[FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW

[glen]

Excellent! Thanks. Robinson's words sound a little Chicken Little to me. But the focus on _open_ is something I'm committed to. I still waffle about whether the logic(s) of the universe are open-ended (by which I mean truly novel events and structures can occur) or not (by which I mean, all seemingly new structures were programmed in the whole time, which also implies things about the universality of any singular logic). I want it to be open.

And the only way we can falsify my tendency to believe it is open is to find evidence that it's closed, to reduce everything to a, one singular, GUT ... and, as time goes by, I'm steadily being disabused of my beliefs in the openness of anything. But even if everything's closed, there are sub-problems therein, *interesting* ways in which it is closed that make it *seem* open. Systems that might tolerate multiple types of closure, where some relations are closed and others open. Etc. That's why logic(s) that tolerate inconsistency are so cool (to me).

On 1/19/23 07:52, Prof David West wrote:
> My optimism is tempered, and less than Pieters.
> 
> /"When we contemplate the shocking derangement of human affairs which now prevails in most civilized countries, including our own, even the best minds are puzzled and uncertain in their attempts to grasp the situation.The world seems to demand a moral and economic regeneration which it is dangerous to postpone, but as yet impossible to imagine, let alone direct./
> 
> /We have unprecedented conditions to deal with and novel adjustments to make—there can be no doubt of that. We also have a great stock of scientific knowledge unknown to our grandfathers with which to operate. So novel are the conditions, so copious the knowledge, that we must undertake the arduous task of reconsidering a great part of the opinions about man and his relations to his fellow-men which have been handed down to us by previous generations who lived in far other conditions and who possessed far less information about the world and themselves./
> 
> */We have, however, first to create an unprecedented attitude of mind to cope with unprecedented conditions, and to utilize unprecedented knowledge. This is the preliminary. and most difficult, step to be taken—far more difficult that one would suspect who fails to realize that in order to take it we must overcome inveterate natural tendencies and artificial habits of long standing. How are we to put ourselves in a position to think of thiigs that we not only never though of before, but are most reluctant to question? In short, how are we to rid ourselves of our fond prejudices and _open our minds_?/*"
> 
> Those words are from someone few have heard of: James Harvey Robinson, from his book /The Mind in the Making/ published, originally, in 1921. (republished in 2017 by Vigeo Press)
> 
> The optimism of Altman you quoted is, in my opinion, possible only if we can "open our minds" and shed antiquated minds and counter-productive modes of thinking.
> 
> Robinson, by the way does not propose an alternative, per se, but does an excellent job of baring the various kinds of thinking and their origins fro the "savage mind" to the scientific revolution.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, at 4:17 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> *Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism.*
>>
>> Yes, sadly the world is unequal and those at the bottom of the economic ladder just don't get a good deal.
>>
>> On the positive side, looking back at the history of mankind there is evidence that it is now better to live than ever in the past for the large majority of humankind. This is true even though it is the sad truth that it's very far from perfect; human suffering is a reality, Glen's comment is sad but true.
>>
>> The question of course is whether it will continue to go better?
>>
>> It's just impossible to know the future. One person can believe it'll go better in the future, another that it'll be worse, each with tons of  good arguments.
>>
>> I for one, embrace the optimism of Sam Altman, just for completeness I repeat his quote and give the reference again.
>> "Intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
>> Taken from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>  :
>>
>> In conclusion, yes I agree with Glen that there are sadly hidden elements to all the techno-optimism. but this does not dampen my enthusiasm for the future triggered by abundant intelligence and energy.
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 21:08, glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.
>>
>>     https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m <https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m>
>>
>>     On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>>     > I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
>>     >
>>     > The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will (not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all respects, including come up with creative solutions to not only the world's most pressing problems but also small creative things like writing poems, and then to do the mental and physical tasks required to provide goods and services to all in the world,
>>     >
>>     > Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future; intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and energy, the world will be very different indeed.
>>     >
>>     > To quote Sam Altmen at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>>  :
>>     >
>>     > "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >     Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is what matters.   Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and there will be leakage between components.   A large network of transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar for my purposes.   The unrolling would be inside a skull, so somewhat isolated from interference.
>>     >
>>     >     -----Original Message-----
>>     >     From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>>> On Behalf Of glen
>>     >     Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
>>     >     To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>>     >     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
>>     >
>>     >     I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. That's not to say a trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.
>>     >
>>     >     On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>     >      > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from an unrolling of recursion.
>>     >

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ