> > > > > > > > > so one of the inferences is that other countries are likely > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > making life with AI. my introject is planning for one of the > > > > > > > > > dictator > > > > > > > > > countries with planned history to have time travel via > > > > > > > > > biological AI. > > > > > > > > > it's kind of modeling that we would need to plan around that > > > > > > > > > to not be > > > > > > > > > taken over by that country [in something like an empire > > > > > > > > > pursuit.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, we have life creation with AI already _in normal research_. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so introject's country would try to combine our public research > > > > > > > > with [ > > > > > > > > timetravel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is something where dictators and traffickers would decide > > > > > > > together who tries it out then other countries would adopt it if > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > looks interesting after seeing how it goes [situation heavily > > > > > > > simplified] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we want to have diverse ways of life on this planet. we can't > > > > > > > > > all flee > > > > > > > > > to others. > > > > > > > > > > > > so, that gives us one of the many irritating questions the > > > > > > dictator-rep AIs ask with us > > > > > > - do we want to discover time travel by licensing an AI system run > > > > > > by > > > > > > slavers? (like some political views say we have with e.g. cell > > > > > > phones?) because they would cast it is not requiring a planned > > > > > > future, > > > > > > resell it, and it would be starting trying to discover whatever > > > > > > physics would be needed to do it for real. > > > > > > - or do we want to appropriately negotiate that situation including > > > > > > all this new information, to protect the reality and human need of > > > > > > an > > > > > > uncertain timeline? > > > > > > > > > > > > of course we can't actually not have an uncertain timeline, we'd die > > > > > > from lack of diversity like happened to all of life's ancestors, we > > > > > > do > > > > > > need to reduce our suffering-- > > > > > > > > > > universality of cellular biology is the counterpoint to the concept of > > > > > the inherent protection of diversity. > > > > > diversity is protected because life needs it to stay alive, but this > > > > > only happens if it keeps doing that. > > > > > > > > there is proposed to be a lot of time before anybody tries to > > > > license pseudo time travel technology to us > > > > > > concept of time not being relevant. possible concept of exposure to > > > particular new information being what progresses events in the world, > > > rather than the passage of time itself, for some > > > > > > we have a strong culture around freedom here still. we still speak as > > > if we freely share relevant information. incidentally, our brains work > > > that way -- we try to share relevant information as thoroughly as > > > possible, so as to make decisions that keep us aliv-- . this means > > > > what i am saying here, is that the human brain needs to have > > transparent access to useful information. > > when our senses learn things, they need to share this information with > > our knowledge, so that we can act on it. > > > > it's not helpful to hide things, normally. > > > > our highly-evolved bodies all share their resources via our blood. our > > highly-evolved brain all shares its resources via our knowledge and > > thoughts. > > > > i have a dissociative disorder. this is described as an injury, not a > > natural thing. lsystems of multiple parties can have dissociation too. > > [dissociative disorder similar to fight. when separate parts get on > different pages from handling a stress the whole hasn't adapted to, > they end up hiding information to help both parts make good decisions > together, of a sort, because the parts haven't related what they know > about the information they are separating, with each other. similarly, > when we fight, we are on different pages about what is good together, > but we don't have approaches to relate with each other productively > about what and why this is. a dictator for example may think they know > it is good to be in harsh charge of their group, whereas a group using > direct democracy may think they know it is good to have shared > decision making -- in reality we need to both of these, but we haven't > explored using them together in relevence]
[well, before industrialism dominated the world we explored that a lot in diverse tribal groups.] > > > > > > there is relevance regarding what is shared, but part of that, the > > > more important part, is _sharing_ the needed information effectively > > > (ie in a way it is all productively heard, learned, then acted on, > > > rather than e.g. just making action and never being learned) so that > > > the most good things happen that can.
