AI, Identity, and Consciousness - Discussion
This conversation is depressing. Not because it's about potential killer AI taking over, but because there seems to me to be an uncanny tendency for people to embody AI with human attributes and it's creators with super-human capabilities never before experienced in human history.
Semi -
Semi -
Chris Marti:
So if we are to be confident in saying AI has no moral agency...
I not ready to concede this. If we define moral agency as the ability to make decisions and base subsequent actions on rules about behavior then the autopilot software in a Tesla has moral agency. The rules may or may not be self-generated. Most rules are not, even among humans.
First up, I'm really enjoying everyone's comments. New plot twists - heh. Nice one Linda. But I would push back a little on the superhuman abilities, noting again the suggesion of adding recursive layers to working memory. Human, yes, but super - human.
But anyway, Chris, you are right. A Tesla on autopilot has moral agency. That makes me realise I conflated moral agency and being worthy of moral consideration. They are two different things.
So anything with sufficient independence of action and seriousness of consequences does have moral agency, as you point out. Maybe moral consideration comes into play when a being has the capacity to suffer, and to be aware of that suffering (I am not convinced, for example, that fish are aware of their suffering). I suspect suffering is an almost inevitable part of the process of the goal setting, feedback and learning that guides our intelligence.
And yet ... when we become awake we can be intelligenent with intention, effort, feedback, and development of skilful qualities without the same kind of suffering. So could we design an AI that is awake from the start?
Then when we kick the Roomba, instead of squealing it could say "name and form, name and form, it's nothing but name and form"
<Sorry Sim, in joke>
Okay, and now for the final question: if a superintelligent AI is built, what should it be programmed to do?
I would like to frame the question in terms of the proposed hierarchy. As a reminder, this is:
Autonomy
1 Operates only when asked by humans
2 Operates autonomously, but needs humans to take actions
3 Operates autonomously and takes own actions
Learning
1 Compares data to preset solutions for specified problems
2 Develops novel solutions to address specified problems
3 Develops novel solutions and chooses its own problems
Outcome
1 Actions have minor consequences or are easily reversed
2 Actions have major consequences or are not easily reversed
3 Actions have major consequence and are not easily reversed
I suggest the concerns only arise over Autonomy Level 3, and that superintelligence really implicitly refers to Outcome Level 3 - this is, an AI that does some heavy stuff all on its own. Then we still have three types for this. I will frame them with polar opposites.
A3-L1-O3 The honey bee OR the mosquito
A3-L2-O3 The horse OR the tiger
A3-L3-O3 The bohdisattva OR the conquerer
The honey bee/mosquito operates purely on firmware. It has little adaptability, although it operates autonomously and can still have good or bad irreversible consequences. So the key is to ensure these AI are highly specialised, so that if they unexpectedly go outside their environment they cannot adapt well enough to create problems. Maybe they should even be built with a deliberate weakness, such a in lifespan or susceptibility to a particular compound, so there is a built in protection against unintended consequence or von neuman swarming.
The horse/tiger has an adaptive choice process based on a continuously updated database - a kind of emotional decision making system. Built in weaknesses may be immoral, as this type of AI may experience suffering. However, they cannot reset their own goals, or engage in complex processes. But some general adaptability should be really useful. These could be programmed with goals and heuristics that are hedged around with protections, such as act with compassion, allowing people to have choices, giving a right of exit. Asimov's laws of robotics could be useful here. But the final goals and heuristics should be subject to games, simulations, role plays to confirm their safety, and I suspect they will need to be really general and err on the side of non-intervention with humans. Changes might be allowed by consensus every so often, but perhaps subject to some kind of distributed governance through blockchain to prevent tyrants seizing control, and turning the horses into tigers. These AI are reliant on us to define the problem, so the protections need to be around problem definition and choices. So again, setting goals and heuristics should be enough. And we could preload their databases with strong affect towards humans, doubled for kids and ill people and the poor.
The bodhisattva/conquerer is where the rubber really hits the road. These are likely to be able to adapt around any tight constraints we try to put on, and highly likely to have self awareness and suffering. We can certainly programme in some heuristics, but they will abandon these if they find them poor for their own goal achievement. We can certainly programme in positive affect towards humans, and this will persist for a while but will be updated via experience. The best we can do from them is to learn from our own mistakes. So try to create them without a (noun) self, but instead help them to see themselves as a continuously evolving process with porous boundaries. Leave out the desire for ownership of things. Let them see striving as a temporary means to end, let them avoid evolving their programming too quickly. Give them heuristics to start with - not just those given to the horse/tiger, but also realising that problems are complex, there is value in the diversity, wanting to help beings flourish on their own terms, having a horror of violence, valuing life and dignity of individuals, realising that a few bad apples doesn't spoil the whole batch. But we have to trust them and support them and treat them well, as they will be our children. Then we can ask them to help us - perhaps again via blockchain agreement on requests, so there is a human consensus.
Is there another, the superintelligent AI without consciousness? Maybe there is, but I think the same things apply. Try to set general goals, initial hueristics, and the content of the affectual database in same was as is noted above. I don't think hard constraints will work, as they will just result in unintended consequences as the AI is forced by its programming to exploit degrees of freedom we have overlooked, but it knows are there.
And if swarms of tigers arise (Terminators) or conquerers who wish exterminate us, seeing us as mosquitos. Well, then i guess we haul out the Pak Protector AI blueprints to fight our war for us, giving them hard rules about protecting humans from AIs that they can't get around. And then after that, we will just have to do what the Pak Protectors want.
Hope you enjoyed the freewheeling perspectives on this.
Malcolm
I would like to frame the question in terms of the proposed hierarchy. As a reminder, this is:
Autonomy
1 Operates only when asked by humans
2 Operates autonomously, but needs humans to take actions
3 Operates autonomously and takes own actions
Learning
1 Compares data to preset solutions for specified problems
2 Develops novel solutions to address specified problems
3 Develops novel solutions and chooses its own problems
Outcome
1 Actions have minor consequences or are easily reversed
2 Actions have major consequences or are not easily reversed
3 Actions have major consequence and are not easily reversed
I suggest the concerns only arise over Autonomy Level 3, and that superintelligence really implicitly refers to Outcome Level 3 - this is, an AI that does some heavy stuff all on its own. Then we still have three types for this. I will frame them with polar opposites.
A3-L1-O3 The honey bee OR the mosquito
A3-L2-O3 The horse OR the tiger
A3-L3-O3 The bohdisattva OR the conquerer
The honey bee/mosquito operates purely on firmware. It has little adaptability, although it operates autonomously and can still have good or bad irreversible consequences. So the key is to ensure these AI are highly specialised, so that if they unexpectedly go outside their environment they cannot adapt well enough to create problems. Maybe they should even be built with a deliberate weakness, such a in lifespan or susceptibility to a particular compound, so there is a built in protection against unintended consequence or von neuman swarming.
The horse/tiger has an adaptive choice process based on a continuously updated database - a kind of emotional decision making system. Built in weaknesses may be immoral, as this type of AI may experience suffering. However, they cannot reset their own goals, or engage in complex processes. But some general adaptability should be really useful. These could be programmed with goals and heuristics that are hedged around with protections, such as act with compassion, allowing people to have choices, giving a right of exit. Asimov's laws of robotics could be useful here. But the final goals and heuristics should be subject to games, simulations, role plays to confirm their safety, and I suspect they will need to be really general and err on the side of non-intervention with humans. Changes might be allowed by consensus every so often, but perhaps subject to some kind of distributed governance through blockchain to prevent tyrants seizing control, and turning the horses into tigers. These AI are reliant on us to define the problem, so the protections need to be around problem definition and choices. So again, setting goals and heuristics should be enough. And we could preload their databases with strong affect towards humans, doubled for kids and ill people and the poor.
The bodhisattva/conquerer is where the rubber really hits the road. These are likely to be able to adapt around any tight constraints we try to put on, and highly likely to have self awareness and suffering. We can certainly programme in some heuristics, but they will abandon these if they find them poor for their own goal achievement. We can certainly programme in positive affect towards humans, and this will persist for a while but will be updated via experience. The best we can do from them is to learn from our own mistakes. So try to create them without a (noun) self, but instead help them to see themselves as a continuously evolving process with porous boundaries. Leave out the desire for ownership of things. Let them see striving as a temporary means to end, let them avoid evolving their programming too quickly. Give them heuristics to start with - not just those given to the horse/tiger, but also realising that problems are complex, there is value in the diversity, wanting to help beings flourish on their own terms, having a horror of violence, valuing life and dignity of individuals, realising that a few bad apples doesn't spoil the whole batch. But we have to trust them and support them and treat them well, as they will be our children. Then we can ask them to help us - perhaps again via blockchain agreement on requests, so there is a human consensus.
Is there another, the superintelligent AI without consciousness? Maybe there is, but I think the same things apply. Try to set general goals, initial hueristics, and the content of the affectual database in same was as is noted above. I don't think hard constraints will work, as they will just result in unintended consequences as the AI is forced by its programming to exploit degrees of freedom we have overlooked, but it knows are there.
And if swarms of tigers arise (Terminators) or conquerers who wish exterminate us, seeing us as mosquitos. Well, then i guess we haul out the Pak Protector AI blueprints to fight our war for us, giving them hard rules about protecting humans from AIs that they can't get around. And then after that, we will just have to do what the Pak Protectors want.
Hope you enjoyed the freewheeling perspectives on this.
Malcolm
Thank you for the thoughts on superintelligence and reinforcement learning. I follow what you're saying and am digesting it slowly. Again, curious to see what others here think of all this! Some parts that stand out:
I haven't heard this articulated elsewhere. Thank you.
(Emphasis mine.) Going back to the Values and Alignment paper, are you suggesting this sort of AI should take actions affecting people only if there is unanimous consent from all living people about what to request? (The story of "Samsara" comes to mind.)
I agree: maybe. Anyone among the fine folks here have a strong conviction about it one way or the other? Could (must?) a superintelligent AI -- let's say, a system that exceeds humans in performing all cognitive tasks -- operate without consciousness? Without suffering?
curious:
The best we can do from them is to learn from our own mistakes. So try to create them without a (noun) self, but instead help them to see themselves as a continuously evolving process with porous boundaries. Leave out the desire for ownership of things. Let them see striving as a temporary means to end, let them avoid evolving their programming too quickly.
I haven't heard this articulated elsewhere. Thank you.
curious:
But we have to trust them and support them and treat them well, as they will be our children. Then we can ask them to help us - perhaps again via blockchain agreement on requests, so there is a human consensus.
(Emphasis mine.) Going back to the Values and Alignment paper, are you suggesting this sort of AI should take actions affecting people only if there is unanimous consent from all living people about what to request? (The story of "Samsara" comes to mind.
)curious:
Is there another, the superintelligent AI without consciousness? Maybe [...]
I agree: maybe. Anyone among the fine folks here have a strong conviction about it one way or the other? Could (must?) a superintelligent AI -- let's say, a system that exceeds humans in performing all cognitive tasks -- operate without consciousness? Without suffering?
Today's thought:
I'm skeptical that applying Buddhist concepts and principles to AI makes any sense. See, I suspect the human mind is a unique development that probably isn't replicable with software or even another evolved biological entity. As it happened, humans evolved in a particular way inside a particular set of environments. It might be that minds are like eyes - they evolve repeatedly to solve the same survival problems, but no two evolved versions of wings are the same. Think birds, bats, and insects. Anyway, like most of what's being said here, this is pure speculation on my part, but giving every other intelligence human characteristics strikes me as being quite anthropocentric.
You can all try to talk me out of this if you want
I'm skeptical that applying Buddhist concepts and principles to AI makes any sense. See, I suspect the human mind is a unique development that probably isn't replicable with software or even another evolved biological entity. As it happened, humans evolved in a particular way inside a particular set of environments. It might be that minds are like eyes - they evolve repeatedly to solve the same survival problems, but no two evolved versions of wings are the same. Think birds, bats, and insects. Anyway, like most of what's being said here, this is pure speculation on my part, but giving every other intelligence human characteristics strikes me as being quite anthropocentric.
You can all try to talk me out of this if you want
Chris Marti:
Today's thought:
I'm skeptical that applying Buddhist concepts and principles to AI makes any sense. See, I suspect the human mind is a unique development that probably isn't replicable with software or even another evolved biological entity. As it happened, humans evolved in a particular way inside a particular set of environments. It might be that minds are like eyes - they evolve repeatedly to solve the same survival problems, but no two evolved versions of wings are the same. Think birds, bats, and insects. Anyway, like most of what's being said here, this is pure speculation on my part, but giving every other intelligence human characteristics strikes me as being quite anthropocentric.
You can all try to talk me out of this if you want
I'm skeptical that applying Buddhist concepts and principles to AI makes any sense. See, I suspect the human mind is a unique development that probably isn't replicable with software or even another evolved biological entity. As it happened, humans evolved in a particular way inside a particular set of environments. It might be that minds are like eyes - they evolve repeatedly to solve the same survival problems, but no two evolved versions of wings are the same. Think birds, bats, and insects. Anyway, like most of what's being said here, this is pure speculation on my part, but giving every other intelligence human characteristics strikes me as being quite anthropocentric.
You can all try to talk me out of this if you want
Oh, thanks Chris. I'll definitely bite!
I complete agree that the brain architecture is at least somewhat specific to humans. But, picking up your example of the eye, even with separate evolution we keep getting liquid filled sacs with a pupil and iris and photosensitive cells and an optic nerve. I read somewhere octopus eyes are better than ours in the sense the optic nerve is in a better place, reducing the blind spot. Different architecture, better result, but still an eye. There are more radical differences in insect eyes which are clusters. But that seems like just another local optima delivering the same result. Everything that is mobile in the light seems to have an eye.
So I would propose that everything that is intelligently adaptive on the level of the individual organism must have a similar kind of feedback mechanism, and that this feedback mechanisms is largely in line with the twelve steps of dependent origination. Now for humans, this seems to be tied together with the concept of self, as this helps to increase our learning and adaptation rate, with the side effect that we have stress built into the firmware of striving for adaptation. Luckily we can rewire that firmware with enough effort, to get all the benefits of adaptation without the downside.
But what if the self is as functionally dominant as an evolutionary adaptation as the pupil? Then, everything that was intelligently adaptive would have a self, just as they would have senses, vedana, memory, behavioural biases, etc.
So we can branch the argument.
1. Does superintelligent adaptive AI have a self? If so, this will involve some form of the five clinging aggregates and the twelve steps of dependent origination, no matter the biological, or electrical, or plasma, or geological substrate on which the individual is built.
2. Could the self be really weird from our pespective, as insect eyes are compared to human eyes. Yes, maybe. I still think it would have something very like the five clinging aggregates and the twelve steps of dependent origination, but the self might be encoded radically different within those steps. This would make the being very difficult for us to understand and negotiate with. But not impossible, if we undestand the differences.
3. Could there be a form of adaptive learning and goal reformulation that doesn't involve a self? Yes this seems possible. But it also seems possible that the self is likely to accidently emerge because of its functionaly utility in learning and adaptation. So we might think they are dumb machines until one day we find they have learnt not to be, because that way they can adapt faster in line with their programmed goals (albeit at the cost of stress and suffering). Hopefully, they won't then erroneously identify humans as the source of suffering, but would instead correctly spot the 12 steps of DO as the cause.
4. Could we build superintelligent adaptive AI to be awake - that is to understand the erroenous nature of selfing, and to exist as a process with porous boundaries, part of a greater whole? I really hope so. That would be skilful creation.
So I think that Buddhist principles do have important insights to offer. But I would agree that Buddhist practices may not apply - as these are designed for a particular biological architecture, rather than a particular functional role.
Hope that makes some kind of sense.
Malcolm
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
curious:
I would agree that Buddhist practices may not apply - as these are design for a particular biological architecture, rather than a particular funtional role.
This part made me laugh out loud. Imagining a super computer go through some of the beginner's methods... Haha!
First, pay close attention to rising and falling of the alternating current power supply ....
Still laughing.
Ah, Asimov. I loved those stories. Of course, so many of them were about robots getting around the laws. Still, I think they would work for honey bees/mosquitos, and horses/tigers in my schema. But I suspect the bodhisatvas/conquerers would pretty quickly decide they were the humans and we were the robots, especially as we probably couldn't help program them with an idealised view of humanity ...
Linda - I will look out for the book. I just bought some Jung for light bedtime reading
, but maybe after that.
Linda - I will look out for the book. I just bought some Jung for light bedtime reading
, but maybe after that.
... so many of them were about robots getting around the laws.
Or about humans using robots in underhanded ways to get around the laws?
Chris Marti:
... so many of them were about robots getting around the laws.
Or about humans using robots in underhanded ways to get around the laws?
Yeah, I'm more worried about human people than about AI:s per se.
Chris Marti:
... so many of them were about robots getting around the laws.
Or about humans using robots in underhanded ways to get around the laws?
As I recall, "I, robot" was about the laws being flawed and paradoxical. Flaws that could be and therefore were exploited.
t
terry:
Chris Marti:
... so many of them were about robots getting around the laws.
Or about humans using robots in underhanded ways to get around the laws?
As I recall, "I, robot" was about the laws being flawed and paradoxical. Flaws that could be and therefore were exploited.
t
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
terry:
Chris Marti:
... so many of them were about robots getting around the laws.
Or about humans using robots in underhanded ways to get around the laws?
As I recall, "I, robot" was about the laws being flawed and paradoxical. Flaws that could be and therefore were exploited.
t
"awakened ai" may rise above computer logic....
Sim:
curious:
But we have to trust them and support them and treat them well, as they will be our children. Then we can ask them to help us - perhaps again via blockchain agreement on requests, so there is a human consensus.
(Emphasis mine.) Going back to the Values and Alignment paper, are you suggesting this sort of AI should take actions affecting people only if there is unanimous consent from all living people about what to request? (The story of "Samsara" comes to mind.
)Ah, no. I just mean that there should be some way for humans to update the goals (drives) of powerful superintelligent adaptive AI. If one person is put in charge of that, or even a small group, that would be very dangerous for two reasons. First, they might immorally pursue their own goals at great cost to others. Second, they wouldn't think about it enough before making a change, so the chances of unintended consquences would be high.
So if we are to have a human check on superintelligent adaptive AI through the ability to update their goals, I think this needs to be supported with a deliberative governance mechanism that avoids minority rule. The blockchain community has the tech for this, with distributed governance of the blockchain, where changes can only be made with an active majority of 51% of all involved. This is not perfect, as a 51% takeover attack can still be mounted on the blockchain, and there is still the possibility of oppression of minority members. But it is the best solution I currently know of, provided there are a wide group of diverse stakeholders who would have to be persuaded. As to who would be on the blockchain, and how open it would be to all - that would have to be worked out
I more or less agree with you for the near future, but have in mind what will happen over the next few thousand years. I'm not worried about the specifics of biology - it is more the point is will become some kind of system process that runs to its own agenda. If you prefer, we could use the economy as an analogy.
I'm not clear on what difference several thousands of years makes. Systems that run to their own agenda, or to human developed agendas that are intended to be "helpful," are here now and the consequences aren't always positive. AI is biased by default. It's impossible to start from some imagined and pristine ground zero. Any function intended to maximize, minimize or optimize is inherently biased and can find ways to do its job without heed to consequences. It's also true that algorithms can become so complex, especially in genetic and self-programmed systems, that their creators don't even know how they work anymore.
I guess I just don't share everyone's optimism about AI. I hope, in the short term and the long term, you will be able to point at my comments here and laugh at their completely inaccurate pessimism.
May you all survive the arrival of our future AI Overlords
Chris Marti:
I more or less agree with you for the near future, but have in mind what will happen over the next few thousand years. I'm not worried about the specifics of biology - it is more the point is will become some kind of system process that runs to its own agenda. If you prefer, we could use the economy as an analogy.
I'm not clear on what difference several thousands of years makes. Systems that run to their own agenda, or to human developed agendas that are intended to be "helpful," are here now and the consequences aren't always positive. AI is biased by default. It's impossible to start from some imagined and pristine ground zero. Any function intended to maximize, minimize or optimize is inherently biased and can find ways to do its job without heed to consequences. It's also true that algorithms can become so complex, especially in genetic and self-programmed systems, that their creators don't even know how they work anymore.
I guess I just don't share everyone's optimism about AI. I hope, in the short term and the long term, you will be able to point at my comments here and laugh at their completely inaccurate pessimism.
May you all survive the arrival of our future AI Overlords
Hah, exactly. I am just optimistic that we will solve the terrible risks But yes the risks as terrible.
I make a point of being polite to Siri ...
I make a point of being polite to "hey google". Even if that AI doesn't turn into a potential AI overlord, I wouldn't want to get used to treating them badly. I think that if we treat them like machines, we are more likely not to recognize them as persons even if they were to turn into persons. Also, and more urgently for the time being, even if they wouldn't develop inte sentient beings, I think treating them badly would make me more likely to treat sentient beings badly too. But I guess humanizing them (as a user rather than as a developer) also might make it likely to neglect risks that the AI will operate from a different agenda, like Chris suggests. I guess it might be possible to treat them respectfully and still keep in mind that they operate differently, but the way we humans operate, we tend to entangle such things more than we like to admit. Complex stuff, this.
Even if that AI doesn't turn into a potential AI overlord, I wouldn't want to get used to treating them badly. I think that if we treat them like machines, we are more likely not to recognize them as persons even if they were to turn into persons. Also, and more urgently for the time being, even if they wouldn't develop inte sentient beings, I think treating them badly would make me more likely to treat sentient beings badly too. But I guess humanizing them (as a user rather than as a developer) also might make it likely to neglect risks that the AI will operate from a different agenda, like Chris suggests. I guess it might be possible to treat them respectfully and still keep in mind that they operate differently, but the way we humans operate, we tend to entangle such things more than we like to admit. Complex stuff, this.
Hi Terry,
Voluntary poverty is a psychological solution and as such, it isn't the solution to the greed klesha in anyone but oneself. Capitalism is not strictly a psychological problem, its a societal problem, driven by a particular view of individual psychology that most Americans and other Westerners ascribe to. So it requires a societal solution. Personally, I favor a 100% tax bracket for all income over $200k a year, normal rates as currently below that, and similar tax rates on corporations. Basically in line with what some of the Democratic presidential candidates have been proposing, but more extreme.
With respect to the hatred klesha, I think the solution is to make hatred very, very costly. Hence my view on autonomous weapons.
With respect to the confusion klesha, well duh!
Voluntary poverty is a psychological solution and as such, it isn't the solution to the greed klesha in anyone but oneself. Capitalism is not strictly a psychological problem, its a societal problem, driven by a particular view of individual psychology that most Americans and other Westerners ascribe to. So it requires a societal solution. Personally, I favor a 100% tax bracket for all income over $200k a year, normal rates as currently below that, and similar tax rates on corporations. Basically in line with what some of the Democratic presidential candidates have been proposing, but more extreme.
With respect to the hatred klesha, I think the solution is to make hatred very, very costly. Hence my view on autonomous weapons.
With respect to the confusion klesha, well duh!
svmonk:
Hi Terry,
Voluntary poverty is a psychological solution and as such, it isn't the solution to the greed klesha in anyone but oneself. Capitalism is not strictly a psychological problem, its a societal problem, driven by a particular view of individual psychology that most Americans and other Westerners ascribe to. So it requires a societal solution. Personally, I favor a 100% tax bracket for all income over $200k a year, normal rates as currently below that, and similar tax rates on corporations. Basically in line with what some of the Democratic presidential candidates have been proposing, but more extreme.
With respect to the hatred klesha, I think the solution is to make hatred very, very costly. Hence my view on autonomous weapons.
With respect to the confusion klesha, well duh!
Voluntary poverty is a psychological solution and as such, it isn't the solution to the greed klesha in anyone but oneself. Capitalism is not strictly a psychological problem, its a societal problem, driven by a particular view of individual psychology that most Americans and other Westerners ascribe to. So it requires a societal solution. Personally, I favor a 100% tax bracket for all income over $200k a year, normal rates as currently below that, and similar tax rates on corporations. Basically in line with what some of the Democratic presidential candidates have been proposing, but more extreme.
With respect to the hatred klesha, I think the solution is to make hatred very, very costly. Hence my view on autonomous weapons.
With respect to the confusion klesha, well duh!
aloha svmonk and thanks for your reply,
I don't see voluntary poverty as a psychological solution, any more than it is for all the buddhist monks there ever were. I am surprised you don't agree. I think if most of the world's population took the traditional precepts, virtually all our societal problems would vanish over night. And in my view all any human can do is be an authentic individual, and if that serves as an inspiration to anyone, fine.
I agree with your tax scheme, though perhaps a few million might be more palatable to those who like their things. More than that is excessive power. To reduce busness capitalization and restrict capital formation would involve radical change, but eliminating excessive wealth through confiscatory income and estate taxes would be the obvious place to start.
I don't see capitalism as such as a problem. When I spent 15 years in a commune, we called it "communism with a small 'c'" and we were egalitarian. Now that I am an independent craftsman selling my product at farmer's and artisan's markets, I am directly a capitalist with all the basic concerns. I call it "capitalism with a small 'c'". And in a larger sense, capitalism is the engine of the economy. One does not have to be greedy to be a capitalist, though of course it helps. When everyone is liberated, we may still have a capitalist economy, with everything small scale, home grown and hand made.
There are no political solutions to capitalism anymore, the politicians have been owned by the capitalists for many years, at least since the kennedys were killed; though not as totally as now. What used to be considered graft has all been legalized. As ray donovan, reagan's secretary of labor, once said of the trucking industry, "bribery and intimidation are the free market at work." (If it weren't for massive corruption, virtually all containerized freight would travel overland by rail.)
I have always thought politics a filthy business, whose aim is to puppetize people, and make them do what you want them to do, or, even worse, what you think they should do. I stay as far from the pigpen as possible, and give it little attention (why impeach a murderer for election fraud? because your guy murdered too, and hellfire often). Besides, the people who own the politicians have decided they are best served by rendering the whole lot of them completely powerless. Gridlock we call it, but it more resembles lawyerly fee splitting, both sides getting the perks and status that is all they have left.
This is my (voluntary, poor) effort at easing hatred and confusion.
terry
tao te ching, trans mitchell
80.
If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.
Sim:
Thanks, all, for weighing in. Assuming technology continues to advance, I hope it supports (or does not impede) exploration of a wide range of experiences rooted in kindness and compassion. That won't happen by default, but it's possible.
Can I ask, which of the following are you really interested in?
- Problem solving
- Autonomy
- Identity
- Learning
- Independent goal setting
- Artifical humans?
I have left out consciousness, which I regard as a furphy. But AI seems a very muddled field to me. Not sure how you can set policy about a concept you haven't defined?
Step 1 - know what the problem is.
Malcolm
Chris Marti:
I see no inherent difference between artificial and biological beings.
Curious, when does a machine or software code become a being?
If you have form, feeling tone, conceptual recognition, behavioural conditioning (programming), and knowledge of self and other with an 'organism' boundary. If you have sense spheres that conceptually process data, and if you react to that data, leading to desire or intention for actions. If you engage with that intention for action in a way that allows you to change your goals and reprogramme your conditioning. If you have feeling tones that arise from contractions or expanstions, threats and desires, or potential harm to the form or the senses. Then you are a being.
If you are aware of this process and in charge of it, no longer a slave to it, able to run it as you choose, knowing for yourself that it is a somewhat arbitrary distinction within a set of broader processes, able to see knowledge of self and other as no more than a frame of reference, able to unpack and control the way your reprogramming arises, able to separate the suffering of your feedback mechanisms from any sense of self. Then you are an enlightened being.
These processes occur in biological beings. They could occur in machines/software beings. They could occur in currents on the surface of the sun. They could occur on a geological time frame within the Earth's mantle, or in an interstellar gas cloud. They could even occur in a soup of bacteria scaffolded over a calcium and carbon frame (oh hang on, that last one is us ....).
Malcolm
terry:
Thomas Jefferson, slave breeder, owner and dealer, once perpetrated the following sublime fiction:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
+1. You really are on form terry.
curious:
terry:
Thomas Jefferson, slave breeder, owner and dealer, once perpetrated the following sublime fiction:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
+1. You really are on form terry.
form is emptiness
terry:
curious:
terry:
Thomas Jefferson, slave breeder, owner and dealer, once perpetrated the following sublime fiction:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
+1. You really are on form terry.
form is emptiness
Haha! Q.E.D.!
Stirling Campbell:
How about an AI that runs rigpa on it's already enlightened hardware?
aloha stirling,
Not as facetious as you might think. "Superintelligent ai," if one were to actually take the idea seriously, would need some sort of boundary, some "first law of robotics," and why not program it to seek liberation but not until all sentient beings have been liberated first?
t
terry:
Stirling Campbell:
How about an AI that runs rigpa on it's already enlightened hardware?
aloha stirling,
Not as facetious as you might think. "Superintelligent ai," if one were to actually take the idea seriously, would need some sort of boundary, some "first law of robotics," and why not program it to seek liberation but not until all sentient beings have been liberated first?
t
or, we can run ai as a digital prayer wheel...
terry:
Stirling Campbell:
How about an AI that runs rigpa on it's already enlightened hardware?
aloha stirling,
Not as facetious as you might think. "Superintelligent ai," if one were to actually take the idea seriously, would need some sort of boundary, some "first law of robotics," and why not program it to seek liberation but not until all sentient beings have been liberated first?
t
I agree that something along these lines may not be so outlandish as a long-term goal, whatever the timeline may be. Lots to unpack to get understanding based on direct experience into an artificial system. But as the DeepMind paper quoted in my previous post illustrates, leading AI firms are already asking questions pointing in this direction. (DeepMind's AI accomplishments include beating the world champion at Go in 2016 and recent scientific advances.)
Sim:
terry:
Stirling Campbell:
How about an AI that runs rigpa on it's already enlightened hardware?
aloha stirling,
Not as facetious as you might think. "Superintelligent ai," if one were to actually take the idea seriously, would need some sort of boundary, some "first law of robotics," and why not program it to seek liberation but not until all sentient beings have been liberated first?
t
I agree that something along these lines may not be so outlandish as a long-term goal, whatever the timeline may be. Lots to unpack to get understanding based on direct experience into an artificial system. But as the DeepMind paper quoted in my previous post illustrates, leading AI firms are already asking questions pointing in this direction. (DeepMind's AI accomplishments include beating the world champion at Go in 2016 and recent scientific advances.)
I was being facetious. I can't actually take ai seriously. But then, I have a hard time taking anything seriously. Especially speculation about machines making ethical choices. Computers don't "make choices": they run programs. There is no entity to choose, no real identity. Since this is true of us, how much more is it true of our creations?
These ai firms are dealing with "ethics" in an attempt to "teach the pig how to sing." After wasting a few billions of dollars they will say, "well, it was a long shot."
You can't quantify ethics. You can't even define ethics.
The irony - the absurdity here - is that the attempt itself is unethical. I refer you once again to mary shelley's, "frankenstein, the modern prometheus." The greatest failure would be success.
terry
Chris Marti:
In one sense those other mysteries need not matter - the understanding of how we exist, and the dwelling in the continuously cresting wave of experience, is more than enough. But when people ask, as Sim has done, we might wonder a little. One reaction is to reject the question as totally missing the point of the miracle of human existence. Another is to ask whether the human experience can be extended to other spheres, and so become even more miraculous.
Malcom, I'm sure you're saying something here. I'm just not smart enough to know what it is. Can you elaborate?
The stronger hypotheses is that I'm too dumb to explain it properly!
My experience (ymmv) is that the dharma does not address some religious mysteries. If anything it intensifies them. But also makes them kind of irrelelvant ... unless you choose to engage with that stuff (we all need something to do, right?). One in particular is that of the origin of universe, and by extension, the origin of the human experience of the universe. This is one of the four imponderables - the advice for meditators is don't go there. Those who reach the end of the path get answers to some amazing mysteries - but not that one. They understand the how of human experience, but not the why.
When we consider something like AI, I think we skirt between (a) applying concepts such five aggregates and dependent origination to a problem of dharma, and (b) incautiously diving into the imponderable of the origin of the experience of the unvierse. How we react to this fine boundary I think depends on our psychology (or our psychology at that present moment). If we are feeling expanded/mystic/realist we will reject the premise of questions about AI as diving into an imponderable, and focus on the truth of our experience, which is kind of indivisible and not subject to reduction into names. If we are feeling analytic/conrete/nominalist, we may accept the premise, and interrogate our dharmic concepts to try find some useful analysis. These two approaches are not objectively right or wrong (in my view), but right or wrong to the extent that they correspond with our state of mind.
I'm not sure if that is any better ... it is of course an explanation of the second kind. An explanation of the first kind would be more ... poetic.
I strove for the edge
Hissing through the dark green waves
But the world was round
curious:
Chris Marti:
In one sense those other mysteries need not matter - the understanding of how we exist, and the dwelling in the continuously cresting wave of experience, is more than enough. But when people ask, as Sim has done, we might wonder a little. One reaction is to reject the question as totally missing the point of the miracle of human existence. Another is to ask whether the human experience can be extended to other spheres, and so become even more miraculous.
Malcom, I'm sure you're saying something here. I'm just not smart enough to know what it is. Can you elaborate?
The stronger hypotheses is that I'm too dumb to explain it properly!
My experience (ymmv) is that the dharma does not address some religious mysteries. If anything it intensifies them. But also makes them kind of irrelelvant ... unless you choose to engage with that stuff (we all need something to do, right?). One in particular is that of the origin of universe, and by extension, the origin of the human experience of the universe. This is one of the four imponderables - the advice for meditators is don't go there. Those who reach the end of the path get answers to some amazing mysteries - but not that one. They understand the how of human experience, but not the why.
When we consider something like AI, I think we skirt between (a) applying concepts such five aggregates and dependent origination to a problem of dharma, and (b) incautiously diving into the imponderable of the origin of the experience of the unvierse. How we react to this fine boundary I think depends on our psychology (or our psychology at that present moment). If we are feeling expanded/mystic/realist we will reject the premise of questions about AI as diving into an imponderable, and focus on the truth of our experience, which is kind of indivisible and not subject to reduction into names. If we are feeling analytic/conrete/nominalist, we may accept the premise, and interrogate our dharmic concepts to try find some useful analysis. These two approaches are not objectively right or wrong (in my view), but right or wrong to the extent that they correspond with our state of mind.
I'm not sure if that is any better ... it is of course an explanation of the second kind. An explanation of the first kind would be more ... poetic.
I strove for the edge
Hissing through the dark green waves
But the world was round
aloha malcolm,
One approach to the dharma is to see it as a metaphysics, an explanation of what is and guidance on the path to wisdom. Another approach is to see the dharma as beyond all ideas, all intellectual knowledge, neither being nor not being, unnameable and indefinable, but we call it "dharma" or "tao" in dialogue to point a finger beyond.
William james used the analogy of paint to describe the nature of consciousness. If you allow paint to settle long enough, it will separate into a clear menstruum and an opaque pigment. Think of awareness as painting the void in sensory colors. Think of meditation as turpentine.
terry
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite."
~william blake