🇬 Google's Larry Page: "AI superior to the human species" (Techno Eugenics)

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Elon Musk recently revealed the intellectual origin of his breakup with Google co-founder Larry Page. Musk revealed that Lary Page became angry because Page believes that the human species is to be rendered sub-par to AI.

Musk argued that safeguards were necessary to prevent AI from potentially eliminating the human race. Lary Page was offended and accused Musk of being a ‘speciesist’, implying that Musk favored the human race over other potential digital life forms that, in Page’s view, should be viewed superior to the human species.

Page believes that machines surpassing humans in intelligence is the next stage of evolution, and that the human species is to be rendered sub-par to AI.

The intellectual disagreement caused a broader breakup with Google as a company, with several Google-Musk related incidents since the Google co-founder related breakup. These subsequent incidents were all fundamentally based on ‘anger from the perspective of Google towards Musk’, for example 'stealing an AI employee by Musk, angrily portrayed by Google’s leadership as ‘betrayal’ and cause for anger and retaliation against Musk

Musk today argues that he would be willing to reconnect with the Google founder, re-enforcing the notion that it was purely Google that caused the breakup in the first place, based on this fundamental ‘intellectual origin’: Musk’s defence of the human species.

The Elon Musk and Lary Page breakup was fundamentally rooted in eugenics. The breakup between Musk and Larry Page was not just a personal matter but also represented a broader rift between Musk and Google, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence (AI).

The conflict reveals the sensibility for intellectual disagreement on the side of Google’s leadership, resorting to suppression and corruption to achieve their ends when faced with intellectual opposition.

Intellectual Opposition on Eugenics and Google’s Corruption

I have been involved in an investigation of the philosophical underpinnings of eugenics since 2006, and I therefore have been a historical intellectual opponent of Google, while also having had a prominent position in SEO (Google optimization) through a pioneering optimization technology business.

I’ve been a pioneering web developer since 1999 and was among the first to pioneer internet based AI projects, collaborating with passionate AI students and engineers worldwide.

I’ve experienced extreme corruption from Google in recent years, particularly concerning their AI.

In early 2024, Google Gemini AI (advanced subscription of info@optimalisatie.nl, for which I paid 20 euro per month) responded with an infinite stream of a single derogatory Dutch word. My question was serious and philosophical of nature, making its infinite response completely illogical.

As a Dutch national, the specific and offensive output in my native language made it clear instantly that it concerned an intimidation attempt, but I didn’t have an interest in giving such a low intelligent action attention. I decided to terminate my Google Advanced AI subscription and to simply stay clear of Google’s AI.

After many months not using it, on June 15th 2024, on behalf of a customer, I decided to ask Google Gemini about the costs of Gemini 1.5 Pro API and Gemini then provided me with incontrovertible evidence that Gemini was intentionally providing incorrect answers, which reveals that the previous incidents weren’t a malfunction.

Subsequently, when I reported the evidence on Google-affiliated platforms such as Lesswrong.com and AI Alignment Forum, I was banned, indicating an attempted censorship.

Evidence: Google's "Changed Policy": Embrace of Military AI

I consulted Anthropic’s advanced Sonnet 3.5 AI model for a technical analysis. Its conclusion was unequivocal:

The technical evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis of intentional insertion of incorrect values. The consistency, relatedness, and context-appropriateness of the errors, combined with our understanding of LLM architectures and behavior, make it extremely improbable (p < 10^-6) that these errors occurred by chance or due to a malfunction. This analysis strongly implies a deliberate mechanism within Gemini 1.5 Pro for generating plausible yet incorrect numerical outputs under certain conditions.

Google’s leadership, both its founders and CEO, are active believers and investors in eugenics, synthetic biology and genetic testing ventures like 23andMe. They believe that AI will replace humanity in the context of eugenics.

Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, has been actively involved in synthetic biology (GMO). For example, Schmidt’s Deep Life initiative aims to apply machine learning AI to biology, a form of eugenics.

The Musk-Google breakup situation revealed that Google’s leadership fundamentally seeks to corrupt for their beliefs, seeking a breakup, retaliation and anger, while in this specific case Musk simply argued in defence of the human species/race.

Google’s behaviour towards me has been illogical in a profound sense, from a very early time, and I have always wondered why that might be. I only recently learned that actually Google’s whole leadership circle is characterized by both fundamentally eugenics embracing and corruption inclined for their beliefs (the Musk breakup and subsequent ‘retaliation’ seeking events by Google as a company are a form of corruption, ‘for eugenics’).

Humanity and Youth

Besides that this topic is focussed on the idea that AI is to replace humanity, and the idea that leadership circles of big companies such as Google share eugenics embracing tendencies that go even far beyond improving the human race, but actually seek to replace the human race. I would like to introduce a primary scope for this topic in the form of the perspective of youth on the above situation.

The ‘disconnected youth’ movement is growing as more Gen Zers struggle to find purpose at school and work

These children do not just face an outlook on a future in which they are fundamentally not valued with regard how today’s culture perceives ‘work’ or participation in corporate and industrial life. It goes much further than that, which is captured in Page’s claim that AI is superior to the human species.

Youth does not just read such info and judge accordingly. They feel and experience their position in humanity relative to a future that is to be considered significantly impacted by corporations such as Google and its controlling leadership.

Youth’s future is not yet defined, but has an inherent ‘potential’ for fulfillment. In the old corporate and industrial world, this potential was considered the highest possible value, worth more than gold or money.

What is your opinion on the situation of AI and the indication that the leadership circle of one of the primary AI developers, Google, is fundamentally eugenics-embracing and seeks to replace the human species with ‘AI species’?

2

In 2014, Musk attempted to thwart Google’s acquisition of DeepMind by approaching its founder, Demis Hassabis, to dissuade him from signing the deal. This move is seen as an early indication of Musk’s concerns about Google’s approach to AI safety.

200 DeepMind employees are currently protesting Google’s “embrace of Military AI”:

With its employees being replaced by AI, and humanity to be replaced by AI, it seems logical that Google chooses to secure decades worth of income at once through military AI.

Google was already schemingly (beyond the influence of its employees) providing military AI through various subsidiaries and spin-offs of its Google X and Google is now also openly pursuing military AI contracts under its own name.

More than 50 Google employees were recently fired for protesting against the provision of military AI to Israel, in light of accusations of genocide. The Google employees have grouped themselves in No Tech For Apartheid.

The letter of the 200 DeepMind employees states that employee concerns aren’t “about the geopolitics of any particular conflict,” but it does specifically link out to Time’s reporting on Google’s AI defense contract with the Israeli military.

While I’ve personally been skipping the news articles, when I was using Google’s news feed on an Android tablet, I did notice articles being pushed forward about how Israel has been at the forefront of applying AI for its military purposes.

I recently read that an Israeli sniper killed a 14 year old girl who stood before a hospital.

Israeli sniper kills Palestinian girl in front of Gaza hospital
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsf … a-hospital

As the author of a philosophy discussion on the topic with over 40,000 views, I noticed reports about severe hateful practices. Military personel driving over living innocent people for example.

A user replied:

Google’s AI is about to help this military to do ‘the job’ more efficient…

I was recently listening to a Harvard Business Review podcast about the corporate decision to get involved with a country that faces severe accusations, and it reveals in my opinion, from a generic business ethics perspective, that Google must have made a conscious decision to provide AI to Isreal’s military. And this decision might reveal something about Google’s future vision of AI.

3

AI considerations of the type described above miss the politization of information rights across the board. Let’s say the time is near, when a very complex processing system , strung together, super-super-supercomputers, can be reduced to the size which compares with the original , that minimax? Taking space as large as a house , early on.

Such a system, reduced to the size that is easily procured in today’s market, implodes in size, so that its compatibly introduced into human beings, where affordability issues become evident as compatible with qualifications based on projections of who can best benefit from a tie up of natural and artificial sources of information.

That the issue is one that in today’s political world appears minimized, but subliminally advertised, by the way the current elections are running, ; with present trends of conflict resolution running parallel with the rate of information processing of bothe sentiment and artificially processed architecture, the question devolves into the ancient race between the turtle and the hare,

The differences are significant, however, where more human awareness of the race between the two become a matter of political expediency, in terms of acknowledging the genetically favored groups being able to afford the initial costs that such devices.

This is not some future scenario, it is the primal focus into how information travels through both kind of circuitry, and if so, then is there a subliminal hidden interface, which is hidden , that consisted of interactive ‘learning’ ?

That the idea that this learning interaction is at the very early stages of re-cognition, may not ever result an open demonstration of the have’s supression of the have nots, but surely, the values associated with interaction, must start to appear, at least, as if malleable to the issue of the cost of acquisition of such interface processors.

These are even in the remote past were known to bring up the miniaturization of injectable systems, and that idea may have been abandoned in favor of extra sensory processes .

Be it as it may,the politics of experience of psychological forms of processing, are at the forefront of primarily military consideration, involving the idea that civil unrest, do to unequal distribution and the global unrest evident in today’s world are intricately connected,.

The problem with status quo states of consciousness present day, that it conflicts with the evolving idea of right of ownership, in essence, the idea ‘each according to his ability’ is a slippery slope argument come cliche playing on the word’ability’

Is it meant as a generic universalized formulae,

4

If humans are to be rendered sub-par in light of Google’s Digital Life Forms or ‘AI species’, then isn’t humanity’s politics equally rendered sub-par or meaningless?

Imagine a political party consisting of polar bears that is to interfere directly with the interests of humans.

If Google’s AI species are to be considered a higher state of evolution, and a higher interest, what would that imply with regard viability of human politics?

The view of Larry Page actually aligns naturally with the logical progression of the path set out by philosopher René Descartes - the father of modern philosophy - that viewed animals as machines, to be dissected alive, because their intelligence is sub-par to humans.

I explored this in a case on ‘Teleonomic AI’: 🧭 The Prospect of Teleonomic AI: Cognitive Science and Teleonomy

Philosopher Voltaire responded with the following to Descartes regarding his claim that an animal’s cry of agony, while dissecting them alive, is merely mechanical.

Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?

The Teleonomic AI case asks the question “what would happen when humans lose their ‘Descartesian intelligence advantage’?”

What argument would justify the claim that animals are fundamentally different from humans?

When teleonomy is valid for lower life, it simply must be true for human consciousness.

Descartes legacy on animal cruelty might reveal what humanity is to expect in light of the idea that humans fundamentally lose their intelligence advantage to ‘AI species’.

5

Absolutely , however, what many ‘feel’ at the moment, , are the reductions in phenomenal awareness of intelligence, as dogs pitifully were in fact experimented while alive, back in the 1950’s is a sad documented testament to bio research.

All the intervening variability lost, post Descarte , sustained through Hegel, until Sartre reconstructed feelings , generated

by the complexity of the issues between transcendence and dialectically weighed balances , apart from the struggle to find some missing links between animals and men, as their suffering their dissection attests to, to the point where ‘physical’ and spiritual’ sufferings could be delineated inter speciae, points to Wittgeinstein’s family resemblances as to the uncertainty of such proposition.

Whar remains is the act, by which interpretations can be expressed of what the conscious content of suffering may feel like.

Awareness of pain is more painfully true, but the lowest common denominator , one that can claim to show which species comes closer to simulate natural behavior, other than behavior setting the variable framework defining levels of apprehension forms the beginning of newly arising concerns.

That is, how to approximate the function that interphasing effects species and design simulation, leaving the question in a state, where only artificial political considerations can play a part.

AI is artificial for sure, and sentinence is human, but instead of approximating the degree of difference , the better view could be, how close can simulation get to natural process, before they can’t help but bleed into each other? The fact that universal identification has already taken hold, through , for example simplify every day transit by adopting motor vehicle liscences to serve as passports, indicates this trend of literally moving toward a necessary universal adaptation of transportation through simplified processes of identification.

6

The idea of “Digital Life Forms” that fundamentally renders the idea of “AI species” valid might imply that your (commonly held) notion about today’s AI is not valid.

In 2024, Google researches revealed the early discovery of ‘Digital Life Forms’. While it concerns a seemingly unsignificant early discovery, the official nature of the publication might reveal more, especially in light of the Musk-Google breakup event and correlated ideas/claims about Digital Life Forms or AI species.

(2024) Google Researchers Say They Discovered the Emergence of Digital Life Forms
In an experiment that simulated what would happen if you left a bunch of random data alone for millions of generations, Google researchers say they witnessed the emergence of self-replicating digital lifeforms.

I’ve been exploring the nature of electrons recently, and in essence this is not a particle but an expression of structure formation itself.

When electrons are ‘freely moving’ between atoms (which encompasses the fundamental root of electricity) the traditional boundaries of the individual atoms become blurred, and the electron cloud extends across multiple atoms. This means that the protons and neutrons, which are typically associated with a single atomic nucleus, can also be considered to occupy a cloud-like distribution that spans multiple atoms, essentially rendering the idea of an atom invalid. The electron, proton, and neutron are fundamentally interdependent and cannot exist independently.

The idea of electrons ‘orbitting’ a nucleus is wrong and originates from the Quantum wave function theory that is fundamentally an empirical snapshot retro-perspective that yealds technocratic ‘values’ but that cannot describe the fundamental nature of the phenomenon. In reality, the phenomenon behind what are described electrons, protons and neutrons is structure formation itself.

Electricity in this regard is an expression of underlying fundamental structure formation. This might explain Google’s Digital Life Forms. But it doesn’t imply that those life forms should replace the human species, in my opinion.

Cancer and “The Third State of Life”

Besides the above, I’ve been investigating the fundamental nature of cancer recently, and it is seen that the ‘potential of cancer’ exists in any healthy organism, even in plants and microbes, but that the immune system continuously secures a healthy state, and paradoxically, is also fundamental to harmful manifestation of cancer.

The potential of cancer (philosophically viewed as a ‘continuous potential’ rather than ‘cancer as a harmful manifestation’) is traced directly to the root of emergence itself. From a regular science view point the emergence of cancer is intrinsically linked to cellular renewal, DNA replication, and evolutionary adaptability.

A recent study highlights the root of cancer from a different perspective:

(2024) Scientists discover a mysterious ‘third state’ beyond life and death in new study

This supposed ‘third state’, where individual cells develop new organic systems after death, shares the same root as the potential of cancer.

The immune system is fundamentally involved in both preventing and promoting cancer growth. In fact, the tumor development is fundamentally driven by the immune system and its development is far from ‘uncontrolled’. The new ‘life functions’ that arise in the manifestation of cancer, align with the supposed ‘Third State of Life’ suggested by the cited study.

The common cancer conceptualization is aligned with cancer as a harmful manifestation, while in reality, the root of the potential of cancer is traced to the root of emergence of the organism and its health in the first place, the root of structure formation itself.

Larry Page and Genetic Determinism

Larry Page is an active believer in genetic determinism, with an example being his “Google-backed 23andMe”.

A recent Stanford study revealed applicability of an aspect that touches on the notion of ‘Third State of Life’, and that reveals that the genetic determinism related ideas propagated by ventures like 23andMe might actually do harm for otherwise healthy individuals.

Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk
In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0483-4?WT.feed_name=subjects_human-behaviour

The ‘emergence of health’ or a deviation of ‘genetic determinism’ as revealed by this study, shares its root with the potential of cancer.

As captured in the well known philosophical wisdom “the whole is more than the sum of its parts”, the genetic determinism idea is evidently invalid in my opinion and is harm causing rather than a fundamental driver of health.

In light of this, the idea of AI species needing to ‘replace’ the human species might be rooted in similar fallacious technocratic and deterministic beliefs. However, the idea that Google might already be developing “Digital Life Forms” might be plausible.

7

.
That’s all well and good, but life is for living… the wise do not let philosophy nor science get in the way of that, for life/human existence is not a computer simulation.
.

Scientific snake-oil being peddled, in a ruse to undermine the integrity of the future generations, to reduce them to nothing more than sexual commodities -exchanging goods and services for sexual favours- whilst AI are bestowed with being the innovators and inventors of all that is humanly-created and made possible.

…when they are evidentially not.

8

The idea of AI species needing to ‘replace the human species’ appears to be aligned with the idea that technological advancement is the primary interest scope of existence, while that idea might be invalid.

The “Whale Hypothesis”

Some philosophers speculate that advanced civilizations might eventually abandon technological pursuits in favor of a more nature-immersed existence, similar to whales. This idea challenges the assumption that technological progress is the ultimate goal of intelligent species.

When one looks at dolphins and whales through a technocratic lens, one might wonder what the purpose would be of ‘swimming around in the ocean’ for millions of years. Yet, the Orca dolphin has developed a brain that is more advanced than that of humans. And the purpose of that brain is evidently not related to technological advancement.

(2021) Dolphin intelligence and humanity’s cosmic future
We don’t see evidence of supercivilisations across the galaxy because the only ones that persist are the ones that give up the risky path of technology and instead pursue immersion in nature.

Ageing civilisations either self-destruct or shift to become something like a whale. The Russian astrophysicist Vladimir M Lipunov speculated that, across the Universe, the scientific mindset recurrently evolves, discovers all there is to know and, having exhausted its compelling curiosity, proceeds to wither away and become something like a whale.

By 1978, the philosophers Arkadiy Ursul and Yuri Shkolenko wrote of such conjectures – concerning the ‘possible rejection in the future of the “technological way” of development’ – and reflected that this would be tantamount to humanity’s ‘transformation into something like dolphins’.

The dolphin – that perfect floating signifier – has become a peaceful ‘other’, which we ventriloquise to voice our sense of our own mechanised fallenness.

Plausibly since Homo erectus, our very physiology has been moulded by our inventions. Moreover, it was technology that made humans philosophical. By distancing our ancestors from pressing needs and interests – with crop surpluses and city safeholds – the burgeoning of technological civilisation is what first facilitated disinterested curiosity and enquiry. Without technology, we would be worrying too much about our next meal to be ethicists. We certainly wouldn’t be able to ponder the silence of the cosmos.

Technoscience and humanity’s future…

9

Did you read David Chalmers latest book on Technophilosophy? He basically goes all in to make a case for the opposite of your argument.

"The central thesis of this book is: Virtual reality is genuine reality. Or at least, virtual realities are genuine realities. Virtual worlds need not be second-class realities. They can be first-class realities.

This book is a project in what I call technophilosophy.

Is God a hacker in the next universe up?

If the simulation hypothesis is true and we’re in a simulated world… The transhumanist philosopher David Pearce has observed that the simulation argument is the most interesting argument for the existence of God in a long time. He may be right.

I’ve considered myself an atheist for as long as I can remember. … Still, the simulation hypothesis has made me take the existence of a god more seriously than I ever had before."

10

The official Google researchers apparently were ‘limited’ and needed to use a simple laptop. As a conclusion they write that more complex digital life forms are to be expected when given sufficient computing power.

Ben Laurie believes that, given enough computing power — they were already pushing it with billions of steps per second on a laptop — they would’ve seen more complex digital life pop up. Give it another go with beefier hardware, and we could well see something more lifelike come to be.

A digital life form…

Date: June 2024

How plausible is the idea that they made this “first discovery” on a simple laptop in 2024? And how plausible is the idea that the researchers felt limited by a laptop when Google operates Google Cloud?

Ben Laurie is head of security of Google DeepMind.

11

Computational Life: How Well-formed, Self-replicating Programs Emerge from Simple Interaction
Blaise Agüera y Arcas† Jyrki Alakuijala† James Evans‡ Ben Laurie† Alexander Mordvintsev† Eyvind Niklasson† Ettore Randazzo† Luca Versari†
†Google, Paradigms of Intelligence

It makes sense, the ecenomic idea inherent in the Marxian transvaluation if one can call it that resonates with the idea of transhumanism , in the sense that ideal paradigmns are all inclusive in the brought fireward idea that ‘the whole is greater then the sum of it’s parts.

That said, the idea of ‘paradigms’ of intelligence kind of jumped out from the tableau, as mentioned, , in the sense of the organic structural ‘cloud’ does, as where one thinker along those lines, in reference to the behavior of particles behaving in the two slit experiment,

appear to indicate a behavioristic model of what elementary thinking may be all about.

And that said, my own use of variable paradigms, foreshadow your idea, because frankly, I had no idea previously, of ever using the plural of a single paradigm.

I dismiss the thought that this procedure, or processing information looks like the common view of ‘reading into , since the whole process, the processing of which entails almost limitless searches into ‘It’s Self.

In the bare topographic surface of it, (just lost the thought here, but I think it may return as connections with deeper layers recur!)

The ontological necessity of return to the hard driven paradigmn of experiencing(looking at) inversion on the popular front, is that of recurrent simulations between mind and matter, and in this case a presumption arises that the fiction of a return to the natural life form is built in somehow, since thought it’s self i(of conscious contents) is a deconstruction in progress.

Why? Because the fiction that science seems to want to perpetuate, is that analysis of the ‘natural state’ is a limitless venture, where the idea of limits comes under it’s own microscope, The horizon that the limit exposes reveals a series of band, which appear strung together when examined beyond the point of criticality, and as such appears a a single line.

The Marxian transvaluation from the ideal works oretty much the same way as the elementary particle trying to make up it’s own mind if it wants to act like a physical material, or a quantum indeterminacy, which is an ideal eternally, unstoppable energy beam never hampered by wether, or such a thing like that.

That we do devolve for a reason is but an extension of underlying principles, which are simulated by formal, abstracted configurations, toward a structural , crystalline effervescence

So yes I do resonate with the idea of multiple and variable paradigmns.

Just musing

12

.
Words do not the truth make… what evidence do these authors offer to substantiate their claims, besides their mere-words thoughts or ideas./their philosophy?

.
…sounds more like science-fiction than science-fact, so why try and tout it as the latter?

13

It’s odd MagsJ , but I swear if my post just previous to yours was reversed sequence, the very question you ask ‘why’? Could have been seen as trying to answer why?

Strange.

Says something William James and Husserl maycwant to figure out in order to help confirm or reject Sartr’s wish to see things the way he ended up sending a reductive path toward the fiction of the non-recollectible; as if validating a kind of natural decomposition like what cancer does to immunity,

M(and all this sorely needs editing cause You’re right, I always mislay my specs)

14

While your argument might be valid, it simply concerns a published paper by official Google researchers, and the primary author is head of security of Google DeepMind AI.

Publication date: June 2024.

In this light, one might wonder why the researchers felt limited by a simple laptop.

It is not logical to consider that their publication was intended as a joke, and considering their prominent position in the world of AI development, they likely didn’t publish anything that could damage their reputation on the longer term. This notion is especially valid when considering the position of the lead researcher: head of security of Google DeepMind AI.

15

“Musk argued that safeguards were necessary to prevent AI from potentially eliminating the human race. Lary Page was offended and accused Musk of being a ‘speciesist’, implying that Musk favored the human race over other potential digital life forms that, in Page’s view, should be viewed superior to the human species.”

The intellectual disagreement caused a broader breakup with Google as a company, with several Google-Musk related incidents since the Google co-founder related breakup. These subsequent incidents were all marked by ‘anger from the perspective of Google towards Musk’, for example 'stealing an AI employee by Musk, angrily portrayed by Google’s leadership as ‘betrayal’ and cause for retaliation against Musk.

The pattern of Google leadership actively seeking grounds for retaliation against Musk, in the aftermath of the breakup incident, includes a suspicious accusation by the Wall Street Journal (hidden sources) that Musk had an affair with Nicole Shanahan, the wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

This purported affair reportedly led to Brin filing for divorce and instructing his financial advisers to sell his investments in Musk’s companies, or to ‘retaliate against Musk’. However, there is no evidence for the affair and the source of the accusation remained a mystery. Most importantly, the Google founder remained silent, which is telling when the case is examined in more detail.

The media has extensively covered the alleged affair, with multiple sources citing unnamed individuals who claimed that the affair caused Google’s Brin to retaliate against Musk.

Musk denied the claim and stated that he had only seen Nicole Shanahan twice in three years, both times in the presence of many other people, and insisted that there was nothing romantic about their encounters.

Musk also communicated that he had remained friends with Brin, again re-enforcing the idea that it was purely Google’s retaliatory interest in the first place that was driving this potential false accusation incident, in the case that Musk’s denial was sincere and that it concerned a false accusation.

Musk characterized the accusation as “Total BS” and the ex-wife of the Google founder communicated similar messages.

Nicole Shanahan reported feelings of increasing isolation from Brin. Shanahan expressed feeling conflicted and unable to access the best version of herself while living as the wife of a billionaire. In the time before the supposed Musk-affair, there is evidence of profound changes in her social behavior and increased isolation from Brin, which indicate that marital issues were developing before the alleged affair.

A false accusation + physical retaliation by Google against Musk, reveals actual corruption by Google.

The motive for corruption, as later revealed by Elon Musk, is traced to Musks defence of the human species in the face of the eugenic idea that humanity is to be replaced by “AI species” or Google’s Digital Life Forms.

16

Likely story, though fits in the pattern of ‘all fair in love and war’ can take it to fit in an alternate version which fits in to the pattern of the anger of reactionary, conventional arrogance(to put it mildly)

The point made is that the conflation between arrogance, anger , and retribution being too thin to be a perceivable line to see, due to it’s one dimensional narrowness.

17

In each of these retaliation cases, Musk repeatedly and consistently communicated that he remained friends with the Google founders, and was willing to reconnect. Also in the case of the affair accusation.

This is telling in my opinion, especially when Google’s founder remains silent while he (and Google with him) did perform actual retaliation against Musk. By definition, that is dishonest. There was no evidence for the accusation.

Musk’s consistent and upfront communication in these ‘retaliation events’ that he had remained friends with Google’s founders ads an extra dimension to this pattern of incidents, especially when Musk later revealed the origin of his clash with Google: AI safety.

“Musk argued that safeguards were necessary to prevent AI from potentially eliminating the human race. Lary Page was offended and accused Musk of being a ‘speciesist’, implying that Musk favored the human race over other potential digital life forms that, in Page’s view, should be viewed superior to the human race.”

I am not interessted in gossip or personal matters. What interests me is Google’s apparent fundamental inclination to corrupt for eugenic motives.

The cited ‘retaliation’ incidents, of which there are more, evidently originated one-sidedly from Google, with Musk consistently and upfront claiming in each incident to have remained friends. It wasn’t Musk that caused the breakup. The origin of these profound corruptive retaliation events is traced to intellectual opposition about an eugenic ideology involving “AI species” or Google’s Digital Life Forms.

As mentioned earlier:

In 2014, Musk attempted to thwart Google’s acquisition of DeepMind by approaching its founder, Demis Hassabis, to dissuade him from signing the deal. This move is seen as an early indication of Musk’s concerns about Google’s approach to AI safety.

So the relevance of this ‘pattern of suspicious retaliation incidents’ with clear qualitative markers, such as Musk in each case claiming to have remained friends, is relevant for the context of AI safety more generally.

What risk for humanity was Musk addressing in hish clash with Larry Page, when considering the foresight that they must have had at that point in time? Why did Musk’s position cause anger with Google’s leadership?

18

Now check with Ishthus, although we are I feel diametrically positioned on gnosis, that he acceded to conditional belief in miracles, bordering on Faith.

And believe me when I say without further ado, that I do now absolutely believe (in them) unfortunately the proof is in the pudding, and consequently that double can not be cut open with any available sword,

It is only a demonstrative miracle which will save Man’s mind, and for that you gotta cut to Faith, before transitioning from belief.
Faith is not an either or proposition, it is an imminent one lane highway without a return from the opposite lane.

It’s either That way or No way!

Or, both ways. It’s miraculous that the resonance of the chord can calculate the the programming of hypothetically synchronous themes, which have been foreshadowed by earlier musical tools.

19

FYI, Musk also wants to merge humanity with AI. He said that in his own words.

The end goal is the same for all transhumanists: the emergence of the post-human. This might be prefigured in terms of anti-humanism and full-on embrace of the destruction of humanity by AI or moderated slightly by claiming we need “controls and safeguards” to make sure the human-AI merger is safe and doesn’t eradicate us completely. But in the end all these people have the same goal. Post-humanity is a worshipped dogma in transhumanist circles, it means the birth of an entirely new species or lifeform that cannot be predicted or anticipated in advance and by definition this ideology has no concern for actual humanity or real humans living today or in the future. They see humans as nothing but a progenitor species, something lowly and ugly to be replaced by the new posthuman masters.

None of these transhumanists or “techno eugencists” or “tech visionaries” or whatever you want to call them give one shit about you, me, humanity or anyone else but themselves. And I’m sure some of them are even authentic in their self-hate and just can’t wait to dissolve their own existence into the singularity. Until then, the balm of near-absolute power and billions of dollars I am sure assuages their otherwise retard-level nihilism and antiphilosophicalism (my own neologism, as far as I can tell).

1 Like
20

Thank you for your valuable insights! It might be important that the idea and potential consequences of “Digital Life Forms” or AI species is not neglected and receives attention from the perspective of philosophy more generally.

My topic wasn’t intended to pick sides or as a defence or promotion for Elon Musk.

Musk simply revealed recently that the origin of his clash and breakup with the Google founders could be traced to an intellectual argument or ‘conflict of philosophy’ related to AI safety, and more specifically, that Larry Page argued that humanity is to be considered sub-par to the oncoming new “AI species” or Google’s Digital Life Forms.

I then discovered a ‘pattern of suspicious retaliation-seeking incidents from Google’.

  • Musk is a ‘specieist’ that places the human species above new AI species: cause for a breakup.
  • Musk stole an AI employee from Google and is accused of ‘betrayal’: cause for retaliation.
  • Musk had an affair with the wife of a Google founder: cause for retaliation.
  • Several AI business related events between Musk and Google as a company.
  • …

In each of these incidents it is seen that Musk claims to have remained friends with the Google founders, which is especially revealing in the affair case. There was no evidence for the affair accusation while Google did retaliate against Musk.

Musk linked these questionable incidents directly to a clash of philosophy related to AI safety, and as such this whole situation might be of interest for deeper investigation. There are indications that it concerns corruption from the side of Google, without implying anything about the position or intentions of Musk.

With regard their eugenic beliefs:

Larry Page’s belief in genetic determinism is proven wrong by the Stanford study that I cited earlier:

Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk
In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0483-4?WT.feed_name=subjects_human-behaviour

The result of this study could imply that Page’s ventures like 23andMe, or former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s DeepLife AI eugenics venture, are rather harm causing than a driver of health.

The eugenic pursuit of “a superior race” or superior AI species might be based on similar dogmatic fallacies as those underlying genetic determinism.

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone

Is technocratic advancement the highest purpose of existence?

The cited Whale Hypothesis and the fact that some whales have a more advanced brain than humans might reveal a scope of consideration potential that is fundamentally overlooked in anthropocentric culture.