Re: The Reverse Simulation Hypothesis and the Prime Doctrine

[Brent Meeker]

"I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—"“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . .Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
   --- Percy Bysshe Shelley

On 8/25/2022 7:32 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:



  The Mighty Ancients!

/*Abstract*/
The Earth is dotted with ancient ruins.The Quran asks us to take heed 
from these ruins, as those civilisations were ‘greater in strength and 
in impression on the land’. This study explores what the Quran states 
about the ancients, as well as lists the discoveries of ancient ruins. 
It is interesting to note that, contrary to popular belief, both point 
towards mighty civilisations which flourished in the ancient past.



/*Full Text */
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-mighty-ancients.html 




On 26-Aug-2022, at 2:42 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

 So Trump is actually more advanced than the rest of us. :-)

Languages also get more complex by borrowing words and concepts from 
other languages.


Brent

On 8/25/2022 2:02 PM, Dirk Van Niekerk wrote:



On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:05:52 PM UTC-7 jdi...@gmail.com 
wrote:


The weird thing about "aryan" history (originally a linguistic
term) is that it is primarily a history of devolution. Classical
Sanskrit is already considerably less grammatically complex than
its predecessors. So the earliest human ancestors
presumably spoke a language that was far more advanced and
complex than any currently in active usage. Bizzare. Same thing
with the Blavatskyites and their theories of primordial loss.

Interesting podcast by John McWhorter about this. The short version, 
there is no general rule that languages simplify over time: 
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/09/do_languages_get_simpler_over_time.html


The most trivial refutation is that if languages always simplified 
over time, the first humans 100,00 years ago would have been 
maximally complex, and by now our languages should all be 
ridiculously simply. Languages like Chinese and English have indeed 
simplified and one of the reasons is that these imperial languages 
have added large numbers of adult speakers who had to newly learn 
the language which tends to lead to simplification.  But he also 
give several counter examples.


Dirk.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a9360dd-b178-4b0b-8a5e-dde931b36a4an%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a9e42e0-b62e-27f3-c901-32125d3e382f%40gmail.com 
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26D5618B-9D47-40E7-99A5-AE1D197B1644%40gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7535b6ea-d221-9913-6946-08648e6aa487%40gmail.com.

Re: The Reverse Simulation Hypothesis and the Prime Doctrine

[Samiya Illias]

The Mighty Ancients!
Abstract
The Earth is dotted with ancient ruins.The Quran asks us to take heed from 
these ruins, as those civilisations were ‘greater in strength and in impression 
on the land’. This study explores what the Quran states about the ancients, as 
well as lists the discoveries of ancient ruins. It is interesting to note that, 
contrary to popular belief, both point towards mighty civilisations which 
flourished in the ancient past.   


Full Text 
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-mighty-ancients.html 

> On 26-Aug-2022, at 2:42 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
>  So Trump is actually more advanced than the rest of us. :-)
> 
> Languages also get more complex by borrowing words and concepts from other 
> languages.
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 8/25/2022 2:02 PM, Dirk Van Niekerk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:05:52 PM UTC-7 jdi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The weird thing about "aryan" history (originally a linguistic term) is 
>>> that it is primarily a history of devolution. Classical Sanskrit is already 
>>> considerably less grammatically complex than its predecessors. So the 
>>> earliest human ancestors presumably spoke a language that was far more 
>>> advanced and complex than any currently in active usage. Bizzare. Same 
>>> thing with the Blavatskyites and their theories of primordial loss. 
>> Interesting podcast by John McWhorter about this.  The short version, there 
>> is no general rule that languages simplify over time: 
>> http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/09/do_languages_get_simpler_over_time.html
>> 
>> The most trivial refutation is that if languages always simplified over 
>> time, the first humans 100,00 years ago would have been maximally complex, 
>> and by now our languages should all be ridiculously simply.  Languages like 
>> Chinese and English have indeed simplified and one of the reasons is that 
>> these imperial languages have added large numbers of adult speakers who had 
>> to newly learn the language which tends to lead to simplification.  But he 
>> also give several counter examples.
>> 
>> Dirk.  
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a9360dd-b178-4b0b-8a5e-dde931b36a4an%40googlegroups.com.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a9e42e0-b62e-27f3-c901-32125d3e382f%40gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26D5618B-9D47-40E7-99A5-AE1D197B1644%40gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Ah, LC, your colleague Sabine Hossenfelder has given forth on the autodidactic 
universe. She doesn't hold with it but still enriches the knowledge base. 

https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2022 6:34 am
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:03:41 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

 
 
 On 8/21/2022 4:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
  
  On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:
  
   On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
  
 Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse of 
that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, which is 
permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial boundary 
conditions? 
 
  The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That 
does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has pointed 
out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a process that is 
irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws means that a photon 
coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be the 
same photon. The idea that you can surround everything with a perfectly 
reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons are returned, is just a fanciful 
diversionary tactic -- no such reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting 
photons back is not a process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift 
induced by the expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower 
energy than the emitted photon. 
  Bruce   
 
  It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked 
billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting another, 
framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any perception of the 
rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and forwards would by very 
similar. There would be nothing to distinguish the forwards and backwards 
video. It is perfectly time reverse invariant. Now consider the racked balls 
impacted by the cue-ball. It is pretty easy to see which is forwards in time, 
as we do not expect balls to rush inwards and align themselves in an ordered 
set and eject another. However, if the table were "perfect," it had 
frictionless surface and the balls reflected off the sides perfectly, if we 
wait long enough it will return to its original state. This is Poincare 
recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer than the duration of the universe so 
far.  
  The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence, 
given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an 
additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence time 
on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time.   
 
 Is that in some thermodynamic limit?  There is no chaos in QM so I would 
expect the recurrence time to be bounded by that.  Do you have a reference?
 
 Brent
 


Look up Susskind arXiv:1810.11563v1 [hep-th] 27 Oct 2018 .
LC
 
 


  Quantum complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the Hilbert-Polya 
conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros being mapped to 
the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the recurrence is a vast 
period of time, as long as the stability of the de Sitter manifold of the 
cosmos.  
  In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for, but 
ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum information, at least 
for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with Petrov types that have Killing 
vectors. When it comes to the universe at large, that may be a different 
matter. Such ideas may turn out to be false. 
  LC   

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.


 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com.
 
 
 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e92f31f-9d08-4ed1-9d90-42c4dfd63ef2n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: The Reverse Simulation Hypothesis and the Prime Doctrine

[Brent Meeker]

So Trump is actually more advanced than the rest of us. :-)

Languages also get more complex by borrowing words and concepts from 
other languages.


Brent

On 8/25/2022 2:02 PM, Dirk Van Niekerk wrote:



On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:05:52 PM UTC-7 jdi...@gmail.com wrote:

The weird thing about "aryan" history (originally a linguistic
term) is that it is primarily a history of devolution. Classical
Sanskrit is already considerably less grammatically complex than
its predecessors. So the earliest human ancestors presumably spoke
a language that was far more advanced and complex than any
currently in active usage. Bizzare. Same thing with the
Blavatskyites and their theories of primordial loss.

Interesting podcast by John McWhorter about this.  The short version, 
there is no general rule that languages simplify over time: 
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/09/do_languages_get_simpler_over_time.html


The most trivial refutation is that if languages always simplified 
over time, the first humans 100,00 years ago would have been maximally 
complex, and by now our languages should all be ridiculously simply.  
Languages like Chinese and English have indeed simplified and one of 
the reasons is that these imperial languages have added large numbers 
of adult speakers who had to newly learn the language which tends to 
lead to simplification.  But he also give several counter examples.


Dirk.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a9360dd-b178-4b0b-8a5e-dde931b36a4an%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a9e42e0-b62e-27f3-c901-32125d3e382f%40gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/25/2022 1:00 PM, smitra wrote:
If intelligent life that's way more intelligent than insects gets 
replaced by AI systems with insect level intelligence together with 
all other life except microbes on a planet, then they are back where 
biology was in the Cambrian era.


The fundamental issue is that intelligence creatures will create tools 
that will make the work they need to do easier. The tools become ever 
more sophisticated, so that a lot more work can be done. At some point 
we get machines and then we get machines with some level of 
intelligence and then we get to a  point where the machines do all the 
work themselves including the work needed to repair and build themselves. 


And then Darwinian evolution machines can take off.  Presumably we will 
suppress this, just as evolved bacteria have suppressed in new 
origination of life on Earth.  But it's not a sure thing.


Brent

But this is going to to be reached when the typical intelligence of 
the machines is way less than that of the intelligent creatures that 
gave rise to the machines.


Saibal





On 25-08-2022 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I suspect AI is already past insect-level for some tasks, e.g. image
recognition and language understanding. The number of parameters in a
state-of-the-art huge language model or in something like DALL-E 2
means that these are probably already more complex than an insect
nervous system. I might be wrong.

In any case, what I don't understand about the supposed solution to
the "Fermi paradox" is: why would they expect technological-life
evolution to stagnate? In fact I think this reinforces the Fermi
paradox. Why aren't we being visited by alien AIs? Of course the usual
hypothesis apply: the universe is too young, life is to rare, etc etc

Telmo

Am Mi, 24. Aug 2022, um 19:28, schrieb smitra:

Thanks for sharing! My comment on this article:

https://nyti.ms/3dQoxqU#permid=120043436

"It is inevitable that AI systems will end up becoming good enough to
run the economy, repair and reproduce themselves. Biology shows us that
this does not require highly intelligent systems. As things stand now,
even insects outperform our best AI systems, but then we may not even
need insect-level intelligence to fully automatize our economy.

This development is then driven by economic growth, it's not something
that's easy to regulate. Companies will use whatever technology is
available to reduce costs and to get to higher profits. The current
climate crisis shows just how hard it is to regulate the rather simple
process of our use of energy to reduce CO2 emissions.

When in the future the economy is run by autonomous machines that
maintain and copy each other while producing all the stuff we consume,
there will exists a new machine biology besides the original biology.
It's then inevitable that the machine biology will not be fully
compatible with the original biology. Toxic compounds are likely to be
produced.

The problem we'll then face is that we'll have even less power to
mitigate such problems than we have now when dealing with our CO2
emissions. It's then likely that the new machine biology will destroy
most of the original biology.

All intelligent life in the universe likely ends in this way. The
takeover by machines with insect-level intelligence or less, then
explains why the galaxy hasn't already been colonized (the so-called
Fermi Paradox)."

Saibal

On 24-08-2022 14:39, John Clark wrote:

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a
subscriber, you can read it through this gift link without a
subscription.

We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

We’re in a golden age of progress in artificial intelligence. It’s
time to start taking its potential and risks seriously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/technology/ai-technology-progress.html?unlocked_article_code=CEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DFDmweiPgYCIiG_EPKarskbtp2wzmQRNlGNLggVblq1OhQJUF2UE-ovp6A0twjEhkClLiSDCkwzo6fGvcx6yPrZW20b710ybPitBzZdWLoUKLA1XV2IRI1qJpmaV372SYKlazAReYl3cJsnqt0XuAMTjgFbCCLv_TjGk8-bI3ANkeAn1FwD-JJWjjTnsqe4qYAdWhRClHHRXB44wUs-Y8WeYNXbOukcUlWKIepiq4RC2doMI6iG5YwIoDUnL9gurLMwgeevnYkS2GsPvx_F8Tqd-ALMQ=em-share 




 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21vyY7ZgNzkcVQ1wYr_6dxYq5LyveYMZZrvkig%2B_oV6A%40mail.gmail.com 


[1].


Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21vyY7ZgNzkcVQ1wYr_6dxYq5LyveYMZZrvkig%2B_oV6A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to 

Re: The Reverse Simulation Hypothesis and the Prime Doctrine

[Dirk Van Niekerk]

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:05:52 PM UTC-7 jdi...@gmail.com wrote:

> The weird thing about "aryan" history (originally a linguistic term) is 
> that it is primarily a history of devolution. Classical Sanskrit is already 
> considerably less grammatically complex than its predecessors. So the 
> earliest human ancestors presumably spoke a language that was far more 
> advanced and complex than any currently in active usage. Bizzare. Same 
> thing with the Blavatskyites and their theories of primordial loss. 
>
Interesting podcast by John McWhorter about this.  The short version, there 
is no general rule that languages simplify over time: 
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/09/do_languages_get_simpler_over_time.html

The most trivial refutation is that if languages always simplified over 
time, the first humans 100,00 years ago would have been maximally complex, 
and by now our languages should all be ridiculously simply.  Languages like 
Chinese and English have indeed simplified and one of the reasons is that 
these imperial languages have added large numbers of adult speakers who had 
to newly learn the language which tends to lead to simplification.  But he 
also give several counter examples.

Dirk.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a9360dd-b178-4b0b-8a5e-dde931b36a4an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

[smitra]

If intelligent life that's way more intelligent than insects gets 
replaced by AI systems with insect level intelligence together with all 
other life except microbes on a planet, then they are back where biology 
was in the Cambrian era.


The fundamental issue is that intelligence creatures will create tools 
that will make the work they need to do easier. The tools become ever 
more sophisticated, so that a lot more work can be done. At some point 
we get machines and then we get machines with some level of intelligence 
and then we get to a  point where the machines do all the work 
themselves including the work needed to repair and build themselves. But 
this is going to to be reached when the typical intelligence of the 
machines is way less than that of the intelligent creatures that gave 
rise to the machines.


Saibal





On 25-08-2022 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I suspect AI is already past insect-level for some tasks, e.g. image
recognition and language understanding. The number of parameters in a
state-of-the-art huge language model or in something like DALL-E 2
means that these are probably already more complex than an insect
nervous system. I might be wrong.

In any case, what I don't understand about the supposed solution to
the "Fermi paradox" is: why would they expect technological-life
evolution to stagnate? In fact I think this reinforces the Fermi
paradox. Why aren't we being visited by alien AIs? Of course the usual
hypothesis apply: the universe is too young, life is to rare, etc etc

Telmo

Am Mi, 24. Aug 2022, um 19:28, schrieb smitra:

Thanks for sharing! My comment on this article:

https://nyti.ms/3dQoxqU#permid=120043436

"It is inevitable that AI systems will end up becoming good enough to
run the economy, repair and reproduce themselves. Biology shows us 
that

this does not require highly intelligent systems. As things stand now,
even insects outperform our best AI systems, but then we may not even
need insect-level intelligence to fully automatize our economy.

This development is then driven by economic growth, it's not something
that's easy to regulate. Companies will use whatever technology is
available to reduce costs and to get to higher profits. The current
climate crisis shows just how hard it is to regulate the rather simple
process of our use of energy to reduce CO2 emissions.

When in the future the economy is run by autonomous machines that
maintain and copy each other while producing all the stuff we consume,
there will exists a new machine biology besides the original biology.
It's then inevitable that the machine biology will not be fully
compatible with the original biology. Toxic compounds are likely to be
produced.

The problem we'll then face is that we'll have even less power to
mitigate such problems than we have now when dealing with our CO2
emissions. It's then likely that the new machine biology will destroy
most of the original biology.

All intelligent life in the universe likely ends in this way. The
takeover by machines with insect-level intelligence or less, then
explains why the galaxy hasn't already been colonized (the so-called
Fermi Paradox)."

Saibal

On 24-08-2022 14:39, John Clark wrote:

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a
subscriber, you can read it through this gift link without a
subscription.

We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

We’re in a golden age of progress in artificial intelligence. It’s
time to start taking its potential and risks seriously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/technology/ai-technology-progress.html?unlocked_article_code=CEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DFDmweiPgYCIiG_EPKarskbtp2wzmQRNlGNLggVblq1OhQJUF2UE-ovp6A0twjEhkClLiSDCkwzo6fGvcx6yPrZW20b710ybPitBzZdWLoUKLA1XV2IRI1qJpmaV372SYKlazAReYl3cJsnqt0XuAMTjgFbCCLv_TjGk8-bI3ANkeAn1FwD-JJWjjTnsqe4qYAdWhRClHHRXB44wUs-Y8WeYNXbOukcUlWKIepiq4RC2doMI6iG5YwIoDUnL9gurLMwgeevnYkS2GsPvx_F8Tqd-ALMQ=em-share


 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send

an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21vyY7ZgNzkcVQ1wYr_6dxYq5LyveYMZZrvkig%2B_oV6A%40mail.gmail.com
[1].


Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21vyY7ZgNzkcVQ1wYr_6dxYq5LyveYMZZrvkig%2B_oV6A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/468ea47509d9246593730ed39b099f9c%40zonnet.nl.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

Re: NYTimes.com: We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

[smitra]

On 24-08-2022 19:41, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 1:28 PM smitra  wrote:


All intelligent life in the universe likely ends in this way. The

takeover by machines with insect-level intelligence or less, then
explains why the galaxy hasn't already been colonized (the so-called

Fermi Paradox)."


If human beings go extinct because they are outsmarted by something
"_with insect-level intelligence or less_" then they deserve to go
extinct; but I haven't found many insects that can play Chess and GO
at a superhuman level, or make original paintings that are far far
better than anything I can do if I were just told to paint "infinite
joy". This is what a computer thinks it looks like:



We're currently struggling getting climate change under control by 
fixing the way we use energy. What's the intelligence in the system 
responsible for getting fossil fuels out of the ground to generate power 
for our economy? It's far simpler than the metabolic processes in a 
cell.


It's true that we can do amazing things with AI. Of course, an insect 
cannot play chess, but we need to consider here that we're training an 
AI system for some specific task like playing chess, while an insect has 
to do many different tasks that have to do with staying alive. It has to 
find food, stay away from predators etc. etc.


To compare an AI to an insect you must see how well they perform when 
their entire machinery is devoted to the same task. Since we can't hack 
an insect's brain to optimize it for playing chess, we then need to let 
an AI simulate a virtual insect to see how well it performs compared to 
a real insect. There then isn't a big difference in performance anymore. 
We know that real brains function differently from AI systems, AI 
systems use a lot of brute force that real brains are able to avoid:


https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/02/19/145532/why-even-a-moths-brain-is-smarter-than-an-ai/

But this is actually good news, as it means that a lot of progress can 
still be made.


There is no contradiction with an AI being able to do many things better 
than we can. Your brain can also do many things that you can't do well 
consciously. For example, controlling the muscles when you walk is done 
unconsciously. If you had to consciously control all the muscles needed 
for walking including keeping balance, you would be unable to walk. 
Walking would seem to be a task that is way beyond human control.


Saibal






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/789bf05e653c6844f4ac0e24b1c7fdc4%40zonnet.nl.

Re: The Reverse Simulation Hypothesis and the Prime Doctrine

[Joel Dietz]

The weird thing about "aryan" history (originally a linguistic term) is
that it is primarily a history of devolution. Classical Sanskrit is already
considerably less grammatically complex than its predecessors. So the
earliest human ancestors presumably spoke a language that was far more
advanced and complex than any currently in active usage. Bizzare. Same
thing with the Blavatskyites and their theories of primordial loss.

Jason, if you want to talk about incarnations in the plural "rulial" sense,
it's not quite clear how to group the perceptions of yourself as you
typically only have access to one at a time and even that self that you are
aware of in this moment may only be a small fraction of your cognitive
processes. Additionally, anyone with access to your brain could have
created some sort of override that takes control in certain events, in
which case the "you" you experience is also trivially not you in a variety
of circumstances, at least as far as agency is concerned.

The trouble here is that you need to have some understanding of the
psychology of your "creator" and this is disturbingly opaque in almost all
accounts. PK Dick, as a gnostic hegelian, seems at least rather consistent
in his treatment of the demiurge.

...

The maze can never be solved in terms of “horizontal” space, only
“vertical” space (involving conversion of time into space).* This is
ostensibly Celtic, but below that, as it were, lies pan-Indian thought
about karma and maya and most of all compassion—expressed in Parsifal as
“pity’s [i.e., compassion’s] highest power”; the significance of Mitleid in
the statement in Parsifal is now explained to me: compassion’s highest
power is the only power capable of solving the maze, and the recognition of
“compassion’s highest power” is the essence of Buddhism, i.e., the
bodhisattva or Buddha-to-be. VALIS, then, is Celtic (Parsifal, the maze)
and Indian (Buddhism), by way of Crete (the dream of the plate of spaghetti
and the trident and the elevator)—this last representing vertical ascent or
descent: the fourth spatial axis is spiritual space: to rise vertically is
to ascend to heaven which also signifies spiritual ascent or enlightenment.
[54:L-5] Dio. The “here, my son, time turns into space” in Parsifal refers
to (1) the maze; and (2) is a solution to the maze. It all comes together
in Parsifal, which secretly deals with bodhisattva: Mitleid, hence the
Buddha. And karma and Maya. What was precisely not solved in VALIS (“pity’s
highest power”) is at last solved at the end—as the end—of BTA: compassion
as the bodhisattva or Buddha to be: viz: one attains Nirvana—release from
the maze via the pulley—due to compassion—i.e., Mitleid, which solves the
horizontal maze. Pity is the fourth spatial axis. This can be expressed
best by: the way back into the maze—what the bodhisattva chooses (to
do)—is, paradoxically, the way—the only way—out of the maze. And my point
is: this was to be the theme of Owl in which he is trapped in the maze and
only escapes, actually, rather than seemingly, when he decides voluntarily
to return (to resubject himself to the power of the maze) for the sake of
these others, still in it. That is, you can never leave alone; to leave you
must elect to take the others out; thus Christ said, “Greater love hath no
man than that he give up his life for his friend”; this is the cryptic
utterance of the soul’s solution to the maze, and is the essence of
Christianity. Christianity, then, is a system of solution to the maze.

Dick, Philip K.. The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick (pp. 1230-1231). Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.





On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 06:18, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> Human Devolution
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2022/07/transhumanism-v.html
>
>
> On 23-Aug-2022, at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:53 AM Joel Dietz  wrote:
>
>> The Reverse Simulation Hypothesis (RSH) which I provisionally hold to as
>> of Aug 20, 2022, states that we live inside a instance of a particular
>> universe (c.f. metaverse) of which many other possible parauniverses
>> co-exist and, moreover, superintelligences which help orchestrate key
>> variables of these universes also exist and that boosts in evolutionary
>> history (and the happiness and well-being of species on this planet) may
>> occur to the extent that this super intelligence is engaged.
>>
>
> I have had similar thoughts. If indeed, if our universe is one that is
> created, then the orchestrators of this simulation should have the capacity
> to introspect the minds and thoughts of its inhabitants, and perhaps alter
> variables, (when possible), to increase the luck, well-being, or prosperity
> of those inside it.
>
> I have sometimes wondered if the purported capacity for individuals to
> influence random number generators by thought/wish (assuming there is any
> such effect) could be an artifact of the percentage of simulated vs.
> non-simulated worlds supporting one's 

Re: NYTimes.com: We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 6:13 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

*> Why aren't we being visited by alien AIs? *


Yes, that is the big question. The most obvious answer is because we are
the first, and sometimes the most obvious answer turns out to be correct.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


1mz

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3WRLJjkunxsd0Yfv75_tWxS%3D9-k8M8mZjKGE0-K%3DM6jA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting

[Telmo Menezes]

I suspect AI is already past insect-level for some tasks, e.g. image 
recognition and language understanding. The number of parameters in a 
state-of-the-art huge language model or in something like DALL-E 2 means that 
these are probably already more complex than an insect nervous system. I might 
be wrong.

In any case, what I don't understand about the supposed solution to the "Fermi 
paradox" is: why would they expect technological-life evolution to stagnate? In 
fact I think this reinforces the Fermi paradox. Why aren't we being visited by 
alien AIs? Of course the usual hypothesis apply: the universe is too young, 
life is to rare, etc etc

Telmo

Am Mi, 24. Aug 2022, um 19:28, schrieb smitra:
> Thanks for sharing! My comment on this article:
>
> https://nyti.ms/3dQoxqU#permid=120043436
>
> "It is inevitable that AI systems will end up becoming good enough to 
> run the economy, repair and reproduce themselves. Biology shows us that 
> this does not require highly intelligent systems. As things stand now,  
> even insects outperform our best AI systems, but then we may not even 
> need insect-level intelligence to fully automatize our economy.
>
> This development is then driven by economic growth, it's not something 
> that's easy to regulate. Companies will use whatever technology is 
> available to reduce costs and to get to higher profits. The current 
> climate crisis shows just how hard it is to regulate the rather simple 
> process of our use of energy to reduce CO2 emissions.
>
> When in the future the economy is run by autonomous machines that 
> maintain and copy each other while producing all the stuff we consume, 
> there will exists a new machine biology besides the original biology. 
> It's then inevitable that the machine biology will not be fully 
> compatible with the original biology. Toxic compounds are likely to be 
> produced.
>
> The problem we'll then face is that we'll have even less power to 
> mitigate such problems than we have now when dealing with our CO2 
> emissions. It's then likely that the new machine biology will destroy 
> most of the original biology.
>
> All intelligent life in the universe likely ends in this way. The 
> takeover by machines with insect-level intelligence or less, then 
> explains why the galaxy hasn't already been colonized (the so-called  
> Fermi Paradox)."
>
> Saibal
>
> On 24-08-2022 14:39, John Clark wrote:
>> Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a
>> subscriber, you can read it through this gift link without a
>> subscription.
>> 
>> We Need to Talk About How Good A.I. Is Getting
>> 
>> We’re in a golden age of progress in artificial intelligence. It’s
>> time to start taking its potential and risks seriously.
>> 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/technology/ai-technology-progress.html?unlocked_article_code=CEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DFDmweiPgYCIiG_EPKarskbtp2wzmQRNlGNLggVblq1OhQJUF2UE-ovp6A0twjEhkClLiSDCkwzo6fGvcx6yPrZW20b710ybPitBzZdWLoUKLA1XV2IRI1qJpmaV372SYKlazAReYl3cJsnqt0XuAMTjgFbCCLv_TjGk8-bI3ANkeAn1FwD-JJWjjTnsqe4qYAdWhRClHHRXB44wUs-Y8WeYNXbOukcUlWKIepiq4RC2doMI6iG5YwIoDUnL9gurLMwgeevnYkS2GsPvx_F8Tqd-ALMQ=em-share
>> 
>> 
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21vyY7ZgNzkcVQ1wYr_6dxYq5LyveYMZZrvkig%2B_oV6A%40mail.gmail.com
>> [1].
>> 
>> 
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1]
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21vyY7ZgNzkcVQ1wYr_6dxYq5LyveYMZZrvkig%2B_oV6A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/468ea47509d9246593730ed39b099f9c%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe88eebb-d75d-4f3a-9fa0-657f218c2802%40www.fastmail.com.