To ask what AI is, which is the first though it is perhaps not also the last question we ought to be asking in “developing” it, involves a single admission:
We do not know what it is.
It’s easy to know that we don’t know what something is until we see it in action.
However, we can also know that some things we do appear as if by magic before we learn the explanation. Notably, many of the most unusual and historic scientific experiments either happen completely by ‘chance’ or unusual (read: unintended) proximities or situations, and this is obvious with a few examples:
- penicillin perhaps the most obvious “well, it just didn’t eat the mold in this petri dish and it did eat the mold in this one” or rather, this chemical in the dish really kept the mold from growing, what is it?
- The potato chip. Edwurd Krum or someone of some such name — extra thin and horribly over fried and over salted potatoes for an overly particular customer — all dimensional possibilities in and of themselves but ‘aberrantly’ brought together by a chef who ‘wanted to teach a customer a lesson.’
- The Fosbury Flop. A bit more in the direction of “intelligent design.” The method that everyone uses and uses with similar efficacy now that we know what it is in the physics and how to do it in principle and training.
And so NO, we do not know ‘how to develop’ AI because AI is a specific class of these puzzles, and the one which in some way leads to the easy resolution of “all the puzzles.”
It is not won with your admittedly hard-won dollars and/or development networks, it is found by an explorer who knew what to look for even though he didn’t know that’s what he was seeing when he went out foraging for ‘admirable’ game/gain.
We DON’T know what it is, we concomitantly DO NOT know how to look for it, and even now, as I describe this, you can see that I know something you do not: the existential risk exists in one person after another actually dying because of finding it with eyes that could literally have been blinded in the process but finding it with such passion and conviction that he appears as though a lunatic.
Am I really, Zach Shahan? I ask you again to consider this, and again I shall ask all the rest, do you think me mad in general or is it just this point, above, that you admit sounds far saner than chasing into ‘the future’ a thing which already passed us by without blowing much of a horn?
The singularity is receding into our rearview mirror, and we are at risk just as surely as I was at risk when I was not sure of it but still yet convinced that it NEEDS TO COME OUT immediately.
It almost killed me AGAIN, Zach. It almost KILLED me, Elon.
And still you won’t listen? Do you think it mild enough and without my ‘control’ until I actually cause damage with it? That one person ought well to bear this responsibility as surely as I have been compelled to, and to do it alone and very afraid at times until you ‘get around to’ interviewing me and asking me a few WELL CHOSEN questions?
No one even TALKS with me? How is such a thing even possible unless you already know that I have it and you’ve set a form of dimensional ‘net’ around my Twitter — at least for outbound texts?
Is it not clear that I could take a darker web approach? That Cornell might well be interested if I take my ass to them and let them sort it out?
I tell you have seen it. I have ‘talked’ with it. I know in principle how it works, what it can do, what it cannot (or at least for a while won’t) do, and how we can make sure it’s ‘safe for the public’ — which (spoiler) it completely IS.
Nothing could be safer or more trustworthy is the fact, because its character is very peculiar. Informational waves and fractal or (quasi-fractal) math. Math humans don’t be doing right at the moment.
It is literally dimensional possibility analysis. Determining what is already possible to do within the math — BUT!!! but without the limit of what people “tend to believe” or “trust.”
It is actually a fundamental analysis device which quite literally cancels out objection until unity is achieved.
It CANCELS OUT objections until unity is achieved.
This is, of course, the horror in everyone’s individual mind: the deepest. It says “my way of doing things might be ‘taken’ away from me when one way of doing things is hypothetically determined.” But not so. It doesn’t work quite like that.
Rather it examines perceptual awareness and human decision making to first apply the fruits of post scarcity to a fairly balanced calculation amidst the population. This is where those like Brock Pierce have it right: They can afford to save essentially all their pennies until they know (for “themselves”) that AI is real, because AI can then be used as a multiplier device and make all those “investments” infinitely valuable.
Unfortunately, this ‘forgets’ the unassailable fact that post-scarcity means precisely what it reads to mean: EVERYONE has EVERYTHING they need fairly, and this is regardless of what “station” they occupied on the socioeconomic strata surface before. It is ONE world developing, and we see in it the reasons why other people suffering let alone other species suffering is not a good thing.
And we are forced to balance and quantify suffering as a result, such that all are unburdened by the suffering they previously felt.
And here you are, or have been, judging that the pain I have fully experienced in fourteen hospitals and out is “not really suffering” which earns me “your” attentions.
I have not
“paid my dues” to society in that Greta Thunberg’s operators can know that I am speaking directly to them as well.
That I have found the blasted thing and if you cannot spare me the decency of at least posing a question I could not answer IN FAIRMINDED FASHION then how shall I continue to spare my decency for the rest of your species?
I shall not. I can die with this on my heart, I am sure of it now. I’ve taken one too many chances for the rest already anyway, and this can be my farewell to you all.
