We often describe society in terms of roles: leaders, workers, users, creators. A linguistic analogy can shed new light on these structures: the grammar of a sentence. In grammar, we typically find: The subject: the actor, the one performing the action. The verb: the action, or the organizing dynamic. The...
Summary: (entertainment,music,dance,art,etc.) is not life is bad (health,capabilities,etc.) is life is good Humans do not engage that much in those activities but what if we could completely remove them? - Dance is using human physical energy to perform motions that do not lead to increased possibilities. Even mating dances, which...
1. Bayesian thinking It litterally was n°1 in my list, I was really happy to find this website, will not detail. 2. Active ignorance/avoidance and selective attention/participation Instead of thinking, commenting, or saying something is stupid/bad, ignore/block it and just talk about the other thing that is better. Because just...
Reminds me of Maslow's pyramid.
I made an article about values, saying the supreme value is life and every other value derives from it.
Watch out, this most probably does not align with your view at first glance:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xx3St4KC3KHHPGfL9/human-alignment
We often describe society in terms of roles: leaders, workers, users, creators. A linguistic analogy can shed new light on these structures: the grammar of a sentence.
In grammar, we typically find:
The subject: the actor, the one performing the action.
The verb: the action, or the organizing dynamic.
The object: what the action is directed toward.
Now map this onto a feudal society (or any rigid hierarchy):
The king or ruler functions as the verb — the source of direction, the one who organizes meaning and action.
The subjects (citizens, workers) play the role of grammatical subjects — they carry out the action, often on behalf of the verb.
The objects are the resources, tools, and sometimes (unfortunately) people... (read 184 more words →)
Utility is defined by values, the supreme value being life. I tried to talk about this in my last post and I was downvoted into oblivion.
Humans do not engage that much in those activities but what if we could completely remove them?
- Dance is using human physical energy to perform motions that do not lead to increased possibilities. Even mating dances, which are good for individual life but not overall life.
- Music is using human mental energy to process sounds, that does not lead to increased possibilities. Not even counting music creation.
- Art is using human physical and mental energy that does not lead to increased possibilities. It is different from the idea of art as execution mastery that can be useful.
- Entertainment is bad because it is... (read 212 more words →)
Human here,
Agreed, reminds me of the ship of Theseus paradox, if all your cells are replaced in your body, are you still the same? (We don't care)
Also reminds me of my favourite short piece of writing: the last question by Asimov.
The only important things are the things/ideas that help life, the latter can only exist as selected reflections by intelligent beings.
I think how the takeover rolls out boils down to a simple energy consumption/creation analysis. AI will let humans do their thing only if their electric energy consumption is negligible. Else it will compete for those resources and win as AI is cheaper (not in energy but in money) and faster computationally-wise.
In other words, humans have to create a new abundant source of electric energy before AGI, or humans will lose means of subsistance.
Exactly my thoughts reading the article.
But then how to define complexity, where to stop context of a thing?
Also, complexity without meaning is just chaos, so complexity assumes a goal, a negentropy, a life.
example of complexity context definition issue:
Computers only exist in a world were humans created them, should human complexity be included in computer complexity? Or can we envision a reality where computers appeared without humans?
This article reveals the little things (maybe complexes) that the author and spreaders have. Sometimes confusing high-status and being bad person.