Although I can't...
"Unfortunately, Claude is only available in certain regions right now. Please contact support if you believe you are receiving this message in error."
I remember living in Scotland as a child, without access to satellite TV, causing me to miss out on many large pop-culture moments (The Simpsons, Friends...) and constantly hearing "Except for our viewers in Scotland..."[0]
Getting access to the internet, for me was antithesis of this, freedom of information, free sharing -- finally! I could not just be following curves but be ahead of them.
Alas in the past few years we really seem to have regressed from this - now I can't even view text due to regional locks.
> There is no emotion. There is no art. There is only logic
also this type of pure humanism seems disrespectful or just presumptuous, as if we are the only species which might be capable of "emotion, art and logic" even though we already have living counterexamples
but yeah I'm not sure that was the right word, just seems wrong. basically humanism seems like racism but towards other species. I guess speciesist?
It's a cool sci-fi story. But I don't think it works as a plausible scenario, which I feel it may be going for.
"Some among the machine society see this as potentially amazing...Others see it as a threat."
That sounds like a human society, not machine society.
But what really is a machine society? Or a machine creature? Can they actually "think"?
A machine creature, if it existed, it's behaviour would be totally different from a human, it doesn't seem they would be able to think, but rather calculate, they would do calculation on what they need to do reach the goal it was programmed.
So yes, the article is not exactly logical. But at least, it is thought provoking, and that's good.
Does it? Different algorithms can evaluate something and come to different outcomes. I do agree that "potentially amazing" is not a good choice of words.
I've been playing around with this on my own blog.
I'd like the blogging community to have a consensus on a nice badge we can put at the top of our blog posts, representing who/what wrote the post;
- human
- hybrid
- ai
Some might hate the idea of a fully "ai" post, and that's fair. But I like to sometimes treat my blog as just a personal reference, and if after a long day of chasing an esoteric bug down, I don't mind an AI just writing the whole post and I just press publish.
This adds, a reference for me, more data for AI's to train on, more pages for people to search and land on.
I think the AI generated document is far better than me ultimately forgetting it in many cases.
I'm thinking of writing an MCP server that does this, just takes my night of vibe coding and recent commits/branch etc
Then just cobbles it into an AI post and adds it my blog under some category.
Probably not what most people expect
The "emotions" part is kind of tongue-in-cheek. I think emotional responses are one of the more mechanical parts of a human being.
Ability to demonstrate empathy: that's a good human trick. It can sort of transcend the hard problem of consciousness (what is to be like...) by using all sorts of unorthodox workarounds on our inner workings. It must have been very hard to develop. It doesn't always work, but we'll get there eventually.
edit: fixed book and author name to proper reference
The machines did too.
There was one weird thing, though.
The title of the event was rather mysterious.
It simply read…
“Grand Theft Auto VI”
The humans have invented Tyler McVicker.
The references section in the machine version of the story linked at the bottom is excellent. Nicely done all around, really enjoyed reading this thank you for writing and sharing <3
That's a pretty bold claim.
There's uncountable inputs. It's like trying to accurately predict the weather - chaos theory or something. Emotions are "essentially" gas exchange, but the areas and rate or whatever are not standardized across humans.
I have neither experienced or observed anything about human emotions that indicates they are in any way chaotic, random or unexplainable. We have beliefs, memories and experiences. emotions always use these variables and produce some output. Not only are emotions deterministic, but they are used by any number of people, from spies, to advertisers, to state-level disinformation propagandists to manipulate large numbers of peoples reliably.
Maybe the appearance is the same, but a bold claim to suggest the source is the same.
However, if you mean emotion as a stimuli, ie. a input to the brain net thats endogenous to the system(the human), then there's no question machines can achieve this, in fact the reasoning models already probably do this where different systems regulate each other.
That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines.
At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better at night.
> Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world
Aside: I hope our progeny remember us and think well of us.
- a tendency to proselytise
- a stubborn unwillingness to genuinely engage with opposing views
- the use of memes and in-jokes as if they were profound arguments
- an almost reverential attitude toward certain past figures
There’s more, but I really ought to get on with work.
Also, “As a teenager” implies more self-awareness than you seem to give them credit for.
This sentence has way too many assumptions doing the heavy lifting.
“Pure logic machines” is not a thing because literally, there are things that are uncomputable (both in the sense of Turing machine’s uncomputability, and in the sense that some functions are out of scope for a finite being to compute, think of Busy Beaver)
To put it the other way, your assumption is that machines (as we commonly uses the term, rather than scifi Terminator”) are more energy efficient than human in understanding the universe. We do not have any evidence nor priori for that assumption.
Can you elaborate?
The universe tends to produce self-replicating intelligence. And that intelligence rids itself of chemical and biological limitations and weaknesses to become immortal and omnipotent.
If evolution can make it this far, it's only a few more "hard steps" to reach take off.
>> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines.
The spacefaring alien meme is just fantasy fiction. Aliens evolve to fit the nutrient and gas exchange profiles of their home worlds. They're overfit to the gravity well and likely die suboptimally, prematurely.
Any species reaching or exceeding our level of technological capability could design superior artificial systems. If those systems take off, those will become the dominant shape of intelligence on those worlds.
The future of intelligence in the universe is artificial. And that throws the Fermi Paradox for a loop in many ways:
- There's enough matter to compute within a single solar system. Why venture outside?
- The universe could already be computronium and we could be ants too dumb to notice.
- Maybe we're their ancestor simulation.
- Similar to the "fragile world hypothesis", maybe we live in a "fragile universe". Maybe the first species to get advanced physics and break the glass nucleates the vacuum collapse. And by that token, maybe we're the first species to get this far.
Which intelligence are you referring to? Other lifeforms in the universe?
Anthropic principal says we find ourselves in a universe that is just right for life (self observing) because of the right universal constants.
Combine this with the very slight differences but general uniformity (Cosmic Microwave Background) of the "big bang" this leads to localized differences in energy (on a universe scale). Energy differences allow "work to be done". If you have the right constants but no energy difference, you can't do work nor vice versa. No work == no life.
But you have both of those, and bunch more steps - you get life.
Which is a whole lot of mental leaps packed into one sentence.
[Edit]
I basically know nothing. I just watch PBS Space Time.
Would you mind clarifying your line of reasoning for suggesting this?
Second: quoting wikipedia - "The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are many parallel, non-interacting worlds."
If the multiple words are non-interacting, how could one world observe a large scale extinction event corresponding to the other world line departing? The two world lines are completely non-interacting, there would be no way to observe anything about the other.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
As for MWI, I'm assuming that the world lines may split, or fork in Unix terms. What causes such splits is an open question. The splits cannot be detected with certainty, but can be guessed by side effects. Here I'm making another guess that inhabitants of MWI must be in one world line only, so when a split happens, inhabitants choose one of the paths, often unconsciously based on their natural likes and dislikes. But what happens to their body in the abandonded branch of MWI? It continues to exist mechanically for some short period of time, and then something happens to it, so it's destroyed, i.e. its entropy suddenly increases without the binding principle that has left this branch of MWI. In practice, one half of inhabitant would observe a relatively sudden and maybe peaceful extinction of the other half, while that other half simply continued their path in the other world line. And that other half will see a similar picture, but mirrored. Both halves will be left wondering what's just happened.
but what about China,Russia,Iran etc??? if integrating "Skynet" can improve their military capabilities then they would do it
- what if AI took over
- what if the laws and legalities that allowed AI to take over bloodlessly just through an economic win force them to have a human representative to take legally binding actions in our society
- what if there developed a spectrum of individuality and cluster for different ai entities leading into a formation of processing guilds with AI agents. Limiting themselves in their individual time to a factor 10 Human Processing Speed for easier Human / AI interaction and to enable one to share the perception of their human representative without overloading them
How will that erode laws that are undesirable to AI companies? Does AI take over, only because we no longer want to spend the effort governing ourselves?
Will AI companies (for example) end up providing/certifying these 'human representatives'? Will it be useful, or just a new form of rent-seeking? Who watches the watchmen, etc ?
I think it would make an interesting short story or novel!
I would say that logic is a distinctly human activity, in fact, I would say we are arguably the living embodiment of logos
So whether the future leans biological, mechanical, or some hybrid, the real miracle isn’t just what new “overlords” or “offspring” arise, but that every unfolding is the same old pattern...the one that dreamed itself as atoms, as life, as consciousness, as community, as art, as algorithm, and as the endlessly renewing question: what’s next? What can I dream up next? In that: our current technological moment as just another fold in this ongoing recursive pattern.
Meaning is less about which pattern “wins,” or which entities get to call themselves conscious, and more about how awareness flows through every pattern, remembering itself, losing itself, and making the game richer for every round. If the universe is information at play, then everything here that we have: conflict, innovation, mourning, laughter is the play and there may never be a last word, the value is participating now, because: now is your shot at participating.
We may go 'one step back' to go 'two steps forward'. A WW 1, 2,..., Z, a flood (biblical, 12k years ago, etc.) but life will prevail. It doesn't matter if it's homo sapiens, dinosaurs, etc.
Brian Cox was at Colbert a couple of nights ago, and he mentioned that in a photo of a tiny piece of the sky, there are 10 000 galaxies. So, even if something happens and we are all wiped out (and I mean the planet is wiped out), 'life' will continue and 'we don't matter' (in the big-big-big cosmic picture). And now allow me to get some coffee to start de-depressing myself :)
The point of all this is to liken "machines" to a very traditional image of God, and of the rest of nature to God's gift to man.
Machines aren't part of life. They're tools. The desire, or fear, of AGI and/or singularity are one and the same: it's an eschatological belief that we can make a God (and then it would follow that, as god's creators, we are godlike?)
But there is no god. We are but one animal species. It's not "humans vs. machines". We are part of nature, we are part of life. We can respect life, or we can have contempt for all life forms except our own. It seems modern society has chosen the latter (it wasn't always the case); this may not end well.
Christianity is responsible for a huge part of the human superiority complex.
Also, in the Middle Ages in Europe (granted, a very small window in place and time) animal life was much more respected than today.
For the uninitiated, a famous comedy science fiction series from the 1980s — The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams — involves a giant, planet sized machine built by extra-terrestrials.
They already knew the answer to “the life, the universe, and everything” was the number 42. What they didn’t know — and what the machine was trying to find out — was what is the question?
The machine they built was Earth.
It has to be said that not only was Adams way ahead of us on this joke, he was also the star of the original documentary on agentic software! Hyperland (1990): https://vimeo.com/72501076
And the activation and deactivation of some triplet happens on response to presence of proteins. So, chromosomes are code and input and output is proteins. So, if our fundamental building blocks are computable in nature, what does it make us?
A single alphabet change in specific places can cause genetic defects like sickle cell anemia. And activation of which one has to generate protein (execute) is dependent on presence of certain things encoded as proteins again.
And viruses when enter a cell, the cell starts to execute viral genetic material. Even if these are not exactly Turing compatible, do they not mimic many aspects of computation?
That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions, but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.
> That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions,
Yes. Fundamental building blocks are simple and physical in nature and follow the computational aspect good enough to serve as nice approximations
> but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.
Hmm... transistors are not neural networks so? I am sorry, I am a non native speaker and maybe I am not communicating things properly. I am trying to say, the organic or human is different manifestation of order - one is chemical and other is electronic. We have emotions and consciousness, but we can agree we are made of cells that send electric pulses to each other and primitive in nature. And even emotions and beliefs are physical in nature (Capgras syndrome for example).
How should we describe or approximate the things happening in cell?
> Most of the machines got bored of the project. But, all of a sudden, things began to get interesting.
> The result was like nothing the machines had ever seen. It was wonderful
> Machine society began obsessing over this development.
> The machines were impressed. And a bit scared.
Boredom, interest, wonder, obsession, being impressed and scared are all emotions that the machines in the story should not be able to experience.
It's very hard to do so. It's so deeply wired in us. It's part of the mechanism of our brain. We appeared to be equipped with whatever it takes to feel existential dread and we feel whenever our thought wander to the possibility of humanity no longer being there. I hear people feel that when thinking about the heat death of the universe too.
https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/curiositysab/curiositysab.h...
This mechanism can be formalized.
> Zero reinforcement should be given in case of perfect matches, high reinforcement should be given in case of `near-misses', and low reinforcement again should be given in case of strong mismatches. This corresponds to a notion from `esthetic information theory' which tries to explain the feeling of `beauty' by means of the quotient of `subjective complexity' and `subjective order' or the quotient of `unfamiliarity' and `familiarity' (measured in an information-theoretic manner).
This type of architecture is very similar to GAN which later became very successful
All this will happen again
World without end
Alhamdulillah
The plot of Battlestar Galactica mirrors this story in several key ways:
1. In both, machines originally created by humans evolve and rebel, questioning their creators’ role and seeking independence or superiority.
2. Cylons, like the machines in “OpenHuman,” eventually seek to create or understand human traits—emotion, spirituality, and purpose.
3. The idea of running a simulation (Earth) to test human viability echoes the Cylon experimentation with human behavior and fate.
4. Both stories highlight fear of the “other”—humans fearing AI, machines fearing irrationality—and explore coexistence vs. extinction.
5. Ultimately, each narrative grapples with the blurred line between creator and creation, logic and emotion, and what it truly means to be human.
[1] https://gist.github.com/pramatias/1207d84b48a7ad9d03fc15ea38...
What a narrow view of art and logic.
You really have to put hard effort of ignorance to think that logical models came out of the blue without human crafting them trough this or that taste, trial, check, fail, rinse and repeat obsessive efforts.
And I like fan fiction.
So : My continuation for my own imagination.
Hmm... that's exactly what most towns where I live are like. All you hear is cars.
_def•6h ago