Nothing wrong with a contemporary perspective either. Point being, it does not matter whether, or not anyone thinks the 'CCP as AGI' archetype is a bad idea, or a very-bad idea.
I think what matters is about understanding what the CCP most-closely resembles, in terms of AGI. Here I'm assuming Ray Kurzweil's singularity to be very near indeed, for China today, but the world tomorrow. The covid justification and the hack of the century combined have probably provided a mighty push towards "new" pervasive technologies. And if I was a betting man, I'd wager that more resistance would see a 3rd wave of "conviction". Conspiracy? Nope. Strategy? Yes. That's the point of contemporary argument. It's in one's face and infinitely more measurable than war games might be. I've been looking for that book for close on 15 years. Did you purchase it off Amazon? ________________________________ From: Steve Richfield <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2020 17:45 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI I can see that some people here are talking past each other, so to clarify some important points... 1. Go read the book Unconventional Warfare. It could best be described as instructions on how to be a REALLY bad AGI with NO consideration of potential social blowback. COVID-19 perfectly fits into this book's discussions. This book's authors are now high-level PRC officers. 2. There are various types of intelligence. On a project I was once very intentionally paired with the very best trained computer expert from Taiwan, to add my creativity to her training. She knew everything about the history of computers, but she was unable to synthesize anything but the most trivial of applications. Creativity is VERY different from intelligence, and from what I have seen, Eastern education kills creativity. 3. I advanced this thread to challenge the idea that AGIs wouldn't necessarily turn out to be BAD. Indeed, a government attempting to function like an AGI, and the CCP appears to be trying to do, seems to be a reasonable test. From what I have seen, the CCP is literally living proof that AGI is a REALLY bad idea. 4. I have seen a sort of uniformly worn blinders in this group. I have repeatedly suggested that we hold a reverse Turing competition (where groups pretend to be AGIs) to see where limitless intelligence might lead, but so far NO ONE has shown any interest. I expect such a competition would produce some eye-opening results and would be a LOT of fun, as groups compete to save the world, take over the world, etc. This having been said, please continue your conversation. James basically appeared to grok what I was saying, but everyone else appeared to be picking at unrelated (at least to me) details. Steve Richfield. On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 6:14 AM James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ben I really hate it when people interject "go read this book" in a conversation but you're a voracious enough reader that I hope you'll forgive me when I request that you read E. O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth" to get a handle on where I'm coming from in my use of the word "agency" in the context of incorporations like "nation states" or, more accurately, "cultures". But in the likely event that you won't do so, here is the tl;dr: Since at least CHLCA our primate line has been utilizing its higher cognitive capacity in ways that promise/threaten to cross the abyss from individual selection to eusocial selection. Human civilization now stands at the precipice of full blown eusocial organization and that is why it is wiping out biodiversity: Eusocial species tend to dominate their ecologies and unless given time to coevolve, as with eusocial insects and the one mammalian fully-eusocial species, the naked mole rat, biodiversity collapses. Human eusociality is characterized by explosive change wrought by ideational (technological ) evolution threatening the biosphere is threatened like never before. That's not my assertion, that's Wilson's whole career summed up. Certainly you are correct that human "societies" have nowhere near the group integrity that fully eusocial organisms possess. But be _very_ careful here: Eusocial organisms (which merely _seem_ to be multiple "individuals" with their own "agency" but are, in fact, single organisms we call "hives" or "colonies", etc.) do possess agency expressing the genetic interest of the reproductive caste. The sterile worker caste does _not_ possess agency. Reproductive specialization -- the sine qua non of eusociety -- is already apparent in the West in the form of the most intelligent sacrificing the reproductive years of its most economically valuable females on the altar of what is properly characterized as "Mammon Worship''. This ruthless destruction is characteristic of all human civilizations at some stage as they begin to collapse, but the older the culture the more likely it is to have learned to mitigate the damage done by this stage. I suspect this is at the root of why China and Jews are more intelligent: A long collective memory of the damage done by civilizational cycles. This destructive tendency can be enhanced by an adversarial culture and clearly is being enhanced in the West -- transhumanism's two-birds-in-the-bush notwithstanding. In this respect transhumanism strikes me as a classic con. On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 3:22 AM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I don't think it's very useful to model complex systems like major nations as one-dimensional utility-maximizers. Asking "whose utility function" about a complex system of that nature -- which has a large number of shiftingly-weighted, imprecisely-and-shiftingly-defined "objectives" and also largely self-organizes in a non-goal-directed way -- is probably the wrong framing.... But asking who will exert a more major influence (e.g. the West versus China, or corporate shareholders vs. the scientific community) certainly has meaning.... And I don't currently see evidence that China will exert more influence on AGI than the West. Things could evolve that way. But I note there is not yet a China analogue of Deep Mind or OpenAI, let alone say OpenCog or SingularityNET or whatever. OpenNARS is founded by Pei Wang, who is mainland Chinese originally, but is centered in the West, etc. I truly don't understand why folks believe the Chinese gov't is going to be able to assimilate the US to its goals and thus achieve a dominant role in shaping AGI .... China does have a larger population than the US and has an extraordinary capability for mass-manufacture of electronics, and plenty of other interesting advantages, but the AGI advantage seems clearly to US/UK ... I'd like to understand if there are better arguments though... ben ben On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:17 PM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Regarding the CCP as a general intelligence(*), I would say all societies and large corporations can be viewed that way, but I don't see evidence that the corporate-government complex of China is more generally intelligent than the corporate-government complexes of US or Western Europe. What is the evidence or argument in that regard?... If the CCP is more capable of assimilating ("Turking") the US to the CCP's utility function than vis versa then any claims as to the US being "more generally intelligent" become superfluous. That's what I meant when I said: > The CCP-as-AGI is more capable of "Turking" the US-as-AGI than is the > US-as-AGI of "Turking" the CCP-as-AGI. (*) to me calling a country or corporation an "AGI" feels needlessly confusing, since these are systems largely composed of humans, and not engineered from human parts but evolved from human social interactions. But whatever, I understand what is meant. The Future of Humanity Institute<https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/> is an exemplar for why the question of "Whose utility function?" cannot be swept under the rug with regards to "systems largely composed of humans...evolved from human social interactions". Indeed "artificial" means humans had agency in the creation of the artifact. The concern of "Friendly Artificial General Intelligence" hence "The Future of Humanity" is all about the proper application of that agency in selecting the utility function of aid artifact. What future is there for "humanity" under the wrong utility function of _any_ notion of AGI? On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 6:54 AM James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: As with "AI debates" in general, people can easily talk past each other by failing to acknowledge they are addressing different questions. Ben Goertzel is addressing China's in/ability to create an "AGI" in the sense of Legg, Hutter, et al. Steve Richfield is positing the CCP _is_ an "AGI" in a more vague sense that might, if "black boxed" also fit with "AGI" in the sense of Legg, Hutter, et al. Now, it may certainly be argued that _if_ Steve is right, _then_ it is capable of _creating_ an AGI: "The Singularity" occurs when some AI achieves the ability to create a more intelligent AI, and this threshold of "AI" is the most general notion of AGI. My approach, respecting Steve's original question, is from a position that what we call "The Global Economy" _is_ an AGI that is already operating with an "unfriendly" utility function, seeing individual human beings as raw materials in its environment to refine into "Mechanical Turks". The only extent to which human quality of life, or even the quality of the biosphere, is relevant to this AGI is the extent to which it can provide resources to replicate its incorporations (corporations/NGOs, governments, etc.) wielding hive-like power over, and ultimately disintermediating life in seeking access to energy and matter. The CCP is merely among the more conspicuous cases of evolution toward such an incipient AGI hive incorporation. Now, having clarified the question I am addressing (Steve's in the OP): Hive specialization in eusocial species recapitulates, in a less effective way, the clone-army specialization seen in sexual organism stem-cell differentiation (modulating SC clone gene expression) into various organs of the organism. The brain is an organ. The CCP constructs its "brain" not so much by altering gene expression of clones but by utilizing its long history of civil service examination to mine the population for "neurons". THAT is where the math comes in to compare the CCP to the US government's intelligence agencies. Having said that, Ben is correct that the CCP's structure is more amenable to this mining operation, and one should see the "private sector" coddled by the CCP as an updated form of its civil service examination tradition. While it may be true that the resulting "brain" is not going to be as capable of producing a silicon AGI as the US, this misses Steve's, or at least my point: The CCP-as-AGI is more capable of "Turking" the US-as-AGI than is the US-as-AGI of "Turking" the CCP-as-AGI. Why do I say this? See my prior post describing all the ways the US has inhibited its own intelligence agencies from mining the population for intelligence that those intelligence agencies can "Turk". Indeed, it is my working hypothesis that this inhibition was the result of the CCP engaging in the _real_ "Unrestricted Warfare" that the document by that name represents as something far more benign. On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I don't think China's slightly higher average IQ is a big advantage for them... However, their governmental organization obviously has some practical advantages. As one example, they can get their intel/ military work done directly within their big internet tech companies, rather than via sluggish military contractors and limited-scope awkward back-channel-ish alliances with big internet tech companies like happens in the US. This means they are getting on average cleverer and harder working folks working on their gov't oriented tech, not due to IQ issues but due to organizational issues... On the other hand they continue to have deep problems with radical technical innovation due to a persistent culture of mistrust, and this will cause them real issues, because there are significant differences btw US and China contexts and copying/adapting Western innovations will probably not allow them to overtake the West technologically... I predict AGI will emerge first via organizations that are centered in the West, and China will then attempt to copy it, but will not be fast enough ... because the org that first creates AGI will be very fast-moving and agile and not that easy for creativity-phobic Chinese institutions to catch up with Note I lived in HK for 9 yrs and made many dozens of trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Xiamen etc. etc. ... I have met w/ folks at the highest levels in Chinese tech companies and SOEs and fairly high up in gov't. There is a lot to admire and a lot to fear there, but I don't think China is really in the race as regards AGI and nor do they have the capacity to extremely rapidly play catch-up Of course all this could change in 10 yrs, so these comments are most relevant if AGI is achieved in the next say 7 yrs... ben On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 4:22 PM James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It's "Unrestricted Warfare<https://archive.org/stream/Unrestricted_Warfare_Qiao_Liang_and_Wang_Xiangsui/Unrestricted_Warfare_Qiao_Liang_and_Wang_Xiangsui_djvu.txt>" and as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, that document strikes me as a limited hangout disinformation. Keep in mind the Chinese have a higher average IQ than Europeans, their population is several times larger and they have a _very_ long history of civil service examinations. Extrapolate that mean advantage out to the high IQ tail where the ratios explode and it's hard to imagine how great an advantage they have when it comes to "peacetime" strategy. Add to that the belly-full of the West with Sassoon's steamships delivering opium and Mao calling it "a century of humiliation"... On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:48 PM Steve Richfield <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: As you are reading this, doing the best you can to survive the Pandemic, consider... The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a pretty good model for AGI, as there are ~500 people working together to provide the best possible management for China as it attempts to interact as well as possible with the rest of the world. A rising tide usually floats all boats, but China perceived an advantage to restrict information about COVID-19 to inflict it on the rest of the world, which is consistent with their internal manual Unconventional Warfare, which details LOTS of dirty tricks you might expect an AGI to employ as it seeks its goals. This manual is a REALLY scary read. Why would anyone expect an AGI to be any "friendlier" than the CCP? Why wouldn't anyone expect an AGI to be even nastier? This dirty deed WILL work for the CCP - unless worldwide revulsion costs the CCP even more. I doubt whether an AGI would greatly consider feelings that run counter to profit. We may all be paying dearly for not reigning in the CCP long ago - and we might end up paying more if we turn an AGI loose on the world - for exactly the SAME reasons. Thoughts? Steve Richfield [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org “Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a word with him?” -- Zhuangzhi++ -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org “Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a word with him?” -- Zhuangzhi++ -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org “Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a word with him?” -- Zhuangzhi++ -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf065676fd779dd5c-M1f9cff88220b9a74ddb5c958> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf065676fd779dd5c-M7122177bd4b63e5c35244e94 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
