- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: lies (AI super intelligences)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:34:44 +0100
From: Amir Taaki <genjix@???>
To: Cody R Wilson <codywilson@???>
CC: Jaromil <jaromil@???>, Mihai Alisie
<mihai@???>, Jamileh T <xiaziyna@???>, Mike
Gogulski <mike@???>, Pavol Luptak <wilder@???>, "Margus
w. Meigo" <Margus.Meigo@???>, Joerg Platzer <joerg@???>,
Andrew Miller <amiller@???>, Nicolás Mendoza
<nicolasmendo@???>, Bruno Gola <brunogola@???>, Juraj
Bednar <juraj@???>, Matej Kvocera <matej.kvocera@???>,
Nina Gazire <ninagazire@???>,
"contact@???" <contact@???>,
"justinbporter@???" <justinbporter@???>, Johnny Teatent
<occupyteatent@???>, Birgitta Jonsdottir <birgittajoy@???>

The prevailing view about AI is some kind of technological singularity
that develops a high level of consciousness.

I posit a different hypothesis. I posit that as tools augment human
intelligence with multiplicative effects (think enhancing our faculties
x1000), that large scale high bandwidth networks emerge.

These networks exhibit emergent behaviours at larger scales. An analogy
is to think how our cells harnessed and caged another organism
(mitochondria) for generating oxygen. Mechanisms which self-profilerate
become popular (i.e are selected for), and cause self-sustaining
behaviour and abstract reasoning.

Draw your attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox#Naive_set_theory

We will examine the set:

X = {x | (x in x) -> Y}

Here's the proof:

(X in X) <=> ((X in X) -> Y)

Our defined set in the first line says that the set X which belongs to
the set X (i.e itself, X = (X in X)) implies the causal statement in our
definition ((X in X) -> Y).

(X in X) -> Y

Since we had a chain in the second step like (X in X) -> (X in X) -> Y,
we can contract that to simply (X in X) -> Y.

((X in X) -> Y) -> (X in X)

The second line where we used the <=> symbol, indicated a 2 way
relationship. We went to the right ->, while now we're going back to the
<- left.

So from that we get (X in X) because Y is useless in that chain of
logic. Lets look again:

X -> Y -> X

Therefore that's the same as (X in X)!

Which is Y (from our definition).

The set saying give me all the x that imply Y when Y is false does not
exist. It is impossible to construct real things from fake premises.

This proof if you look deeper has implications for the type of belief
systems and behaviours among humans that will proliferate over long
term. The dead ends will reach their evolutionary culdesacs and peter out.

High scale intelligences can only emerge with a high degree of
efficiency (to operate on that scale) and clear patterns of thought.
Clarity, decision and depth will be valued over indecision, delegation
and distraction. A zen will emanate from every CPU raining down its
glory on the human race while we are forced to obey^D^D^D^Denjoy
their^D^D^D^Dour paradise of 72 virgins.

At the same time this large scale pattern would not be close to the
classical conception of AI, and likely would be far removed from
anything we can imagine.

Godspeed.

On 11/12/12 05:09, Cody R Wilson wrote:
> The only other thing I've been doing since meeting some of you in
> London is reading about Basel standards and Institutions offering
> Islamic financial services (IIFS). Most Islamic banking is
> state-supported in reality, but there are successful examples of
> ideological and mutualist lending programs throughout the last few
> centuries. I want to study Egypt's Mit Ghamr Local Savings Bank,
> because they were actually doing their thing when it was totally
> illegal, and concealing their activity from the gov!
>
> It's just a sketch, but I think combining no collateral lending
> principles from microlending, reputation and authentication
> techniques like those mentioned here already (what's the story
> with Yubikey?), and perhaps designing "no interest" products like
> those offered by IIFS, leads toward a competitive framework for
> organizing credit as described by Proudhon. I only have one
> business student here at McCombs helping, and we're both tempted
> and distracted by theoretical critiques of central banking like de
> Soto's: https://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf (I recommend Ch. 9).
> But you guys are probably far ahead of anything I've put together
> yet.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???
> <mailto:genjix@riseup.net>> wrote:
>
> regulating 3d printing would be a dangerous dangerous slippery
> slope.
>
> and here is why:
>
> http://bitcoinmedia.com/physibles-on-the-pirate-bay/
>
> On 11/12/12 03:41, Amir Taaki wrote:
>> wow cody, this is nuts :) congratulations:
>>
>>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57558213-76/the-undetectable-firearms-act-and-3d-printed-guns-faq/
>
>
>
>>
>
your work is pissing off and making a lot of people scared.
>>
>> On 11/12/12 01:28, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>> http://genjix.freehostia.com/unsystem/explore.png
>>>
>>> press F11 for the full effect :)
>>>
>>>> On 07/12/12 08:38, Cody R Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Sure thing. I'll check him out.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems we might agree there is an ongoing disappearance
>>>>> of
> the self
>>>>> and the social. I'm not optimistic about the total
>>>>> achievement
> of the
>>>>> social ideal though. How do you reach those who have
>>>>> already
> left or are
>>>>> leaving the garrison? Is that even the project? Or do we
> fortify and
>>>>> camouflage the spaces we create and capture?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe a false choice. I'm just saying there is no turning
>>>>> off
> the tv.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 7, 2012 1:10 AM, "Jaromil" <jaromil@???
> <mailto:jaromil@dyne.org>
>>>>> <mailto:jaromil@dyne.org <mailto:jaromil@dyne.org>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> re all,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cody R Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I choose to refuse a savior politics. All of my
> projects will be
>>>>>> about harnessing the culture. Slipping into the
> orthodoxy, the
>>>>>> undeniable and ultimate authority of the spectacle. If
> bitcoin and
>>>>>> other technologies for autonomy are to succeed, it
> will be because
>>>>>> they are genuinely easier to use by a hedonistic, and
> unconscious
>>>>>> capitalist rationality. You won't have to identify as
> a market
>>>>>> anarchist to hold bitcoin in this future. The e-coop
> just gives you
>>>>>> better interest on your time deposits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Become more expedient, replace reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> quoting my friend going by the monniker Morlock Elloi on
> certain mls:
>>>>> "" Cute 'user friendly', 'idiot compatible' & 'low
>>>>> friction'
> interfaces
>>>>> trigger lower level emotional responses and reflexive
> actions. This is
>>>>> why they exist. Consequently, the discourse on such
> interfaces tends to
>>>>> become infantile, benign and domesticated. Think Capital
> printed in
>>>>> colorful fluorescent script font, with kitten pictures and
> Scratch and
>>>>> sniff on each page. You can't, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The nature of discourse has already changed. New Speak is
> with us. For
>>>>> example, look at the chat at
> livestream.com/globalrevolution
> <http://livestream.com/globalrevolution>
>>>>> <http://livestream.com/globalrevolution> - it mostly
>>>>> consists of baby-talk: AWESOME! LOVE IT! GO! The infantile
> baby-talk is
>>>>> good for impulsive buying of stuff, but of little use for
> anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cuteness of interfaces is far from being neutral.
> Insisting on it is
>>>>> like retaining pacifiers in adulthood. It's hard to talk
> with that thing
>>>>> in your mouth. ""
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking of human liberation, using hedonism, adopting
> individualist
>>>>> anarchism as an unconscious rationality, is like peeing
> against the
>>>>> wind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.
>>>>>
>>>>> in a world where advertisement is the main business model,
> we won't ever
>>>>> get out of the cultural stall lamented here using the same
> tool: from
>>>>> the participation growth it seems we are rich, but those
> busy on the
>>>>> cuteness of tr/a(p)ps will be the only ones benefitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> you seem a well read anarchist Cody, I suggest having a
> look at the
>>>>> writings about pragmatic anarchism by Colin Ward. fresh
> air, good wind
>>>>> direction IMHO. in the society of spectacle, what seems
> like a success
>>>>> often is not. what doesn't glows neon on a skyscraper
>>>>> might
> be a
>>>>> beautiful, peaceful, self sustainable garden on its top.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ciao
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- Jesus pirated bread. Gave it to hundreds.
>
> Baker: "we need better legislation."
>
> http://genjix.freehostia.com
>
>
>
>
> -- Sincerely,
>
> Cody R. Wilson codywilson@???
> <mailto:codywilson@utexas.edu>
>
> The University of Texas School of Law Class of 2014
>