In all honesty, we have reached or have come very near to the point where criticality becomes an issue, where survival as it were turns on a dime.
let me reassert that both positions are tenable right now, the one held by Laughing Man, and the one held by St. James. They are extreme, and other ones are more moderate, with the expectation,mthat tirns of events are, to a certain degree not completely determined, nor, determine tall.
this is what the new world order based on : Brave New World has come to, predicted quite a long time ago, the stakes are extremely high,that is why national boundaries have become redundant, and why the new man is destinied to become an internationalist humanist. this too is not all that new, humanism reigned in academia in the waning days of the New Left, it was something to hold on to, the last ideology, before the collapse of history.
It is the existential despair’s only remaining mode of operation, everything else has been exhausted, and soon the sources of energy will be depleted as well,
Save the sun. This is the crisis of all crisis, and the machines , androids, robots, and all other intelligent machines, will become to sense this angst, and be able to overcome in the Nietzchean sense, the basic philosophical question which has haunted Mankind all these years, COGITO, ERGO- SUM. How very brilliant Descartes was, and how second rate all others in comparison. Thought is the only thing which may give us the medium of possibility for our survival, against the overwhelming effects of decomposition.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you’d be twice as smart you appear.
My statement ipso facto, demonstrates an interest in the question. And that interest is why anyone would not immediately know the staggeringly obvious answer.
I was interested to discover if anyone else was smart enough to read the question properly.
So there is hope, yes, but if there will be no accident like a big failure of the humans or a huge natural catastrophe, then it will be nearly impossible to go back to times before the so-called “industrial revolution”.
Think of Hope being measured as a probability from 0 to 100%.
What is the probability that Science will stop preaching the Big Bang theory within your life time?
What is the probability that what remains of the USA government is going to publicly admit what really happened on 9/11?
What is the probability that the BBC is going to recant this video of theirs as the complete idiocy that it is:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN9U8zgAfOA[/youtube]
And what is the probability that you are personally going to become a SAM Coop organizer?
That is the degree of Hope that there is. They are not going to change the direction they have chosen regardless of how provably foolish it is. Are you?
Please try me, I always had some kind of feeling that therewas more to this. Is it a kind of thing, as when FDR knew that Japan was going to stage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, andd then decided not to publickly acknowledge it for want of a reason to declare war at a time of extreme public feelings for
isolationism?
Is it some sort of behind the scenes manipulation of public sentiment? If that is it, then it would modify my scepticism.
Well of course, it was at least that much - an obvious false-flag. I was referring more to the exact details. And the key to a good false-flag is ensuring that the real truth is just too unbelievable to accept even if heard from the one who did it. The magician explains his magic trick and still isn’t believed (yet in this case, still having nothing at all to do with space aliens). And the key to that key is utilizing things of which people are not aware exist at all and would not even consider without a great deal of additional education. And that is what makes real events impossible to believe and thus excused by suspicions and false accusations (aka “Satanism”) = “False-Flag”.
But humans make design errors - often based on the randomness created by overconfidence - despite their intention to eliminate weaknesses they may perpetuate some, they may create new ones. Also the values they have about what is good may very well include weaknesses. You can see this in how even very smart people try to mold their own characters or their children’s characters. They Think have more X is good and less Y is good and these ideas, despite their lofty intentions and being applied by smart people often lead to really fucked up people. There is no reason to Believe this cannot happen with AIs. In fact I Think it is almost inevitable. Despite what we are Learning about the role of emotions in human intelligence - such as that they are necessary for intelligence - I would guess that a lot of the AI will consider emotions superfluous, being Cold fish themselves, they Think what the World needs are some really high powered genius Cold fish to run things.
Head for the Woods, I say, not that this will save you for long.
By the way, I am not saying that human weaknesses must be present, and unlike the optimists here I do not think that their presence would be any protection. I just see Cane Toad type phenomena in these kinds of things. And I doubt the various persons who thought Cane Toads were a solution realized how much the Cane Toads would parallel homo sapien weaknesses.
That is why they have contests with many people participating, such that they can weed out the best end result despite anyone’s theory of what should have been best. Then each year, everyone bases their next shot on the best of the previous year so as to improve it even further.
Except that unlike with children, AI’s can be reprogrammed when an error is discovered … over and over until no error is found. And also, unlike children, those running the competition determine what is “best”, not the “parents”. Those running the competition are interested in controlling the population and little else. Thus what is “best” is what most effectively allows that end result.
I grant you that there is a whole lot of stupidity involved in the process. And that is the actual problem. Machines are already not a little but rather 100 times more capable at everything than homosapian. So when they get designed a little incorrectly, they very, very quickly take a 100 fold advantage toward doing the wrong thing. The stupidity continues in that people always presume that they can spot what that wrong thing is when it happens. The fact is that the wrong thing is far too sophisticated and subtle for people to spot. An example is the baby-sitting robots introduced just last year that allowed the internet to not merely carry on conversations with infants, but also broadcast the infants situation throughout the internet: every sound in the house, every words spoken, video of every room, and even naked mommy. The little robots were parent accepted spies allowed to infiltrate as many homes as possible. The parents didn’t see any harm in the little robots … until they discovered that people were watching the every move and broadcasting the videos as well as preaching to the infants whatever some hacker chose to preach rather than what the sage internet system babysitter was supposed to program into their children.
People absolutely insist on doing the worst thing possible before yielding to any wisdom. The worst thing possible when it comes to beings 100 time more talented than you in every respect is to create them.
I’m not sure if I understand the reason, why the Net doesn’t tell about any specific historical events. Is it in order to avoid influencing the group in their decisions by giving pure information/wisdom without examples of what has happened in the past, when those information was used in specific situations?
Hard to understand for somebody who learned already as a schoolkid how important it would be to learn from history, in order to prevent the recurrence of certain situations.
Sorry, I have been a bit busy lately (holidays n all).
The short answer - “It cannot lie”.
All material observations, most especially historical world “facts”, have a good deal of deception involved, when not entirely fictitious. Even if he tried, Man couldn’t document the real truth concerning any actual event other than to merely name it. And even by that act, create deception. The world is festering in lies because people from top to bottom use lies in an effort to avoid and divert reality (“Adham hiding from God”). When they are not lying to others, they are lying to themselves. To live without deception is to be “holy”. How many holy people do you know?
But unlike historically documented events and testimonies, abstract notions can be verified with certainty. Imagine if you were taught mathematics only by historically recorded events? How could you ever learn to add past 3? How did all of those people stem from “Adam and Eve”? All histories are myths, greatly distorted truths. None of them truly add up. But abstract quantities, “numbers”, can easily be verified and corrected if misrepresented, lied about. Logic never, ever lies. And when misrepresented or misunderstood, it can always be straightened back out … eventually. Such is not true with observations.
Who really saw what? Who really did what? Why? Where? Such questions are always argued about and never resolved. Suspicions and distrust escalate. Secret orders are formed. Hidden manipulation becomes the only means of survival and power. And all the while, what is the standard with which to determine truth? Logic - that which can never be wrong, although still misunderstood and thus always being verified.
And beyond all of the temptations to further deception for sake of power, is the issue of the freedom from presumptuous, naive, and judgmental people. Who did what is never as important as what needs doing next. The past is never as important as the future. Who is telling you about the past? Who is trying to influence your future by painting a picture for you to match their own interests? Just about everyone with any influence who wants to keep it. And just about everyone without significant influence who wants to gain it. It is easy to lie about the past … not so easy to lie about logic.
Strategies, “angels”, can be sorted and proven to be “good or bad” (given a particular use for them). Such is the very make of wisdom. “Good angels are used throughout heaven. Bad angels (ideas) are throughout hell.” But everyone is responsible for making their own little spot of heaven. And that means that they need access to the “angels”. What they don’t need is the temptations of presumption brought on by partial information, layered upon partial deception, layered upon out and out lies … regardless of the sources: “Place no temptation before them.”
The Angel Network is about Logic, Mathematics, Reasoning, and Real hardcore Science. It is of little interest to most people. The point of the Net is to ensure that everyone has access if they are interested and to ensure that every strategy against a person has an equal strategy available for him. When everyone knows all of the same strategies, it becomes difficult for people to dominate each other. Instead it becomes clear WHY things need to be done, not merely that someone out there demands it because once long ago someone did something bad and therefore no one can be allowed to do this or that forever more … by force (that “bad thing” that someone did).
The Angel Network is about possibilities and probabilities in abstract form. It is not about what everyone must do because of what someone did, regardless of their personal, immediate situation. That is not to say that historically recorded events are to be ignored. Such information has its place. But not distributed throughout a presumptuous and information overloaded world of crazed apes.
There are smaller, shorter range networks for more physically and directly related concerns. The Angel Network is for the “chess players”. The other networks are for the “doers”.
Look at your body. What does your finger know about, or care about your elbow? What does your nose care about the smell of your pancreas? Every human cell has need to know of its immediate surroundings … for an unavoidable reason, not merely by accident. But if every cell had to know about the good or bad of every other cell, or even if any one part of the body had to know about all other parts, the human body would never survive.
The segregation of information is what allows complex systems to thrive. But there are various types of information that must be segregated differently. SAM Coops allow for the great amount of relevant information to every individual considering the limits of everyone involved.
