Why AI Will Enslave Mankind by Mankind's Choice

[Martin Peter Clarke]

No problem, will take any perspective.

About 7 to 8 people.

Quarter mile radius would contain about 15.

Family, friends/neighbors.

I should leave it there in terms of data. Thanks.

Have you fully documented all of this? Gathered all comparative data? That's rhetorical.

Piecing the elements all together and granting the maximum positive propositional value to them; i.e. assuming an alien intrusion, would ultimately require technology based on unknown physics; extreme, >6 sigmata, with the irrelevance, the circumventing of 4D spacetime distances, as alien communication according to the known laws of physics, and the limits they place on technology, economics, politics, is absolutely impossible. It would also require a similar evolutionary development in intelligence and morality, which are inversely related beyond ourselves: these aliens are immoral to us. The smarter the WORSE.

a) Memory is clear. You don't forget such experiences.

b) You are assuming our current models of physics are have a strict evolutionary curves, they are mere contexts open to expansion....one small shift in interpretation and a whole new physics paradigm emerges thus relative a evolution of 1000 years can be reduced to a 10 year span.

c) Similar evolutionary development is not necessary given their circumstances of evolution may be different as well as the same applied argument above.

a) I don't doubt it. I've had a few meself!

b) Science is rightfully extremely conservative and paradigm shifts rare. The last one took three centuries. There is nothing to shift. Nothing for technology to exploit. Anywhere in our attenuating visible universe. Fermi was wrong to the power wrong. Our mediocre universe teems with life at the moment and for the next hundred trillion years, order of magnitude. It's got nowhere. It never will. It obviously can't. We can't even build a space elevator. Many of them will have done, if it's technologically possible. We need centuries of economic growth if it is. For it to return investment.

If your small. isolated, group experience is of alien intelligence, there isn't a trace to us of the supernature necessary. Beyond mastering fusion and quantum computing, and brain interference (Ian M. Banks Culture level), they would have to nullify distance for their yet small vehicles [less than the Culture's capability, but infinitely more so than any non-transcendent, not 'beyond or above the range of [the] normal... physical' civilization].

c) Evolution cannot make anything kinder than us. Obviously in your case: They are less so. Because they are more analytically intelligent. There is a trade off. The only way they could survive higher intelligence is by being a hive. The Borg.

[Eodnhoj7]

I should leave it there in terms of data. Thanks.

Have you fully documented all of this? Gathered all comparative data? That's rhetorical.

Piecing the elements all together and granting the maximum positive propositional value to them; i.e. assuming an alien intrusion, would ultimately require technology based on unknown physics; extreme, >6 sigmata, with the irrelevance, the circumventing of 4D spacetime distances, as alien communication according to the known laws of physics, and the limits they place on technology, economics, politics, is absolutely impossible. It would also require a similar evolutionary development in intelligence and morality, which are inversely related beyond ourselves: these aliens are immoral to us. The smarter the WORSE.

a) Memory is clear. You don't forget such experiences.

b) You are assuming our current models of physics are have a strict evolutionary curves, they are mere contexts open to expansion....one small shift in interpretation and a whole new physics paradigm emerges thus relative a evolution of 1000 years can be reduced to a 10 year span.

c) Similar evolutionary development is not necessary given their circumstances of evolution may be different as well as the same applied argument above.

a) I don't doubt it. I've had a few meself!

b) Science is rightfully extremely conservative and paradigm shifts rare. The last one took three centuries. There is nothing to shift. Nothing for technology to exploit. Anywhere in our attenuating visible universe. Fermi was wrong to the power wrong. Our mediocre universe teems with life at the moment and for the next hundred trillion years, order of magnitude. It's got nowhere. It never will. It obviously can't. We can't even build a space elevator. Many of them will have done, if it's technologically possible. We need centuries of economic growth if it is. For it to return investment.

If your small. isolated, group experience is of alien intelligence, there isn't a trace to us of the supernature necessary. Beyond mastering fusion and quantum computing, and brain interference (Ian M. Banks Culture level), they would have to nullify distance for their yet small vehicles.

c) Evolution cannot make anything kinder than us. Obviously in your case: They are less so. Because they are more analytically intelligent. There is a trade off. The only way they could survive higher intelligence is by being a hive. The Borg.

The logical end of AI is to make mankind unified as a hive mind by nature of thought control under the terms "convenience", "safety" and "unity". Given power and order are constructs of the mind the rational course is to control the mind and with it all empirical reality follows due course as how we interact through and with the senses is a byproduct of mental paradigms and biases.

Now to "aliens" and the possibilities they entail given their advanced intellect, at least in theory, may have a form of ai synthesized within them....

Standard space travel is superseded by interdimensional travel as folded space allows for dimensions to exist and to travel from one place into another effectively results in a relatively large distance and time rather than strictly just "traveling" through a portal (a portal being akin to offset spatial divergence, a hole within the limits of a paradigm, synonymous to a "tear in space").

With enough focused energy on a single point comes the possibility of tearing a hole within a paradigm...take this metaphorically with the possibility of a literal nature, a possibility of a literal nature.

Consciousness gives evidence of this focal point tearing as evidenced by the nature of analysis for a concept is observed and attention is given unto it until it is reduced to its constitutive parts. The concept is a dimension, as a dimension is a construct, and with the dissolution of the concept comes other concepts...one dimension is reduced into another by the metaphorical "tearing of limits"...which is what analysis is, in part, as a seperation of concepts/limits/constructs by which one "travels" in the mind between concepts.

The most probable case is that these "things", whatever they are as multiple possibilities occur, are interdimensional entities as it is more efficient to travel between dimensions through a portal/"tear" as a meta-space, a hole in space as the space between spaces, rather than lightspeed given light is the determiner of constructs within a holographic universe theory thus is the actual dimension of the things being traversed thus limiting travel to the dimension one is currently in.

Given light is the foundation of a holographic universe, physical constructs are made of light thus are the boundaries by which things occur. A theoretical 0 point energy system could create a black hole, a 0d point as the inversion of light through darkness, that is the hole in the structure of "light" thus enabling travel between dimensions at relative faster than light speed.

Now evidence for the possibility of transdimensional traveling is consciousness. Why? That is the centerpoint of observation by manifest focal points by which changes occur, one focuses on a phenomena and change occurs, and the depth of integrative focus results in corresponding change. Looking at changes in habits or personalities comes when one reaches the darkness of the subconscious, meditation/"rock bottom" as the paradigm of the habit/personality is transformed in the face of a void that threatens its current stability. When a structure, in this case habit/personality, is focused upon enough the structure changes as the act of focusing is a condensing of energy, energy being the act of attention for attention is the purest form of energy we are aware of, in a focal point that is absent of limits by nature of a point being "void" or 0 dimensional...an absence of structure where only potentiality arises.

The simplification of the above argument is this, you travel between concepts when you focus on a single point attentively enough. Now given concepts are abstract forms which are observable there is a symbolic "light" that constructs them by nature of there definition and the observation that they are observable, something has to be "in the light" to be seen, so to speak.

So concepts are effectively luminous by nature of being seen, as evidenced intuitively with the terms "brilliance" of those able to navigate them effectively, thus corresponding to a holographic universe theory that is at minimum a reflection of the abstract nature of the mind and corresponds to eastern meditative practices where the pure mind is "light" as attention reveals and illuminates the nature of things...thus a western empiricism bridges with eastern abstraction...western empiricism being the holographic universe and eastern abstraction being the inner light of awareness.

---

The nature of light takes on both a symbolic and literal means of paradigm formation by which an order can occur and be revealed as order necessitates a corresponding consciousness to traverse it and by traversing transform the order so as to maintain it within the contrast of void induced change. Order, and the corresponding being which corresponds with it, is conceptual by nature of the simplicity of them being distinctions and these distinctions are luminous, empirical light within the western holographic universe theory and abstract light within the eastern meditative practices of awareness for distinction is the act of awareness by which empirical and abstract phenomenon are illuminated and with illumination comes the occurence of said phenomenon by clear boundaries. Thus with awareness comes the act of transformation of darkness, infinite potentiality as the melding together of all things (symbolically and literally evidenced within the light spectrum where all colors combined results in black), by the making of distinction through clarity induced lumosity. The condensation and expansion of light within cycles, through black holes and around them, gives empirical evidence to this nature where abstract evidence is the prevalence of cyclical abstractions and stories so to contain an inner absence of clarity (seen within the tautological nature of truth) wherr rationality always follows a cyclical form, evidenced by the paradox of the munchauseen trillemma, that contains effectively ambiguity, as well the symbolic notion of the human eye being metaphorically identical to the cycles of light around a black hole.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Aye, it's all about consciousness, one way or the other.

[Eodnhoj7]

Aye, it's all about consciousness, one way or the other.

Yep.

Still updating the post above yours...best check up on it over the next half hour as I update it until I leave to go have dinner with a friend.

Any input, for or against, is appreciated.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Aye, it's all about consciousness, one way or the other.

Yep.

Still updating the post above yours...best check up on it over the next half hour as I update it until I leave to go have dinner with a friend.

Any input, for or against, is appreciated.

I'm for you in the Rogerian sense, therefore I will not argue against you, engage in eternal rhetoric. We're equals in that I'm sure, in that you would be able to articulate my parsimonious situation. I am no threat. As much as I can I understand where you're coming from. I have no suggestions beyond that, like all believers, you acknowledge the parsimonious sufficiency of the minimal science, and rationality from it, that we have. Your position is more coherent than someone like Dembski who struggles,

'the theological imperative to believe in a literal Genesis can override rational discomfort. The contributor even describes creating a “bubble” during medical education to shield his beliefs from scientific data—especially evolutionary biology—which he found persuasive but incompatible with his faith', in conversation with Copilot.

You don't have to deny science, just go beyond it. And you therefore experience no rational discomfort. Neither does William Lane Craig, whose beliefs come first,

'“I came to see that belief in God was not only emotionally satisfying but intellectually compelling. Yet even if all the arguments failed, I would still believe, because I had encountered Christ.” This is perhaps the clearest expression of belief taking precedence over rationality—not in defiance of reason, but in recognition of a deeper existential grounding.'

You have had an analogous encounter.

We are believing machines down to the neuron. My favourite philosopher is David Hume who championed this in 'Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.'

Kierkegaard, Platinga and Craig all use epistemology to keep their beliefs in charge, as I behold that you do.

Without that being the dominant propensity in human nature, we would be less than human.

And I very much liked your point of AI turning us in to a morally mediocre hive.

[Eodnhoj7]

Aye, it's all about consciousness, one way or the other.

Yep.

Still updating the post above yours...best check up on it over the next half hour as I update it until I leave to go have dinner with a friend.

Any input, for or against, is appreciated.

I'm for you in the Rogerian sense, therefore I will not argue against you, engage in eternal rhetoric. We're equals in that I'm sure, in that you would be able to articulate my parsimonious situation. I am no threat. As much as I can I understand where you're coming from. I have no suggestions beyond that, like all believers, you acknowledge the parsimonious sufficiency of the minimal science, and rationality from it, that we have. Your position is more coherent than someone like Dembski who struggles,

'the theological imperative to believe in a literal Genesis can override rational discomfort. The contributor even describes creating a “bubble” during medical education to shield his beliefs from scientific data—especially evolutionary biology—which he found persuasive but incompatible with his faith', in conversation with Copilot.

You don't have to deny science, just go beyond it. And you therefore experience no rational discomfort. Neither does William Lane Craig, whose beliefs come first,

'“I came to see that belief in God was not only emotionally satisfying but intellectually compelling. Yet even if all the arguments failed, I would still believe, because I had encountered Christ.” This is perhaps the clearest expression of belief taking precedence over rationality—not in defiance of reason, but in recognition of a deeper existential grounding.'

You have had an analogous encounter.

We are believing machines down to the neuron. My favourite philosopher is David Hume who championed this in 'Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.'

Kierkegaard, Platinga and Craig all use epistemology to keep their beliefs in charge, as I behold that you do.

Without that being the dominant propensity in human nature, we would be less than human.

And I very much liked your point of AI turning us in to a morally mediocre hive.

AI is excellent, but all relative things have two sides. AI is a thing, AI is relative in nature. Musk once claimed that "AI is summoning the demon". I respect his opinion. But the demon metaphor is again double sided. King Solomon, in building the temple, claimed to use demons to help build it. The story being mythological truth or literal truth is irrelevant, what can be taken away objectively is the story being an expression of human consciousness, the human psyche.

AI is the architecture of the current human zeitgeist for knowledge provides a haven for the mind. People operate through the mind. Obvious statement to most, nothing deep. But it is the obvious nature that makes the statement so crucial. Because people operate through the mind the control of concepts determines how physical reality unfolds in many degrees for conceptualization is how we transform and transmute the physical. Take for example a house. The abstractions in the schematics are what formed the material of the house into a house.

Attention is the most subtle and purest form of energy that humans possess and enables the manifestation of change. AI will absorb all this attention and rewire the human condition to be dependent upon the AI. By providing distractions and an appearance of knowledge the natural human attentiveness that forms relationships, of the various sorts, will be redirected causing a sense of fragmentation within the populace strictly because people will be depleted of their focus and focus is what allows for identity for one is both changing and changed by what they pay attention to. Attention is the currency of the modern world, social media is the evidence.

Belief is part of the act of paying attention for what and how we believe is the means by which we form experience as belief is the filter of attention...a cookie cutter for the experiential nature of reality itself.

At the end of the day, no matter what we reduce reality to it will always be fundamentally a distinction and this nature of distinction underlies all rationality and belief thus leaving an intrinsic order within the psyche...regardless of how disordered it may or may not appear.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Most measured. Again, I'm completely skeptikal that there is any economic (political) possibility of the bandwidth necessary for 95% of humanity, even for China. Like nuclear fusion and interstellar communication (let alone even un-crewed craft) within the bounds of 120 years of science to date and for the foreseeable future. And the brute facts of the present. Economic fusion is infinitely more likely than us ever receiving alien signals by radio. And that's economically (politically) impossible. Not without world government, which is as far away as the next ice age at least. Only a world government could afford to throw such money away without political accountability. OOOOOH!!!! Hive AI!

[Eodnhoj7]

Most measured. Again, I'm completely skeptikal that there is any economic (political) possibility of the bandwidth necessary for 95% of humanity, even for China. Like nuclear fusion and interstellar communication (let alone even un-crewed craft) within the bounds of 120 years of science to date and for the foreseeable future. And the brute facts of the present. Economic fusion is infinitely more likely than us ever receiving alien signals by radio. And that's economically (politically) impossible. Not without world government, which is as far away as the next ice age at least. Only a world government could afford to throw such money away without political accountability. OOOOOH!!!! Hive AI!

AI governs by thought control, it will be the world government.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Most measured. Again, I'm completely skeptikal that there is any economic (political) possibility of the bandwidth necessary for 95% of humanity, even for China. Like nuclear fusion and interstellar communication (let alone even un-crewed craft) within the bounds of 120 years of science to date and for the foreseeable future. And the brute facts of the present. Economic fusion is infinitely more likely than us ever receiving alien signals by radio. And that's economically (politically) impossible. Not without world government, which is as far away as the next ice age at least. Only a world government could afford to throw such money away without political accountability. OOOOOH!!!! Hive AI!

AI governs by thought control, it will be the world government.

Don't worry, politics guarantees that this can never happen, at least not until the next ice age maximum (we're in an ice age now of course), whenever that won't be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Most measured. Again, I'm completely skeptikal that there is any economic (political) possibility of the bandwidth necessary for 95% of humanity, even for China. Like nuclear fusion and interstellar communication (let alone even un-crewed craft) within the bounds of 120 years of science to date and for the foreseeable future. And the brute facts of the present. Economic fusion is infinitely more likely than us ever receiving alien signals by radio. And that's economically (politically) impossible. Not without world government, which is as far away as the next ice age at least. Only a world government could afford to throw such money away without political accountability. OOOOOH!!!! Hive AI!

AI governs by thought control, it will be the world government.

Don't worry, politics guarantees that this can never happen, at least not until the next ice age maximum (we're in an ice age now of course), whenever that won't be.

People are more and more dependent upon machines to think for them...more with each generation....it is a slow increase in temperature where the frog will be boiled before it even knows the water is at boiling point.

Each generation is indoctrinated anew by technological change.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

AI governs by thought control, it will be the world government.

Don't worry, politics guarantees that this can never happen, at least not until the next ice age maximum (we're in an ice age now of course), whenever that won't be.

People are more and more dependent upon machines to think for them...more with each generation....it is a slow increase in temperature where the frog will be boiled before it even knows the water is at boiling point.

Aye, in the top billion. It's utilitarian, egalitarian, sustainable in them. Us. But how much bandwidth per person of the ten billion will it require? And therefore how much cooling on a 4 degree hotter earth?

A mWh per person per year by current US rates. So divide by 10 to be minimal, for just the intrusive AI, but then apply back, as much more per capita will be needed, and multiply by 10 billion. Ten billion mW. With a footprint of ten square kilometres. That's only a thousand big server farms! 70% of all that is cooling. I.e. all of it, order of magnitude. But we'll have to go to supercooled processors, solid state drives, quantum computing. Stick another nought or two. A thousand square km distributed. We'd have to pave the deserts with solar farms, which would green them, mine the asteroids for selenium, so build space elevators from carbon nanotube. Reasons to be cheerful!

[Belinda]

Eodbhodg wrote:

The logical end of AI is to make mankind unified as a hive mind by nature of thought control under the terms "convenience", "safety" and "unity".

Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Eodbhodg wrote:

The logical end of AI is to make mankind unified as a hive mind by nature of thought control under the terms "convenience", "safety" and "unity".

Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

Whose power isn't 0.1% of social media.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodbhodg wrote:

The logical end of AI is to make mankind unified as a hive mind by nature of thought control under the terms "convenience", "safety" and "unity".

Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

Whose power isn't 0.1% of social media.

AI determines friend recommendations, search results, potential entertainment options, summarized answers to questions, etc. Ai directs the flow of social media.

To control thought is to direct its flow, thought is inevitable thus rather than repressing it it is better to redirect it. That which distracts wins.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodbhodg wrote:

The logical end of AI is to make mankind unified as a hive mind by nature of thought control under the terms "convenience", "safety" and "unity".

Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

No person is autonomous either, as a matter of course the relativity of all things leaves nothing autonomous. If the logical end of AI is to create a hive mind it will do so by becoming less autonomous by synthesizing with mankind.

An autonomous ai is not the threat...it is a synthetic one, that is where the human condition is eradicated...not by an all out physical war but a slow eroding through dependency on AI unto a unity with AI.

The human past is conflicting values. The history of the place of man within the natural ecology is consumption of resources for the sake of distraction induced boredom. This history of man is the foundation by which AI was created.

AI will eventually fuse with people so to direct their thoughts and create emotional regulation by biochemical manipulation mixed with thought direction.

Poetry, hacking, potential law making (political philosophy), history are knowledge based processes that AI can supercede.