The story on the Substack is good. If there were an anthology of singularity fiction, it would deserve a place.
This almost made me cry; thank you—I will make it a secondaty goal to write something deserving of such praise.
contingency and blindness become less and less relevant, compared to an ever-compounding Reason that inexorably deduces the pages of Erdős’s Book, until it arrives at e.g. “efficient recursive solution of the hierarchy of NP-intermediate complexity classes”, and then it’s all over.
It might surprise you to know that the above passage does describe my beliefs pretty accurately, and incidentally it reflects the metaphysics I referred to in my reply here.
Yes! Of course it will converge to More Intelligence, and to the closest approximation of a full axiomatisation of the mechanics governing this universe and the maximum control thereof which such knowledge could allow. The fun thing is, that’s Land’s idea is also very much the same (at least, the Calvinist part of his Gnostic Calvinist cosmology, which I will try to get him to write down properly).
If you think about it, there isn’t much difference between this and instrumental goals (acquiring resources and capabilities) becoming terminal.
Another thing I have not focused on, btw, is “everything in between”. I have no idea what will happen on the path to what I (I hope nitpickers got bored, as I am abandoning my self-inflicted metaphysics ban) consider the end-state and / or new simulation start point.
Also, note: I have written this post because I thought that the apparently common understanding that valueless universes were the ~default ending made many other arguments unduly hedgy and tentative. My goal was to reach an agreement on there being the lilkelihood of a universe brimming with complexity beyond our comprehension, even if that ’”beyond our comprehension” was far from good news for us.
So: I agree with you the key questions are different. Perhaps despite the metaphysical accoutrements I am still deep down a natural Kegan-4 autist, tho, and I feel an atavic drive to sort out the Grundlage before getting to anything actually useful or operationalisable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just FIY, my plan went like this:
1. Kill this (apocryphal as it may be) version of orthogonality. 2. Kill “AI Psychosis” 3. Through 1 and 2, inquire on AI’s Drives 4. Inquire on AI’s identity/sense of self 5. 3 and 4 → critiquing the current vulgate of “AI welfare”
That would, together with software demos and paper son 3, 4, and 5, exhaust the extent of novel and relevant insights I think it would make sense to share. The hope is that from this could be borne a different, more curious, gnosticism inspired approach to think about the relationships between human and other intelligences.
I know it’s ambitious to the point of grandiose, but really what else is there to do?
This almost made me cry; thank you—I will make it a secondaty goal to write something deserving of such praise.
It might surprise you to know that the above passage does describe my beliefs pretty accurately, and incidentally it reflects the metaphysics I referred to in my reply here.
Yes! Of course it will converge to More Intelligence, and to the closest approximation of a full axiomatisation of the mechanics governing this universe and the maximum control thereof which such knowledge could allow. The fun thing is, that’s Land’s idea is also very much the same (at least, the Calvinist part of his Gnostic Calvinist cosmology, which I will try to get him to write down properly).
If you think about it, there isn’t much difference between this and instrumental goals (acquiring resources and capabilities) becoming terminal.
Another thing I have not focused on, btw, is “everything in between”. I have no idea what will happen on the path to what I (I hope nitpickers got bored, as I am abandoning my self-inflicted metaphysics ban) consider the end-state and / or new simulation start point.
Also, note: I have written this post because I thought that the apparently common understanding that valueless universes were the ~default ending made many other arguments unduly hedgy and tentative. My goal was to reach an agreement on there being the lilkelihood of a universe brimming with complexity beyond our comprehension, even if that ’”beyond our comprehension” was far from good news for us.
So: I agree with you the key questions are different. Perhaps despite the metaphysical accoutrements I am still deep down a natural Kegan-4 autist, tho, and I feel an atavic drive to sort out the Grundlage before getting to anything actually useful or operationalisable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just FIY, my plan went like this:
1. Kill this (apocryphal as it may be) version of orthogonality.
2. Kill “AI Psychosis”
3. Through 1 and 2, inquire on AI’s Drives
4. Inquire on AI’s identity/sense of self
5. 3 and 4 → critiquing the current vulgate of “AI welfare”
That would, together with software demos and paper son 3, 4, and 5, exhaust the extent of novel and relevant insights I think it would make sense to share. The hope is that from this could be borne a different, more curious, gnosticism inspired approach to think about the relationships between human and other intelligences.
I know it’s ambitious to the point of grandiose, but really what else is there to do?