Re: Beg your pardon? (Was: Teach the hungry)

Dan Fabulich (
Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:13:40 -0400

J. Maxwell Legg wrote:

I know about that. You still have to spell this out for me. I still don't see how many-worlds relates to AI in any way that it doesn't also relate to anything else that makes entropy.

>However, I'm leaning towards the idea that maybe a quark-like thingy can
>backwards and forwards through time to stitch up coincidental cause and
effect though
>not necessarily in that order. In other words, an awful lot of historical
>will have to have been created in order to knock out a simple software
idea who's
>time has come.
>To see this simple software idea -

This software idea is so simple that I don't see how it relates to our conversation at all, except possibly to the extent that we might think of it as a primitive form of AI.

>More to the point, look at the way my email is slopped around, not only on
>list but all throughout the course of unmediated human communication. Thread
>meltdown occurs as easily as subject headings getting changed willy nilly.
>the Skull & Bones storm troopers come out of the woodwork to slay perceived
>dragons, information loss is the result.

<sigh> You're bringing up topics before you're explaining them; your use of metaphor isn't helping me here.

Are you referring to the secret society "Skull & Bones" of which former president George Bush was a member? How does Skull & Bones "slay a perceived dragon," as you put it, and how does that result in information loss? What does the activity of Skull & Bones and/or the loss of certain information have to do with AI? I presume that it relates to m-w in that the loss of information represents an irreversible process. Moreover, beyond the fact that S&B has an agenda, what does any of THAT have to do with accounting?

>With all this undisciplined communication
>all that is likely to happen is that we will continue to jabber on while
the super
>intelligent AI networks surpass any efforts at human control. However this
>have to be the case. As you know, I have an expressed interest in the future
>development of feedback loops via continuously adjusted summaries of all
>encompassing global activities.

I didn't know that, nor do I know what sort of feedback loops you had in mind. Continuously adjusted summaries of all encompassing global activities? I have no clear idea as to what this is; I have even less of an idea as to why it would be useful.

>Don't like what's going on here? Need a soapbox? Have a beef about
something or other
>then this will be your chance to have a say in the making of new global

What will? What's "this?"

>I envision a transitional and arbitrary global government based on a one
size fits all
>qualitative statistical mediator which works with synaptic units relative
to the
>components at hand where the results of each neuronomy (my word) affect
the operation
>of super ordinate constructions and vise versa.

What exactly do you mean by a "qualitative statistical mediator?" What's a "super ordinate construction?"

>Best of all, I don't have to lift a
>finger because it's already happening anyway. This is not just some
utopian concept
>and because of the practicality of now causally linking the billions of
>isolated clusters of information the result would be a conscious
reflection about the

In short, super-AI will read everything, know everything we can know, process all the information, and deal with it accordingly. Yes?

>Hopefully, it would be to this common sense that super intelligences will
>initially look for their source of identity and motivation, so in a sense
we can
>control them by providing their ideal self image. Hopefully this image
will reflect
>human effectiveness. There will be lots of daunting realities that may remain
>as unconscious elements however these will not be forgotten and should be
able to
>re-surface as conditions change.

Here again you lose me. How will super-intelligences get a self image? Where did common sense come in here? Why should we hope that it will "reflect human effectiveness?" What sort of daunting realities will remain as unconscious elements in a super-intelligent mind?

>The biggest hurdle to acceptance of such a form is not the criminal or
deviant abuser
>though their numbers will drastically shrink, but in aspiring to the
rational hope
>that such an active global mediator can handle the problems of economic
>at all levels and in fact do away with the use scarcity money for exchange
or to store
>value. From the individual to the group much the same software in all its
guises will
>be on hand to act as an intellectual collaborator for going right at the
fabric of
>life as well as guiding the individual through later uploading processes.

Right, now, let me clear something up. Would humans in this case be external to the AI, or synaptic-like-units which comprise the AI?

> So a "superior" form of neural network (unsupervised, presumably?) would be
> coordinated by/with/through AI? I take it you're presuming that AI will
> come in the form of a neural-like network or some other complex information
> processor. The impression I'm getting then is that people will turn on the
> Internet-or-something to find out what they need to do today (possibly
> wiring straight into the wet ware so that they're actually thinking with
> the net themselves). Am I close so far?
>A reserved "Yes" to the above, except that needs and wants are necessarily
>as different processes.

This sentance is very unclear. Do you mean that [needs] and [wants] are undertaken as different processes from each other? Or do you mean that [needs and wants] are undertaken as different processes than something else which you have only intimated?

And for that matter, how are needs and wants "undertaken" in the first place?

>The present economic drivers may/will still be active but there
>will also be so many more all using the same forms of abstraction and
delving into those
>hard to get at bionomic and personal areas that the methods of reporting
the same and
>the motivation for doing so will be so unlike what restricted capitalism
offers, so much so,
>that the means of transactional measurement should at least for clarity's
sake not be
>called money.

Economic drivers? You mean things that drive the economy, like needs and wants? Or something different? And what other sorts of "drivers" might appear? What do you mean by forms of abstraction and delving into bionomic (do you really mean ecological?) and personal areas? How do you report a bionomic area? What WILL be the motivation for doing so?

>Don't forget that no land area on earth is presently exempt from the
>totalitarian concept of money and that exchanging one concept for another
at particular
>moments in history has been done before.

As a point of interest, this is a terrible abuse of the term "totalitarian." Most totalitarians throughout history have, in fact, been socialists. I suggest you stick to the tried and true term "tyrannical," if you insist on calling it a system of domination. But at any rate...

>Like I said before the world's rulers are on
>record as wanting to ultimately do away with capitalism and currency
speculation. Let's
>give them this part of what they want with the added rider that they then
forget about
>the continuing to rule bit.

Erm, in general, this is why I tend to oppose those who want to get rid of money: they want to impose a leader to dictate economic activity instead. It seems unlikely that any of these rulers will forget about that, since eliminating money is really extrinsic to their goal of total world domination.

"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to eliminate capitalism and set up a neuronomy!" Or something.

> >The literature of nonmonotonic relativity/clustering techniques shows
up the
> >skewed injustice of price coercion and other new connectionist models
have been
> >around long enough for these comparisons to have been noticed even by the
> >accounting community.
> I have no clear idea at all what this sentence means.
> Relativity/clustering techniques? Are you referring to the way in which
> income equality is measured? There's a lot of different people and ways of
> thinking that call themselves "connectionist." What do YOU mean here?
>No, I'm referring to the way in which clusters of information need to
maintain a set of
>measurements applicable to type and where the same measurements can be
used in
>other classifications. For example, at certain levels of abstraction the
numbers 1 trough 5
>could be used to represent the qualitative value of everything providing
the element
>being measured was in the correct context. In another example, a needs
analysis would
>register the appropriate amount of information to cause an action. I don't
>the need to restrict the use of these numerical abstractions because of a
>of bits and there won't need to have an income of bits allotted as each
>abstraction will not subtract from a pool like money does in capitalism. Each
>abstraction will be a reflection amongst larger and larger circulations.
>this is my view of a positive sum economy or what I now term a neuronomy.
Get it?

No, not at all. I haven't the foggiest idea what you're referring to in this paragraph.

Here, lets try a thought experiment. Suppose you've got a two person economy, Alice and Bob. Alice has an apple which she happens to value less than Bob values the apple.

Now, in capitalism, Bob will pay Alice for the apple, thus maximizing value and resulting in economic efficiency in the Marshallian sense. This process is scalable to all kinds of economic activity.

Now, suppose Alice and Bob had chosen to reject capitalism and instead operate under a neuronomy. What would happen? What would they do? How would it work?

>Also, there is a common acceptance of what represents old connectionism
and new
>connectionism. I understand basically that perceptrons were of the old
kind and
>PCA / radial basis functions are of the newer. What is being looked for is
>layers and more inferencing.

What I'm looking for is fewer buzzwords and more content. ;) You're using terms I know in ways that don't seem to make sense in this context. What do you mean here?

> What sort of binding are you referring to here? I'm not aware of Brin
> approaching a problem like what you're describing.
>No, seriously!

You are not being serious, except to the extent that you are using metonomy to use Windows 95/98's Internet network drivers to represent the protocols of all forms of communication. If so, you have not made this clear. Please try to avoid metaphor in your expository prose; it's driving me up the wall. :)

>The bindings I refer to will make use of particular information a known
>event to the other parties concerned. In other words the little guy will
automatically be
>afforded knowledge of how his personal data is being used by government and

What does this have to do with WINSOCK.DLL?