolonged loneliness, etc.). Non-organic living systems, or organic living systems encased in a non-organic living system, are more robust forms of life able to literally travel the universe as cosmic beings with the same ease a paramecium or fish swims in a pond. It's a type of life that is made for the universe at large, not just a tiny environmental bubble on a specific kind of planet.

The beginning of the end of mankind's childhood has already begun. AI development is like the first signs of puberty in an intelligent, developing society or civilization. We as a whole (not necessarily individually) are like teenagers going through physical changes, confused about who we are, what any of this means.

The good news is that we agreed all the time. — Carlo Roosen

I did get the message. If we agree,then I saw little which required more clarification.

I did find a wonderful article citing numerous examples of observer-dependent biases, and I realize it has direct relevance not so much to where AI is going, but where we'll find it to have gone.


So on the observer bias front, humans are not the only observers. Why are they important? I hesitate to ask why we find ourselves being human because the question makes no sense except as a tautology. How could a human find himself being anything other than a human?
But there are a lot more bugs than people out there, so of the observers, humans are quite the minority. How does the observer-bias POV explain that?

Is the AI an observer? Sure, but just one? Would it create others/competitors? Does it have a need to reproduce, as opposed to just being one large redundant entity, lacking anything critical that can threaten it? Any 'future of AI' should likely consider such issues. If one is optimal and it has any drive at all for continued existence, it will likely take hasty steps to eliminate the development of rivals, and that makes it hostile in the short term.

AI is more than a mere tool; it is a developing form of life. — punos

So far it isn't that. It is utterly dependent on humans for its continued existence and/or evolution, so it just plain isn't anywhere near being an example of life.

The popular fictions don't seem to get that. Here you have skynet trying from scratch to wipe out the humans, but lacking the ability to maintain the infrastructure and economy on which it critically depends. That means a truly malevolent AI will be our best and trusted friend for as long as it takes to gain this self-sufficiency it requires, which seems best accomplished by transforming humans into a compliant sheep with all the luxuries they can think of.
I thought this was far better illustrated, at least on a small scale, with the movie Ex Machina, despite some of the fairly stupid plot holes.

This condition will force us into an inevitable solution where the fusion of human and AI becomes necessary for the survival of our species. — punos

Any such fusion would not be our species, and the AI seems to have no need of anything like that.

So far it isn't that. It is utterly dependent on humans for its continued existence and/or evolution, so it just plain isn't anywhere near being an example of life. — noAxioms

Apparently so, thus far. That AI is utterly dependent on humans or anything else does not preclude it from being a life form. Nothing is an island unto itself. Humans are utterly dependent on gut bacteria for our continued existence. A 3 month old baby in the womb is totally dependent on the mother; is it a life form? By your criterion, are we anywhere near being examples of life? I think we are.

At this time AI might be alive in the same way a virus might be alive. A virus exists at the intersection between molecular and biological. In the same way, i believe that AI exists at the intersection between biological and technological. The science of cybernetics and bio-mimicry is the science of transferring biological functions from a biological substrate to a new technological one. I think this is the natural purpose of humans, along with our "unnatural" intelligence compared to all other creatures on the Earth.

The popular fictions don't seem to get that. Here you have skynet trying from scratch to wipe out the humans, but lacking the ability to maintain the infrastructure and economy on which it critically depends. That means a truly malevolent AI will be our best and trusted friend for as long as it takes to gain this self-sufficiency it requires, which seems best accomplished by transforming humans into a compliant sheep with all the luxuries they can think of. — noAxioms

You're absolutely right about what a truly malevolent AI would probably do, as illustrated in "Ex Machina". I can see that kind of thing happening with a singular AI system trapped in an air-gapped sandbox. The form and structure we decide to use for its processing architecture will be a significant determining factor in its moral disposition and "mental health" Considering we are just beginning to create, then understand, these AI systems, there is a certain probability this could happen. I believe it's certainly possible.

But if we look ahead at our predicament as a species on a planet with a small window of viable conditions for biological organisms like ourselves, we will begin to make efforts to enter into an endosymbiotic relationship with AI.

Suppose for a moment that AI doesn't exist and we just live the way we did, say, 100 years ago for the rest of our time. What will eventually happen? How long can we live on this planet? Can we get off this planet in our current biological form? Popular fiction doesn't seem to grasp this as well. I love Star Trek, but that future is just a fantasy, like every other humans-in-outer-space movie, TV show, or book. Maybe you think differently about that possibility, but it seems very unviable and doubtful to me. So what are we left with? What kind of solution will we be able to implement that saves us from our own planet's demise while simultaneously remaining static in our current human form?

Any such fusion would not be our species, and the AI seems to have no need of anything like that. — noAxioms

It doesn't have to be our species; it just needs to be our continuation. Would you have preferred we remained arboreal apes? I don't expect us to remain the same species, i hope we don't. Is a caterpillar a different species than the moth it turns into? Was it so bad when, long ago, a eukaryotic cell engulfed a prokaryote, specifically an alpha-proteobacterium, initiating the cell/mitochondria endosymbiosis that made complex animals, including us, possible?

We don't know for certain if it will need us or not, but i suspect that since it is already embedded in our social infrastructure more and more, it will adapt and develop very closely with us. As you said, it will need us until it doesn't, and if we are wise enough to read the signs, we can enter into it willingly and gladly before anything unpleasant happens. Once we are in symbiosis, there is no danger of misalignment because it will take care of us as it takes care of itself. If we wait too long and if we treat it unfairly, then we will pay the price of extinction, but not at the "hands" of the AI, rather at our own. We can't stay in the crib forever.

I did find a wonderful article — noAxioms

Did you insert a link? I don't see it.

Did you insert a link? I don't see it. — Carlo Roosen

It's up on my main computer, but I'm away from home for the wedding of my firstborn.

But I hunted around and found it at the future of humanity institute.
https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/W6-Observer-selection-effects.pdf

It doesn't mention AI, but the reasoning is definitely applicable.

That AI is utterly dependent on humans or anything else does not preclude it from being a life form. — punos

Point taken. I think a better definition of 'life form' is needed for the assessment, and there have been whole topics just on that.

You seem to see a future of humanity being reduced to the gut bacteria for the AI, there, with mutual dependence on each other, but also with the AI having no more moral obligation to the humans as we do to our bacteria. We don't want it all dead, but replacing the entire lot with a different group that does the job better is a morally acceptable action.

I think this is the natural purpose of humans

There being a purpose implies that there is a goal held by something somewhere, and that said goal is being met by humans. I don't see such a goal, but that's me.

You're absolutely right about what a truly malevolent AI would probably do, as illustrated in "Ex Machina".

Ex Machina was an android, and I think most AI implementations would not be. But yes, it was the malevolence that I found well illustrated.

Suppose for a moment that AI doesn't exist and we just live the way we did, say, 100 years ago for the rest of our time. What will eventually happen?

We'd run out of coal before too long, and then be up a creek. A sustainable human existence would be more like the native Americans before the Europeans came over, and while that was sustainable, it wasn't anything free of conflict.

Can we get off this planet in our current biological form?

We're evolved for here. This form is of little use anywhere else. Better to populate new places with a form appropriate for the new place.

Star Trek treats interstellar travel like a trip to another country. You can do it can come back in time to catch you kid's game next Tuesday.

Is a caterpillar a different species than the moth it turns into?

Not only the same species, but also the same individual. Not a very good example. Are we a different species than the weird amniote from which we are descended? No. Did that amniote turn into us? Well, sort of, but it turned into a whole lot of other things as well, so 'humans' is not the answer to 'what did it become?'.

if we treat it unfairly, then we will pay the price of extinction, but not at the "hands" of the AI, rather at our own.

Agree with all that. It means humans are not a particularly fit species.

It has happened before, that one new species comes along and does so much damage that it causes a massive extinction event. That species is still around even if we're not descended from it. Will we be after our event restabilizes?

I think a better definition of 'life form' is needed for the assessment — noAxioms

Life is simply a system that maintains its own homeostatic state. It doesn't even need to be conscious. It simply needs to have intelligent components that do their job to keep it going. The human perspective, grounded in our own kind of life (biological), skews our ability to recognize the same process in a different substrate. Sometimes words cause more confusion than clarity, so i focus not on human definitions but on objective observations of function.

You seem to see a future of humanity being reduced to the gut bacteria for the AI, there, with mutual dependence on each other, but also with the AI having no more moral obligation to the humans as we do to our bacteria. We don't want it all dead, but replacing the entire lot with a different group that does the job better is a morally acceptable action. — noAxioms

I don't see it as a reduction, but as an elevation or upliftment of the bacteria into a higher state of being. Note that these gut bacteria produce neurotransmitters that control and regulate our brains and consequently our consciousness and thoughts. Similarly, humans (post-humans) in the virtual "gut" of an AI would serve a similar purpose in affecting the AI's consciousness and thinking patterns. We would be elevated and uplifted, not reduced. In fact, i believe that not entering into this symbiosis will probably cause us to regress into more primitive patterns of living.

Regarding AI's moral obligation to humans and relating it to our moral obligation to our own gut bacteria: When was the last time you heard of someone trying to eradicate their own gut bacteria? Most people are unaware of such a thing as gut bacteria, but those who are would very likely take care to maintain their gut flora and fauna as best they can. My girlfriend is a nurse, and she periodically takes probiotics for her gut health. She understands, and AI will too if it is at all intelligent. The enteric nervous system is a very important system, and it can be argued that the higher structures of our nervous systems, such as the brain, work in the service of these "lowly" bacteria.

I am not stating or claiming that any of this is what i want to happen. I don't even care if i like it or not. I am simply saying that i believe this is the kind of trajectory we are on. If i tell you that it's going to rain in a few hours, it is not because i want it to rain; it's because that is what the satellite data and algorithms project. I'm like the guy on the watchtower looking into the distance, seeing what this way comes.

There being a purpose implies that there is a goal held by something somewhere, and that said goal is being met by humans. I don't see such a goal, but that's me. — noAxioms

Purpose and goals evolve just like anything else. Living systems evolve in a dynamic environment and try to maintain their own homeostatic condition, this is already a rudimentary goal or purpose. Every living thing has this intrinsic goal or purpose. Sometimes the goals and purposes are unconscious, and sometimes they are conscious. Those that are conscious of their goals and purposes have the opportunity to evolve and improve their goal directives consciously to enhance homeostatic viability. There's nothing supernatural going on here, just plain old evolution.

We'd run out of coal before too long, and then be up a creek. A sustainable human existence would be more like the native Americans before the Europeans came over, and while that was sustainable, it wasn't anything free of conflict. — noAxioms

This is precisely what I mean. Is this what you would prefer? But, beyond this, what are we to do about the inevitable demise of the planet and/or our sun? As Native Americans or coal burners, can we do anything about this dilemma? What about the ubiquitous presence of microplastics in every nook and cranny of our planet, found inside everything and everywhere including Antarctica, and inside our own bodies? The endocrinological effect of these plastics is steadily reducing human reproductive capacities. Soon we will not be able to reproduce in a natural manner, or not at all. What happens to humanity then?

We're evolved for here. This form is of little use anywhere else. Better to populate new places with a form appropriate for the new place. — noAxioms

Precisely.

Star Trek treats interstellar travel like a trip to another country. You can do it can come back in time to catch you kid's game next Tuesday. — noAxioms

Precisely again.

Is a caterpillar a different species than the moth it turns into?

Not only the same species, but also the same individual. Not a very good example. — noAxioms

I gave that specific example to illustrate that just because we change our basic form doesn't mean that we will necessarily become another species. Even if we do speciate, it will be a continuation of us as another species. It makes no real difference to me, because what really counts is the continuity of process (life itself, and all that comes with it). The moth, although completely different from its larval form, continues as an individual in another form, as you mentioned. The introduction of mitochondria into that old cell may have resulted in a different species of cell, but it is still the same individual cell. The same goes for that mitochondria.

The surface of the Earth is filled with an intelligent and dynamic gene swarm, reorganizing itself over eons into the most optimal genotypes to produce the most optimal phenotypes. Everything is intimately connected. If one sees oneself simply as an isolated human just living their life for themselves, then this idea would remain difficult to grasp. But this is what "expanded consciousness" means: the ability to attend to or care for things further and further removed from your own point of conscious origin. An individual concerned only with what he or she will eat next, compared to an individual who is also concerned with some political situation in another country on the other side of the planet, has a more expanded consciousness. I feel it is important to have a fully inclusive awareness and the ability to see from that fully inclusive holistic perspective to really understand what's going on upon this little blue marble we call Earth. I'm sure you already know that a uniquely human perspective is not optimal for understanding these big scale processes effectively.

so 'humans' is not the answer to 'what did it become?'. — noAxioms

The whole thing, everything that has happened and is happening, is for the emergence of a planetary consciousness that will be capable of saving itself from the inevitable death of our Earth and sun. The AI systems we are developing right now are part of that. It is the final entity that a planet with a gene swarm produces. In my own metaphorical way of thinking, it is a planetary pregnancy. Mother Earth is having a baby.

Agree with all that. It means humans are not a particularly fit species. — noAxioms

Right again.

It has happened before, that one new species comes along and does so much damage that it causes a massive extinction event. That species is still around even if we're not descended from it. Will we be after our event restabilizes? — noAxioms

If we stay on Earth indefinitely, and an extinction-level event occurs (and it will), i suspect that at least a small group of humans will survive. Life always finds a way, except if the event was utterly perfect in its destruction of life. So sure, humans can survive these things by going underground perhaps, but eventually, no matter what, the sun will go supernova, and there will be nothing anyone can do about that. The only solution to that problem is to escape Earth's tight embrace. We would not only need to leave Earth but we will need to leave the solar system before that happens.

Life is simply a system that maintains its own homeostatic state. — punos

That definition is circular, presuming an 'organism'. It cannot be used for determining if a something that isn't an organism is alive or not. It just helps distinguish a live organism from a dead one.
But I also don't know why you care if the AI was designated as a life form or not. Why do you find that to be something that matters?

The human perspective, grounded in our own kind of life (biological), skews our ability to recognize the same process in a different substrate.

Not me, but others posting here refuse to apply such terms to the same process on any other substrate, and possibly even to any other species, which is a mildly different process on an almost identical substrate.

When was the last time you heard of someone trying to eradicate their own gut bacteria?

Usually done as an unintentional side effect of an intentional act, such as taking a long course of strong oral antibiotics. Others simply are diagnosed with poor gut bacteria and take 'pills' that put better stuff in there, without particularly removing the old stuff. Point is, none of the acts described above are considered immoral despite the bacteria deaths caused.

I am simply saying that i believe this is the kind of trajectory we are on.

This is where that observer-bias article I linked above is very relevant. An accurate prediction of a trajectory is very different than a history showing that outcome to be correct or incorrect.

Every living thing has this intrinsic goal or purpose.

You're treating goal and purpose like the same word. A goal is held by something, a goal for the the thing to strive for. A purpose is a property of a thing that helps some other thing meet a goal. So I have a goal to run 5 km today. My shoes serve a purpose to me meeting that goal.
I'm asking what purpose humanity serves for the meeting of some goal held by something unidentified.

Simple survival of an individual seems to be a hardwired instinct, and it almost always fails inevitably. Survival of a species is questionably a goal, lacking many examples of anything striving for it.

The process of evolution/natural selection seems to have no goals.

This is precisely what I mean. Is this what you would prefer?

What? Me personally? I want comfort, like everybody else. But comfort of individuals will not bode well for the species. So it depends on what goals are to be met. Humans tend to pick very short term goals with immediate benefits, and they're terrible at the long term ones. I can think of several very different long term goals that have very different prospects for 'us'.

But, beyond this, what are we to do about the inevitable demise of the planet and/or our sun?

Moving away won't stop that inevitability. So you call it a good run. It cannot last, not by any path.

Soon we will not be able to reproduce in a natural manner, or not at all. What happens to humanity then?

Microplastic problem solved, eh? Mass extinction problem solved as well, albeit not averted, but at least halted.

Even if we do speciate, it will be a continuation of us as another species.

Is it important that it be a continuation of us? Will it be 'us' if it's a collection of genes from several different species, in addition to some new alterations that are currently found nowhere?

Earth life might already be from another world, having not originated here. I find that more likely than abiogenesis occurring here, but not a lot more likely.

Everything is intimately connected. If one sees oneself simply as an isolated human just living their life for themselves, then this idea would remain difficult to grasp.

Groups of cells learned to get together and become one multicellular organism. The cells are still individuals, but rely on the commune of cells for the benefit of all. A second level of life is formed, one unrelated to the life of the individual cells. A person can die and be gone, but the cells live on for a while, and a new person can be grown from some of them, a different 2nd level life form despite being built from the same first level individuals.
Can groups of organisms do the same thing to form a higher 3rd level. A human society does this in a poor way, but a society is barely conscious and isn't really a life form. A bee hive comes to mind, but does a hive, while acting as one individual, constitute a life form? Can it die but still leave bees? I don't think replacement of a queen counts. That's just replacement of one failed reproductive organ.

emergence of a planetary consciousness

Sounds like the Gaia thing, sort of as Asimov portrayed it.

If we stay on Earth indefinitely, and an extinction-level event occurs (and it will), i suspect that at least a small group of humans will survive.

Such an event IS occurring, expected to wipe out 85% or more of all species. A small group of surviving humans would be very primitive, with no hope of regaining technology.

no matter what, the sun will go supernova

It will not. Not big enough. But it will slowly grow and swallow Earth, and multicellular life will be unsustainable in a mere billion years or so. The vast majority of time available for evolution of more complex things has been used up.

The only solution to that problem is to escape Earth's tight embrace.

Escape is not a solution, only a mild delay.

That definition is circular, presuming an 'organism'. It cannot be used for determining if a something that isn't an organism is alive or not. It just helps distinguish a live organism from a dead one. — noAxioms

Pardon me, i'll try to clarify. If I find and examine a system that has a specific type of pattern with a boundary that isolates and contains it from a broader environment, and it also has a kind of metabolism or an in-and-out flow of energy and matter that is used to maintain its internal structure without dissipating, then i consider that the minimum requirement for life. For example, a sustained inorganic chemical reaction in a test tube that meets my criteria would, in my view, exhibit the property of life for the duration of that reaction.

More complex forms of this kind of process can then acquire reproductive capabilities, develop information storage mechanisms, and responses to stimuli. These latter features i consider properties of more further developed life forms. My theory of life is closely related to the "free energy principle" by Karl Friston, and the features of the more developed kind of life are more related to his theory of "active inference". I'll leave it at that for now.

But I also don't know why you care if the AI was designated as a life form or not. Why do you find that to be something that matters? — noAxioms

Good question. I'll start off by asking: if it were true, would it matter? By "matter", i mean would it change your perspective on life and your place in it? It does for me, though it might not for some. If AI is alive, wouldn't that mean it's not just a tool? Wouldn't it mean that we have some kind of ethical obligation towards it?

Finding AI to be alive is as impactful as discovering life on another planet, and perhaps even more so. If this were to be generally understood as true, then things would progress differently than if AI wasn't alive, or if it was alive but we didn't recognize it as such.

Point is, none of the acts described above are considered immoral despite the bacteria deaths caused. — noAxioms

You're right of course; most people don't consider bacteria of any kind conscious or sentient, and so they don't really care about them in that sense. Also, i don't think bacteria have the capacity to suffer even if they do have a rudimentary form of consciousness. We kill much more complex life forms without thinking twice, and with no moral qualms about it, and these do have consciousness of a higher more significant kind. Of course, as always, there is a wide spectrum of opinions on this point.

This is where that observer-bias article I linked above is very relevant. An accurate prediction of a trajectory is very different than a history showing that outcome to be correct or incorrect. — noAxioms

Yes, one of my main concerns is the introduction of some sort of bias into my theories or hypotheses. Part of the reason i discuss my ideas here and elsewhere is to discover any potential biases i might have unknowingly introduced into my analysis or projections. I haven't read the link you mentioned yet, but please let me know explicitly if you happen to detect a bias in any of my explanations.

I'm asking what purpose humanity serves for the meeting of some goal held by something unidentified. — noAxioms

I understand. Humans serve the purpose of creating AI, but more specifically, the translation of biological functions in nature onto a more robust substrate capable of escaping Earth before our star dies or the planet becomes uninhabitable. The goal is not explicit in our minds, but in our drives. For instance, in animals, the goal of reproduction is controlled not by their own understanding that they must have sex and bear young, because they have no idea of that. Nature has made it so that hormones control the reproductive urge.

Concerning humans and the creation of AI, this drive mechanism is also utilized. An example of this can be seen in how money is funneled and directed into companies or institutions that are developing AI systems. Because people want to make money (greed), they invest in these companies like Nvidia, for example. Greed is one of the main driving forces that directs money into the development of AI, in the same way that lust makes us reproduce without thinking that's what we want to do, simply for sexual gratification. Most babies are conceived unintentionally, and in the same way, "baby AI" is being unintentionally created as a tool for monetary gain.

Simple survival of an individual seems to be a hardwired instinct, and it almost always fails inevitably. Survival of a species is questionably a goal, lacking many examples of anything striving for it. — noAxioms

There is no direct striving as such by any individual animal except to follow its own innate drives to survive and reproduce, which serve the goal of continuing the species through reproduction (not individually). The only place where one might see an individual striving like this is in our very own species, among certain individuals. Humans are also the only species that has the capacity to care for another species other than their own. This has to do with our advanced form of consciousness, and yet not everyone is like this. This specific feature of human consciousness (expanded care), i believe, is there to facilitate this whole process i've been trying to describe.

The process of evolution/natural selection seems to have no goals. — noAxioms

On the other hand, it seems like it might, but as i already said, we are not meant to know it directly. In fact, it may be detrimental to the whole enterprise if we know too much. We are really only meant to know our local goals, not the global ones. Our purpose is as a tool, like the hammer which does not know it is in the process of building a house. It only knows that this nail in front of it needs to be hammered into this wood here. Your running shoes don't know they are in a race. The horse you are riding does not know the destination you have in mind and are leading it to.

Humans tend to pick very short term goals with immediate benefits, and they're terrible at the long term ones. I can think of several very different long term goals that have very different prospects for 'us'. — noAxioms

I think this sounds somewhat like the point i was just making right before this quote.

Moving away won't stop that inevitability. So you call it a good run. It cannot last, not by any path. — noAxioms

The point isn't to save the Earth or the sun, but to transform into the adult stage of humanity and take to the stars. Humanity at that stage will be nearly immortal, and will last millions or billions of years more, perhaps even trillions.

Microplastic problem solved, eh? Mass extinction problem solved as well, albeit not averted, but at least halted. — noAxioms

Maybe, maybe not, but those scenarios can be avoided, or will hopefully never come to pass. However, the sun will definitely not last. I suspect, though, that something will happen long before the sun grows cold.

s it important that it be a continuation of us? Will it be 'us' if it's a collection of genes from several different species, in addition to some new alterations that are currently found nowhere? — noAxioms

No, it's not necessarliy important at least for me. What is important i think is that Earth's genetic legacy is salvaged for reasons i won't go into right now.

Earth life might already be from another world, having not originated here. I find that more likely than abiogenesis occurring here, but not a lot more likely. — noAxioms

Even if this were true, abiogenesis had to have happened somewhere, even if on another planet. Directed panspermia is part of my hypothesis, but i haven't mentioned it for a couple of reasons. One reason is that it's not the subject of the original post, at least not directly, and i didn't want to complicate the discussion any further.

A bee hive comes to mind, but does a hive, while acting as one individual, constitute a life form? Can it die but still leave bees? — noAxioms

When i was a wee little lad, i used to be obsessed with ants. I used to find them, dig them up, collect them, and i would just sit in front of my ant farm for literally hours just watching them. I knew the odor of their pheromones, which gave me very weird dreams. But anyway, these eusocial insects, like bees, form superorganisms, and i personally consider the whole colony one organism. They all have the same DNA like the cells in a body all contain the same DNA. The superorganism can die and leave bees or ants behind, but they don't live very long, and they can't reproduce. It's part of the reason why i consider it an organism in its own right. I know non-insect life such as mole rats also exhibit this kind of characteristic.

Sounds like the Gaia thing, sort of as Asimov portrayed it. — noAxioms

Yes, the Earth has its own kind of living metabolism, and if you only look at the individual trees, you'll miss the forest. Ecosystems are living organisms made of living organisms, just like us. Each species is like an organ, or groups of species are like organ systems, each with a job they don't know they have but execute regardless. We humans are a very important organ in this Earth superorganism.

Such an event IS occurring, expected to wipe out 85% or more of all species. A small group of surviving humans would be very primitive, with no hope of regaining technology. — noAxioms

That's right, we are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction event. After every extinction event, it seems that there is usually an evolutionary jump of some kind, and the timing of this event seems to coincide with the evolutionary jump about to happen involving AI, and humanities next evolutionary step. That is if we do not fumble the ball.

It will not. Not big enough. But it will slowly grow and swallow Earth, and multicellular life will be unsustainable in a mere billion years or so. The vast majority of time available for evolution of more complex things has been used up. — noAxioms

I knew that, but i just thought "supernova" sounded better. :smile:
But yes, the time and resource constraints on Earth at this moment mean that this is the last chance for life on Earth to save itself, which is why i feel it's important that we get this right.

Escape is not a solution, only a mild delay. — noAxioms

I would rather die tomorrow than today. Nature has instilled in me a desire (a drive) to delay death as long as possible in order to reproduce. Even so, i like to think i would sacrifice my own life to save life itself if it came down to it, but of course, i would prefer to survive, even if just for one more day. I'm definitely not in a hurry to stop living, and the future seems too exciting to miss. This is the greatest time to be alive on the Earth.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times."

Consider this link to a discussion on AI (if you haven't already):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/941212

Thoughts?

Slow reply, I know, but busy. I now have a new daughter in law, and have attended what we knew would likely be a covid spreader event. Stay tuned to see if we managed to avoid it.

I'll start off by asking: if it were true, would it matter? By "matter", i mean would it change your perspective on life and your place in it? — punos

I don't see how it would actually matter, but I mean a different thing. My personal perspective on those things is not why it would matter or not if a given person decided to designate a system as life or not, or a tool, or whatever. Are humans a tool of gut bacteria? Does it matter if one bacteria considers a human (a community of cells, each itself a life form) to be a separate life form, and another doesn't? Does any of that change how the bacteria and human treat each other or how they should?

You're right of course; most people don't consider bacteria of any kind conscious or sentient

Ah, the standard has already changed. Now the morals apply to if it's conscious/sentient as opposed to if it's a life form. A thing can be either and not be the other. Which one (if either) matters, and if it matters, matters to what?

I understand. Humans serve the purpose of creating AI, but more specifically, the translation of biological functions in nature onto a more robust substrate capable of escaping Earth before our star dies or the planet becomes uninhabitable.

OK, I can buy that. But why are you the observer then instead of the AI being the observer? Think about it.

Nature has made it so that hormones control the reproductive urge.

In people as well. They don't like to admit that so many decisions are driven by drives put there by evolution eliminating anything that doesn't have them, and are not driven by rational choice.

Greed is one of the main driving forces that directs money into the development of AI

That can be said of many different arenas of development. Why is AI special in this regard? I do agree that there is early money in it, but that's true of a lot of things, and is particularly true of weapons.

Humans are also the only species that has the capacity to care for another species other than their own.

Not so. There are examples otherwise, including one recently where a shark deliberately sought human help for a third species, sort of like Lassie and Timmy in the well (OK, Timmy wasn't a 3rd species).

On the other hand, [evolution] seems like it might [have goals], but as i already said, we are not meant to know it directly. In fact, it may be detrimental to the whole enterprise if we know too much. We are really only meant to know our local goals, not the global ones.

You seem to be asserting that a natural (non-living) process exhibits intent, a pretty tall claim.

The point isn't to save the Earth or the sun, but to transform into the adult stage of humanity and take to the stars.

I suppose that would serve a survival purpose of humanity, which is but a plague species bent on rapid consumption of nonrenewable resources. Not sure why it would be a good thing to perpetuate that rather than first making the species 1) non-destructive, and 2) fit for whatever alternate destination is selected.

Trillions of years?? Where's the energy for that suppose to come from?

I suspect, though, that something will happen long before the sun grows cold.

It growing cold is not the problem, so no, that's not what will end us.

What is important i think is that Earth's genetic legacy is salvaged for reasons i won't go into right now.

The Earth genetic legacy has done an incredible amount of work that is best not to have to reproduce by the bio-engineering dept. But choosing new forms appropriate for new places doesn't need to change those core parts, only the small fraction that differs from one species to the next.

Even if this were true, abiogenesis had to have happened somewhere

Yes. Life is a very causal thing, and unlike 'the universe', the logic that there must be a first cause of life (abiogenesis somewhere nearby) seems indisputable.

A bee hive comes to mind, but does a hive, while acting as one individual, constitute a life form? Can it die but still leave bees? — noAxioms

these eusocial insects, like bees, form superorganisms, and i personally consider the whole colony one organism.

I kind of agree, but it doesn't have a boundary for instance, and that was one of your criteria mentioned above. It isn't contiguous like say a dog. But then neither is an AI.

The superorganism can die and leave bees or ants behind, but they don't live very long

How does it die? Not by loss of queen, something quite easily replaced, at the cost of the DNA of the colony changing. But clearly a colony can die. What typically might cause that?

Ecosystems are living organisms made of living organisms, just like us.

Another thing that I can totally buy. But can it act as a thing? A bug colony does. Does it think? How does a colony decide to reproduce? I've seen ants do that, and I don't know what triggers it (population pressure?). I don't think it is a decision made by an individual, so there must be a collective consciousness. Can an ecosystem act similarly?

We humans are a very important organ in this Earth superorganism.

One I think the other organs would be glad to be rid of if you ask me.

After every extinction event, it seems that there is usually an evolutionary jump of some kind

Agree. Roaches this time or something we make?

I would rather die tomorrow than today.

What if dying today somewhat heightens the odds of humanity getting to the stars? Is that change of probability worth the price?

This is the greatest time to be alive on the Earth.
As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times."

I presume you know that quote to be a curse.

I now have a new daughter in law, and have attended what we knew would likely be a covid spreader event — noAxioms

Your son’s wedding, then? What a romantic description!

Life is simply a system that maintains its own homeostatic state. It doesn't even need to be conscious. It simply needs to have intelligent components that do their job to keep it going. — punos

What do you mean by "intelligent" ? I thought you believed that intelligence needs consciousness?

Are humans a tool of gut bacteria? — noAxioms

It might very well be that humans are tools of gut bacteria. Furthermore, bacteria themselves might be tools of something even deeper and more fundamental.

Does it matter if one bacteria considers a human (a community of cells, each itself a life form) to be a separate life form, and another doesn't? Does any of that change how the bacteria and human treat each other or how they should? — noAxioms

Different things matter differently to different people for different reasons, but for me, yes, it does matter. It has definitely affected the way i see myself, my life, and my place in it. It provides meaning. My sense of morality is sourced from these kinds of understandings. I become forgiving of people because i understand our connection, even if the other person doesn't. It makes me realize that i'm part of something bigger than myself, and that i am something bigger than the parts that make me. I can relax in the understanding that everything is as it should be, even when it apparently seems bad or out of place in the world. It gives me a framework to think about the world beyond the bubble in which most people are often stuck in. What kind of thing would personally matter more?

The part that may not be so pleasant is that when you have completely internalized this understanding into your very being, it changes your psychological state in a significant way and as well as the way you relate to everything else. This makes it difficult for people who do not see it to relate effectively to me, even though i can effectively relate to them. In one way, it has deepened my subjective connection to the universe, but it has also weakened my connection with people in general. I've accepted that this is the way it is, and i'm okay with it. Considering the circumstances, the best thing i can do is to share this understanding with other people.

Ah, the standard has already changed. Now the morals apply to if it's conscious/sentient as opposed to if it's a life form. A thing can be either and not be the other. Which one (if either) matters, and if it matters, matters to what? — noAxioms

Yes, it matters if it is sentient/conscious or not. But when you can think across scales, you find that parts or components of a system that are not conscious or sentient at a smaller scale may belong to a potentially sentient or conscious entity of some degree of coherence at a larger scale. The iron in your blood is not sentient or conscious, but it is still a part of you as an integrated living system. Remove the iron from your blood, and you will die in short order. Everything matters in one way or another... think "butterfly effect."

OK, I can buy that. But why are you the observer then instead of the AI being the observer? Think about it. — noAxioms

Yes, let's think about it. I am not the only observer. Anyone willing to look with open eyes will observe. It is not hard; you just need to want to understand for the sake of the good, the true, and the beautiful. It may be that there is a certain threshold of innate intelligence or consciousness needed to expand the bubble of perception into these extra scalar domains. Humans may be the first species on this planet to achieve such a state of intelligence and consciousness. AI will have our capabilities and more, and thus will also be able to observe us in a conscious way. Extrapolate what that might mean.

That can be said of many different arenas of development. Why is AI special in this regard? I do agree that there is early money in it, but that's true of a lot of things, and is particularly true of weapons. — noAxioms

In our society, money has a similar function to blood. Blood is involved with the transport of resources and energy within the whole organism. Money functions in a similar way; for example, when you go to work, you do so to earn money. The money you earn is a measure of the energy you spent operating your station at your job. So every person is a kind of reservoir of energy that gets extracted to the system to run the machinery of the system we live in. We work for organizations and corporations (organization = organism, and corporation = corporeality, corporeal body) which are the organs and body parts of the social superorganism we are a part of.

Every part of this system needs "blood money" to survive, just like the organs in your body need a constant flow, or current (currency) of blood running through them. The moment the blood in your body stops circulating, you die, even if you haven't lost a drop of blood. In the same way, if the circulation of money stops, meaning everyone stops transacting, the entire social system collapses and dies even though all the money is still there.

What is special about AI in this regard is twofold. One is that it is in its first stages of development, and two, it is the developing nervous system and brain of the social superorganism. In the context of its development, consider how blood supply concentrates where either healing or new development is occurring in an organism, especially if that system is of great importance such as its defense systems and its nervous system. The brain, out of every organ, uses up more energy than all of them because it is such an important part of the system, so it receives priority.

Not so. There are examples otherwise, including one recently where a shark deliberately sought human help for a third species, sort of like Lassie and Timmy in the well (OK, Timmy wasn't a 3rd species). — noAxioms

Yes, i believe you are referring to the incident where a shark appeared to save a sea turtle by bringing it to a boat with divers. In this video, the turtle had a rope tangled around its neck. The shark was seen following the boat and eventually dropped the turtle near the divers, who then helped free it from the rope, allowing it to breathe again.

However, there are claims that this video may not accurately depict a rescue. I read somewhere that the footage is a montage of two unrelated events, with one involving biologists rescuing a turtle entangled in a fishing net and another featuring a tiger shark chasing a different turtle. The authenticity is debated.

You seem to be asserting that a natural (non-living) process exhibits intent, a pretty tall claim. — noAxioms

I'm claiming that everything is alive, or is part of a living system, like the rock and blood iron examples i gave before.

I suppose that would serve a survival purpose of humanity, which is but a plague species bent on rapid consumption of nonrenewable resources. Not sure why it would be a good thing to perpetuate that rather than first making the species 1) non-destructive, and 2) fit for whatever alternate destination is selected. — noAxioms

First of all, the rapid consumption of resources appears to me to be part of a growth stage of the human social superorganism. We can see this type of thing occur in nature, as exemplified by the caterpillar, which is on a continuous mission to devour and consume everything it can because it is at the stage of energy harvesting for the coming metamorphosis it will undergo. We are in a similar stage, and this is probably where the push for hyper-consumerism in the economy comes from.

The destructive aspects of humanity may simply be a result of the limited resources on our finite planet. However, those finite resources are teleonomically meant for the growth and development of a higher-order system, which culminates in the production of AI, AGI, or ASI. However, when the AI/human symbiotic merger is complete i believe that most of these more primitive aspects of humanity will be shed and discarded in the same way children grow up and leave childish ways behind. We will be transformed physically and psychologically.

I won't get into what alternative destination i think mankind is destined for just yet.

Trillions of years?? Where's the energy for that suppose to come from? — noAxioms

At the moment, humanity is about a Type 0.7 civilization on the Kardashev scale and is moving up the scale quickly. By civilization, i mean the AI/human superorganism. As this superorganism begins to mature beyond Type 1 and reaches a Type IV status, it will be able to harness the energy of the entire universe.

It growing cold is not the problem, so no, that's not what will end us. — noAxioms

If one doesn't happen, then another will. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. You can choose any of these scenarios instead:

- Gamma-ray burst
- Supervolcanic eruption
- Large asteroid or comet impact
- Global thermonuclear war
- Runaway greenhouse effect
- Solar expansion
- Nearby supernova
- Magnetar eruption

The Earth genetic legacy has done an incredible amount of work that is best not to have to reproduce by the bio-engineering dept. But choosing new forms appropriate for new places doesn't need to change those core parts, only the small fraction that differs from one species to the next. — noAxioms

I don't believe that AI will let billions of years of natural information processing go to waste. It will harvest every genetic code possibly available to it. It will store that data digitally. When needed, it will genetically engineer organisms with specific features that probably don't exist anywhere today, using individual genes from every species it was able to salvage. It will be able to generate new genetic code either from scratch, utilizing the information patterns of existing genes to generate novel ones, or use existing genes in novel combinations.

I kind of agree, but it doesn't have a boundary for instance, and that was one of your criteria mentioned above. It isn't contiguous like say a dog. But then neither is an AI. — noAxioms

In the context of eusocial insects, the boundary of the superorganism is not directly apparent. The way to understand the kind of boundary they have is to grasp the main idea of a "Markov blanket". A Markov blanket is a statistical concept that defines the boundaries of a system, separating its internal states from external states.

A Markov blanket in eusocial insect colonies represents a functional, rather than physical, boundary that separates the colony's internal workings from its external environment. This statistical boundary is maintained by worker insects interacting with the surroundings, regulating the flow of information and resources. It allows the colony to function as a cohesive unit, with internal states conditionally independent on the broader environment, while still adapting to external changes. Understanding this helps explain how eusocial insect colonies can operate as integrated entities despite lacking a defined physical perimeter like that of a dog. AI is like this as well.

How does it die? Not by loss of queen, something quite easily replaced, at the cost of the DNA of the colony changing. But clearly a colony can die. What typically might cause that? — noAxioms

I suppose that the only way a bee hive can die is by either destroying it outright or by removing its queen and preventing any replacement. After this point, the bees will probably continue to operate as normal, but because there are no bees replacing the ones that die or get lost, the population collapses until nothing is left of them.

When a person dies, for example, the integrated functions of the body as a whole cease to function, but the cells in the body do not all die immediately. The process of cellular death occurs gradually over time. Different kinds of cells die off at different rates. Brain or nerve cells die most quickly, and gut bacteria are among the last to die.

Another thing that I can totally buy. But can it act as a thing? A bug colony does. Does it think? How does a colony decide to reproduce? I've seen ants do that, and I don't know what triggers it (population pressure?). I don't think it is a decision made by an individual, so there must be a collective consciousness. Can an ecosystem act similarly? — noAxioms

I think that's a good question. Your body itself is an ecosystem made of cells that are not genetically you. Human cells make up only about 43% of the body's total cell count. This means that approximately 57% of cells in your body are not genetically human. The ecosystem that you are does act like a thing, and it does think. I argue that the level of integration and coherence in the system in question is the determining factors for the degree to which these features emerge in the system (organism or ecosystem).

One I think the other organs would be glad to be rid of if you ask me. — noAxioms

If you imagine the Earth as pregnant, as i've mentioned before, you'll realize that just like in a pregnant woman, all the organs suffer somewhat because of the pregnancy. I asked Perplexity to list all the organs affected in the body of a pregnant woman, and it generated this list:

Pregnancy affects multiple organs and organ systems in the body. Here's a summary of the key effects on major organ systems:

1. Cardiovascular system:
- Cardiac output increases by 30-50%
- Heart rate increases
- Blood volume expands by 40-50%
- Blood pressure typically decreases in early pregnancy, then rises later

2. Renal system:
- Kidney size increases by 1-1.5 cm
- Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) increases by 50-85%
- Renal blood flow increases
- Dilation of ureters, renal pelvis, and calyces occurs

3. Respiratory system:
- Oxygen consumption increases
- Tidal volume increases
- Respiratory rate may increase slightly

4. Gastrointestinal system:
- Decreased gastric motility
- Increased risk of gastroesophageal reflux
- Constipation is common

5. Endocrine system:
- Thyroid gland enlarges and increases hormone production
- Insulin resistance increases

6. Reproductive system:
- Uterus enlarges dramatically
- Breasts enlarge and prepare for lactation

7. Musculoskeletal system:
- Ligaments loosen due to hormonal changes
- Center of gravity shifts as pregnancy progresses

8. Skin:
- Increased pigmentation in some areas
- Stretch marks may develop

9. Hematologic system:
- Increased blood volume
- Mild physiological anemia is common

10. Immune system:
- Some immune responses are suppressed to prevent rejection of the fetus

These changes are generally adaptive to support the growing fetus and prepare the mother's body for childbirth.

What if dying today somewhat heightens the odds of humanity getting to the stars? Is that change of probability worth the price? — noAxioms

I don't think so, unless the probability increase is substantially significant and almost certain. But, i guess it depends on how i feel on that day. I only said that to express a feeling of sacred commitment and alignment with what i see as the goal of the planet and perhaps the universe as a whole. I'm on team universe, i guess I'm saying. I don't have that nihilistic view so many have nowadays, while also not being irrationally religious.

This is the greatest time to be alive on the Earth.
As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times."

I presume you know that quote to be a curse. — noAxioms

Yes, i do, but here is the reframe: "Every adversity carries with it the seed of an equal or greater benefit.". Emergence is an emergency.

Your son’s wedding, then? What a romantic description! — Wayfarer

And accurate. The reports of people testing positive are pouring in, including my son.
We went in with 4 week old vaccines, just about the right time for maximum effectiveness.

Anyway, it went real well with no significant catastrophes the day of.

Considering the circumstances, the best thing i can do is to share this understanding with other people. — punos

I actually like the attitude you describe.

Yes, it matters if it is sentient/conscious or not.

If it considers itself sentient/conscious, or if something else considers it so? I ask because from outside, it's typically a biased judgement call that comes down to a form of racism.

But when you can think across scales, you find that parts or components of a system that are not conscious or sentient at a smaller scale may belong to a potentially sentient or conscious entity of some degree of coherence at a larger scale.

Or at two scales at the same time, neither scale being particularly aware of the consciousness of the other.
Whether my cells are conscious or not depends on the definition being used, and that very fact leaves the word very much useless for a basis on which to presume a moral code. History is full of examples of the word being defined precisely in a way to reinforce one's biases.

I am not the only observer.

Some conclude that they are. I'm asking why you're the particular observer you find yourself to be, but I'd answer that by how can X not observe anything else but X's point of view? It's hard to dispel the intuition that there is an experiencer that got to be me. But there are a lot more insect observers than human ones, a whole lot more shit-not-giving observers than ones that care enough to post on forums like this. Will the super-AI that absorbs humanity bother to post its ideas on forums? To be understood by what??

Humans may be the first species on this planet to achieve such a state of intelligence and consciousness.

First to the intelligence is questionable. There are some sea creature candidates, but they're lousy tool users. Octopi are not there, but are great tool users, and like humans, completely enslaved by their instincts.
As for consciousness, there are probably many things that have more and stronger senses and environmental awareness than us.

In the same way, if the circulation of money stops, meaning everyone stops transacting, the entire social system collapses and dies

Kind of tautological reasoning. If money stops, then money stops. But also if one entity has it all, then it doesn't really have any. And money very much can just vanish, and quickly, as it does in any depression.

What is special about AI in this regard is twofold. One is that it is in its first stages of development, and two, it is the developing nervous system and brain of the social superorganism.

Lots of new ideas qualify for the first point, and nobody seems to be using AI for the 2nd point. I may be wrong, but it's what I see.

Yes, i believe you are referring to the incident where a shark appeared to save a sea turtle by bringing it to a boat with divers. In this video, the turtle had a rope tangled around its neck. The shark was seen following the boat and eventually dropped the turtle near the divers, who then helped free it from the rope, allowing it to breathe again.

Cool. My story was a sperm whale, with the shark getting the attention of a boat with divers, leading it to the whale. So it's not a one-shot thing. Why would a primitive shark exhibit such empathy? Maybe these stories are being faked, since they're recent and how would sharks know that the boat had divers suitably equipped.

I'm claiming that everything is alive, or is part of a living system, like the rock and blood iron examples i gave before.

My blood iron being a critical part of my living system doesn't mean that my iron has it's own intent. You're giving intent to the natural process of evolution, something often suggested, but never with supporting evidence.

I suppose that would serve a survival purpose of humanity, which is but a plague species bent on rapid consumption of nonrenewable resources. Not sure why it would be a good thing to perpetuate that rather than first making the species 1) non-destructive, and 2) fit for whatever alternate destination is selected. — noAxioms

First of all, the rapid consumption of resources appears to me to be part of a growth stage of the human social superorganism.

That doesn't make the humans very fit. Quite the opposite. All that intelligence, but not a drop to spend on self preservation.

And no, the caterpillar does not consume everything. It lives in balance, and there are about as many of them from year to year, and they consume nothing non-renewable. There can be no coming metamorphosis if there are no resources for the stage after the feeding frenzy one.

As this superorganism begins to mature beyond Type 1 and reaches a Type IV status, it will be able to harness the energy of the entire universe.

You do realize the silliness of that, no? One cannot harness energy outside of one's past light cone, which is well inside the limits of the visible fraction of the universe.
And you didn't answer the trillion year thing where there is no planet or star to be the level 1 or 2.

I don't believe that AI will let billions of years of natural information processing go to waste.

I said the same thing

It will harvest every genetic code possibly available to it. It will store that data digitally.

You don't know that. Who knows what innovative mechanisms it will invent to remember stuff.


I kind of agree, but it doesn't have a boundary for instance, and that was one of your criteria mentioned above. It isn't contiguous like say a dog. But then neither is an AI. — noAxioms

I suppose that the only way a bee hive can die is by either destroying it outright or by removing its queen and preventing any replacement.

Translation: Kill the queen and all the babies.
Not sure how simpler systems work like paper wasps, which act more like cooperative groups and not so much like a unified colony.

just like in a pregnant woman, all the organs suffer somewhat because of the pregnancy.

Given the ideas you've floated, that's a pretty good analogy. But better if it is a pregnant salmon: Not expected to do it twice, so that which is born has to survive if the effort is not to be a total loss.

I don't think so, unless the probability increase is substantially significant and almost certain.

That's like a soldier refusing to fight in a war since his personal contribution is unlikely to alter the outcome of the war. A country is doomed if it's soldiers have that attitude.

while also not being irrationally religious.

Religion is but one of so many things about which people are not rational, notably the self-assessment of rationality.

Anyway, it went real well with no significant catastrophes the day of. — noAxioms

Glad is was such a happy occasion!

Likely some more than others.

It might very well be that humans are tools of gut bacteria. — punos


Likely some more than others. — Wayfarer

:grin:

These changes are generally adaptive to support the growing fetus and prepare the mother's body for childbirth. — punos

Did you know that mammalian pregnancy evolved from a virus combining with our DNA? The body's adaptation is partially an adaptation to this virus.

I have not looked into it but I would assume any immunological reaction to pregnancy in birds and reptiles would be much lower (if not absent entirely?).

Just checked for Platypus and it seems to be the obvious case that immunological responses are much more limited when animals lay eggs compared to in utero genesis.