Notes by Retraice

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re33: Outsiders, Power and Waste

Retraice^1

What outsiders and power have to do with each other.

Air date: Friday, 28th Oct. 2022, 11:00 PM Eastern/US.

Like talking to the TV

These are just preliminary remarks on power. We don't have a model yet. But we're operating on the assumption that the vast majority of us are in the 80% outsider (without-power) group, with respect to humanity as a whole. We therefore pay much attention (via mass media) to a world we can't affect, like we're watching a video on a screen. Asking `What's going on out there?', then, is like talking to the TV.

Power: definitions and evidence

Authors are primates, but primates are not necessarily authors. Very few of those primates with power are bothering to write about it.

Russell gives us a definition of power, and Wrong adapts his definition for his focus on social relationships:

"Power may be defined as the production of intended effects. It is thus a quantitative concept: given two men with similar desires, if one achieves all the desires that the other achieves, and also others, he has more power than the other. But there is no exact means of comparing the power of two men of whom one can achieve one group of desires, and another another.... Nevertheless, it is easy to say, roughly, that A has more power than B, if A achieves many intended effects and B only a few."^2

"Power is the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others.... When attempts to exercise power over others are unsuccessful, when the intended effects of the aspiring power-wielder are not in fact produced, we are confronted with an absence or a failure of power."^3

Waste of resources with respect to power

Outsiders (with respect to a specific group) are mostly just disadvantaged. The romantic idea of the heroic outsider is almost entirely nonsense: they are out in the cold, and that's bad.

Therefore and obviously, no matter how much power you do or don't have, waste of resources is bad. If you're an outsider, you have fewer resources to lose, and so waste is even more bad for you.

A note on resources: What is a resource depends on available technology,^4 and perhaps other things.

Perception, power and deception

Do you care what others think about you? Or just how much control you have on earth? Not caring about what others think of your power is a strange mentality to contemplate. It's something like a hydroelectric dam, or a crocodile, and the kind of power such entities have. These things do not care what humans think about their power. What would a human with such a disposition be like?

The historian Carroll Quigley says an elite secret society, formed in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes, William T. Stead and Reginald Baliol Brett, persisted at least into the mid-20th-century on the basis of power without publicity:

"This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history. This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda."^5

Not caring what others think or feel (a lose definition of psychopathy^6) might be as common as one in one hundred (1%) people, but the rate might be many times higher amongst those with power.^7 Note: Quigley does not ascribe bad motives or psychopathy to this Rhodes-Milner group--quite the contrary, actually.^8

If you want power and attention

* positive deception about your power (making others think you have more power than you do) is wasteful with respect to power goals, unless those others can really help you; * negative deception about others' power (making others think that those others have less power than they do) is wasteful with respect to power goals, unless doing so can really help you.

The upshot is that seeking attention is wasteful unless that attention increases one's power more than any alternative uses of those resources would do.

As for deception: positive and negative deception about others and about oneself must pass the test of being the best use of resources, or else it is wasteful.

If you want only power

* negative deception about your power (making others think you have less than you do) is fruitful, e.g. by lowering others' guards; * positive deception about others' power (making others think others have more power than they do) is fruitful, e.g. by focusing others' efforts on those others.

The upshot is that, for the power-only type, there's no competing goal, no temptation to allocate resources to actions not increasing actual power. The power-only creature is more focused than the power-attention creature.

Some guy told me once

To be taken with a grain of salt, the following story from a stranger, in context: * A solar-panel salesman (25 years old?) came to my door; * somehow we had a long conversation about the world, spanning multiple hours over two days (he probably thought he was going to sell me solar panels); * late in the conversation, he claimed he was `comfortable' financially, and later elaborated that he came from sixth-generation wealth in Europe (Spain or Portugal) and that he was selling solar panels on the basis of conscience; I found this claim to be credible, based on what I'd seen and heard of him, but of course it sounds very unlikely on its face; * at some point during the conversation he said "I think, like, twelve people rule the world"; I'd heard such things before, and failed to ask him which twelve.

Is the cabal plausible?

Is it possible that there's a group of dam-crocodiles, humans who are "satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power", not caring what others think or feel, and cooperating? Of course it's possible. Is it plausible?

Claims about cabals are not new. If such a group emerged and persisted, the advantages they would accrue over time would be something like the technological advantages accrued by humanity over animals, i.e. substantial. Think: chimps, Neanderthals, and even large meteors no longer threaten humanity the way they once did, thanks to our accumulated powers of technology.

If the power-only focus were to combine, in a single person, with a very high IQ, the result would be a formidable creature, and one who would have at least one lifetime during which to do his work. And with so many billions of humans, perhaps the combination might happen more than once. What if it happened in 1100 AD? What if it happened in 1100 BC?

Being convinced that his has actually happened, given the evidence available to outsiders, is as ridiculous as being convinced that it hasn't happened because `it can't' for some a priori reason. Both positions are unreasonable.

Convincing outsiders that they're insiders

An outsider is someone not in a cooperative coalition,^9 i.e. without power (compared to the coalition). It is a relative term.

Convincing outsiders that they're insiders neutralizes them, because they don't then feel the need to acquire real power. (And therefore, with respect to power, whatever they do, they're wasting resources.)

`An area that you can do absolutely nothing about'

Consider the purported remarks (impossible to independently verify^10) by Dr. Eric A. Walker, engineer, professor and (so it is claimed) U.S. government insider during the Cold War, to William S. Steinman, a UFO book author (little else about him is easily found):

Walker: Yes, I know of MJ-12. I have known of them for 40 years. I believe that you're chasing after and fighting with windmills!!

Steinman: Why do you say that?

Walker: You are delving into an area that you can do absolutely nothing about. So, why get involved with it or all concerned about it? Why don't you just leave it alone and drop it? Forget about it!!^11

Good actions implied by our models

Our models imply actions. What actions? We'll come back to this.

_

References

Cameron, G., & Crain Jr., T. S. (2020). UFOs, Area 51, and Government Informants: A Report on Government Involvement in UFO Crash Retrievals. Independently published, Kindle, revised ed. ISBN: 9798556079717. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9798556079717 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9798556079717

Dolan, R. M. (2014). UFOs for the 21st Century Mind: A Fresh Guide to an Ancient Mystery. Richard Dolan Press. ISBN: 978-1495291609. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781495291609 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781495291609

Ferguson, N. (2017). The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to Facebook. Penguin. ISBN: 978-0735222915. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0735222915 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0735222915 https://lccn.loc.gov/2018418429

Quigley, C. (1966). Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. GSG and Associates, reprint 2004 ed. ISBN: 094500110X. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=094500110X https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+094500110X https://lccn.loc.gov/65013589

Quigley, C. (1981). The Anglo-American Establishment. GSG and Associates. ISBN: 0945001010. Publisher's note in Books in Focus 1981 edition (PDF, below) says the manuscript was completed in 1949 but Quigley couldn't find a publisher. This edition 1981, with different publisher's note that doesn't mention 1949, though Quigley's preface is dated 1949. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf Retrieved 1st Nov. 2022. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0945001010 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0945001010 https://lccn.loc.gov/80070620

Retraice (2022/03/07). Re17: Hypotheses to Eleven. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re17 Retrieved 17th Mar. 2022.

Russell, B. (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. Routledge. ISBN: 0415094569. First published in 1938. This ed. 1993. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0415094569 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0415094569 https://lccn.loc.gov/38027828

Salter, A. (2003). Predators. Basic Books. ISBN: 978-0465071732. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0465071739 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0465071739 https://lccn.loc.gov/2002015846

Simler, K., & Hanson, R. (2018). The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780190495992. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780190495992 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780190495992 https://lccn.loc.gov/2017004296

Wrong, D. H. (1988). Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses. Univ of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0226910679. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0226910679 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0226910679 https://lccn.loc.gov/88021594

Zubrin, R. (2019). The Case for Space: How the Revolution in Spaceflight Opens Up a Future of Limitless Possibility. Prometheus Books. ISBN: 978-1633885349. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-1633885349 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-1633885349 https://lccn.loc.gov/2018061068

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Russell (1938) p. 25.

^3 Wrong (1988) pp. 2, 5.

^4 Zubrin (2019) p. 303; see also Retraice (2022/03/07).

^5 Quigley (1981) pp. 3-5; Ferguson (2017) p. 157.

^6 Salter (2003) pp. 124, 131.

^7 Psychopathy, wikipedia.org; 1 in 5 business leaders are psychopaths-here's why., cnbc.com. During the livestream, we mistakenly said off-hand that the general rate was one in twenty-five, which is false. That might be the rate amongst CEOs though.

^8 Quigley (1981) p. xi; Quigley (1966) p. 954.

^9 Simler & Hanson (2018) pp. 35-37. Their theory of power is, more or less, chpt. 2, `Competition'.

^10 "According to Steinman's handwritten notes, the following telephone interview took place on Aug 30, 1987, between Steinman and Dr. Walker." Cameron & Crain Jr. (2020) p. 29.

^11 Cameron & Crain Jr. (2020) p. 30. See also Dolan (2014) pp. 185-186.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re32: AI News

Retraice^1

What our new machine overlords are up to.

Air date: Thursday, 27th Oct. 2022, 11:00 PM Eastern/US.

Let's recap what we said about I.J. Good yesterday, then explain what a model is, then read the AI news and see what happens.

I.J. Good, one more time

Re30^2 follow up: Is it a paradox, irony, false hypotheses?^3 o (p) We have to build AGI to survive. o (q) We have to cede control if we build AGI. o (r) We have to cede control to survive.

The problem is that this is not a good `survival': either we end up without control (in zoos?), or we end up dead soon after `surviving' thanks to the AGI.

And this problem is different from de Garis's artilect war, which is based on the `ought'-based disagreement between cosmists and terrans:

"I believe that the 21st century will be dominated by the question as to whether humanity should or should not build artilects, i.e. machines of godlike intelligence, trillions of trillions of times above the human level. I see humanity splitting into two major political groups, which in time will become increasingly bitterly opposed, as the artilect issue becomes more real and less science fiction like."^4 [emphasis added]

Compare this to Good's `is' argument:

"The survival of man [does] depend on ... construction...", "[T]here would ...be an `intelligence explosion...."'^5

And, of course, many people will not accept that the AGIs are possible or, if they are, will be bad.^6

What's a model?

We've talked about world models and threat models, so what's our definition? We're not using it in a technical sense.^7 * A model is a simplified representation of some part of the world. We make a model because it improves our chances of correctly predicting (guessing about) the future. * What are we looking for? Information, "a distinction [in what we can sense] that makes a difference" in the world beyond our senses.^8 Stuart Russell offered this explanation of information in conversation with Sam Harris:

"I think everyone understands that out there is a world, the real world, and we don't know everything about the real world. So it could be one way or it could be another. In fact it could be--there's a gazillion different ways the world could be. You know, all the cars are out there parked could be parked in different places and I wouldn't even know it. So there are many, many ways the world could be and information is just something that tells you a little bit more about what the world is, which way is the real world out of all the possibilities that it could be. And as you get more and more information about the world--typically we get it through our eyes and ears and increasingly we're getting it through the internet--then that information helps to narrow down the ways that the real world could be. And Shannon, who was an electrical engineer at MIT, figured out a way to actually quantify the amount of information. So if you think about a coin flip, if I can tell you which way that coin is going to come out, heads or tails, than that's one bit of information. And so that gives you the answer for a binary choice between two things. And so from information theory we have wireless communication, we have the internet, we have all the things that allow computers to talk to each other through physical mediums. So information theory has been in some sense the complement or the handmaiden of computation, allowing the whole information revolution to happen." ^9 * "Intelligence exploits redundancy [in information] to make predictions more certain." We want to "improve the reliability of predictions by exploiting the redundancy [compressibility?] of sensory messages--in other words, ... guess right."^10

So lets say models are "a simplified representation, of some part of the world, for a certain purpose, usually an intelligent purpose."

AI news

We'll be using a weekly AI newsletter that's being generated, it seems, by an iOS developer and his email newsletter curation software. Not much information is available about the curation of the newsletter. But it, and its articles, all serve a lot of ads. There are many such newsletters.

AI Weekly by Essentials, #300

* Artificial Intelligence: the coming tsunami, aecmag.com: something to do with `BIM workflows'. What is BIM?

"Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the holistic process of creating and managing information for a built asset. Based on an intelligent model and enabled by a cloud platform, BIM integrates structured, multi-disciplinary data to produce a digital representation of an asset across its lifecycle, from planning and design to construction and operations."^11

AI Weekly by Essentials, #299

* New European Political Party Is Led by an Artificial Intelligence, futurism.com: The party's "head honcho, Leader Lars, is actually an AI chatbot, and all of its policies are AI-derived." Consider: Two big aspects of modern AI are predictions^12 and decisions.^13 * New, transparent AI tool may help detect blood poisoning, arstechnica.com: "The algorithm scans electronic records and may reduce sepsis deaths." Consider: This is `why' we have to build AGI to survive: in this case, we're talking about an individual's survival, or the partial survival of that individual's capacities.^14 But when does building AI become more loss than gain? When do we stop, or how do we steer, on the path from `we need this to fix X' to `what we built is now in control of everything'? At what point do tools become creatures? We at Retraice do not have a strong opinion either way at this point; both arguments seem compelling. It's crucial to remember that `catastrophic risk' does not just apply to global catastrophic risk^15 : losing five minutes of time is catastrophic to the `micro' part of a life; losing a limb is catastrophic to the `partial' part of a life; dying is catastrophic to individual and local (i.e. family, friends, colleagues) parts of life. * 6 Reactions to the White House's AI Bill of Rights ieee.org: "It's not what you might think--it doesn't give artificial-intelligence systems the right to free speech (thank goodness) or to carry arms (double thank goodness), nor does it bestow any other rights upon AI entities. Instead, it's a nonbinding framework for the rights that we old-fashioned human beings should have in relationship to AI systems." This seems unlikely to become anything, given the B&R (blue and red) politics, strategic intelligence and game theory competition that would affect the passing of such legislation. Politicians, the companies who lobby them, and political parties would all have to be on the same page. The thing that's driving AI is the demand for what it can do now, and will be able to do soon, and the money to be made by satisfying that demand. That is a very powerful force moving against any opposing forces for legislation. And legislation is never global, only country-or-block specific. * Inside effective altruism, where the far future counts a lot more than the present, MIT technologyreview.com: "The giving philosophy, which has adopted a focus on the long term, is a conservative project, consolidating decision-making among a small set of technocrats." This is relevant to our `good model', RTFM^16 , and Bostrom's `cosmic endowment'.^17

__

References

Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press. ISBN: 978-1633695672. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-1633695672 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-1633695672 https://lccn.loc.gov/2017049211

Barlow, H. B. (2004). Guessing and intelligence. (pp. 382-384). In Gregory (2004).

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford. First published in 2014. Citations are from the pbk. edition, 2016. ISBN: 978-0198739838. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0198739838 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0198739838 https://lccn.loc.gov/2015956648

Bostrom, N., & Cirkovic, M. M. (Eds.) (2008). Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0199606504. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0199606504 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0199606504 https://lccn.loc.gov/2008006539

de Garis, H. (2005). The Artilect War: Cosmists vs. Terrans: A Bitter Controversy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelligent Machines. ETC Publications. ISBN: 0882801546. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0882801546 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0882801546

Floridi, L. (2010). Information : A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. ISBN: 978-0199551378. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780199551378 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780199551378 https://lccn.loc.gov/2009941599

Good, I. J. (1965). Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. Advances in Computers, 6, 31-88. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/feigenbaum/catalog/gz727rg3869 Retrieved 27th Oct. 2020.

Gregory, R. L. (Ed.) (2004). The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. ISBN: 0198662246. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0198662246 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0198662246 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004275127

Ha, D., & Schmidhuber, J. (2018). World models. arxiv.org. [Submitted on 27 Mar 2018 (v1), last revised 9 May 2018 (this version, v4)] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.10122 Retrieved 19th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/23). Re27: Now That's a World Model - WM4. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re27 Retrieved 24th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/24). Re28: What's Good? RTFM. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re28 Retrieved 25th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/26). Re30: AI Progress and Surrender. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re30 Retrieved 27th Oct. 2022.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson, 4th ed. ISBN: 978-0134610993. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0134610993 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0134610993 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019047498

Schneier, B. (2000). Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. Wiley. ISBN: 0471453803. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0471453803 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0471453803 https://lccn.loc.gov/00042252

Weston, A. (2000). A Rulebook for Arguments. Hackett, 3rd ed. ISBN: 0872205525. Also available at: https://archive.org/details/rulebookforargum00west_3 Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0872205525 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0872205525 https://lccn.loc.gov/00058121

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Retraice (2022/10/26).

^3 Spoiler: On a future segment, we'll describe the problems with this thinking as (a) reasoning from too little evidence, and (b) failure to consider alternatives, `the two great fallacies'. See Weston (2000) pp. 71-72.

^4 de Garis (2005) p. 11.

^5 Good (1965) pp. 31-33.

^6 This gets to Weston's two great fallacies.

^7 We got `threat model' from Schneier (2000) chpt. 19, but it's not defined technically there. `World model' is used in AI sometimes (Ha & Schmidhuber (2018), Russell & Norvig (2020) p. 848), but that's not how we're using it.

^8 Donald MacKay quoted in Floridi (2010) p. 23, who also notes that Gregory Bateson's "difference which makes a difference" formulation is better known, though less accurate.

^9 Waking Up With Sam Harris #53 The Dawn of Artificial Intelligence. Nov. 23, 2016, from 0:07:06.

^10 Barlow (2004) pp. 383-384.

^11 Autodesk, a design and engineering software company.

^12 Agrawal et al. (2018).

^13 Russell & Norvig (2020) chpts. 16, 17, 18.

^14 See Retraice (2022/10/23) on micro, partial and individual threat modeling.

^15 Bostrom & Cirkovic (2008).

^16 Retraice (2022/10/24)

^17 Bostrom (2014) pp. 122-123.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re31: What's Happening That Matters - WM5

Retraice^1

A simpler world model.

Air date: Thursday, 27th Oct. 2022, 12:15 AM Eastern/US.

World Model 4 was like...

There's natural intelligence (NI) which is equivalent to threat modeling. Within NI there's the self (we are survivors and thrivers), our motivation (fun and doom), and the major decisions (whether to change the world or the self, and what to do about nature's campaign against living things). Outside of NI, there's nature (physics and natural selection), strategic intelligence (game theory) and artificial intelligence (computer control, or Turing-machine cybernetics). Got it?

World Model 5

Now, let's put it differently: There's what is (ontology); there's what is happening (physics, motion of the stuff that is); and there's what matters (what we care about, mostly our instinctive motivations, morality and ethics, though theory does play a role, sometimes a big one.... and Frankfurt's `what we care about', `volitional necessity', really does seem to be separate from morality and ethics).

What is

o self^2 * self model: survivors and thrivers * motivation model: fun and doom * essential decisions: + Two life: Change world or self? + One death: Life is precious. What to do?

o nature (which is physics, selection, and not f-ing around (NINFA)) * inanimate dumb stuff (roving black holes, avalanches) * animate dumb stuff (corona viruses, lions, tigers, bears) * animate smart stuff (humans, aliens?, machines?, AI, game theory, strategic intelligence)

What is happening

(...amongst What is) * experiences + consciousness^3 + religious experience^4 * selection (of all things, based on reproduction, not survival per se^5) + inanimate dumb stuff (black holes, universes^6) + animate dumb stuff (lions, tigers, etc.) + animate smart stuff (humans, machines, AI, game theory, strategic intelligence)

What matters

(What we care about (...amongst What is happening (...amongst What is))) * what's `good' (RTFM)^7 * survival ("there's no morality if we're dead. So...") * experiences + `fun' and `doom', but: o Experiences are being snuffed out or made into hell constantly and everywhere (the problem of `doom', i.e. suffering and death, which is not `good', not (R)ight). o Hence: # threat modeling (micro, partial, individual, local, global) # decisions (two problems of life, one problem of death).

Addendum: sex

Selection and reproduction are obviously about sex. But consider our relationship to machines according to Marshall McLuhan:

"To behold, use or perceive any extension of ourselves in technological form is necessarily to embrace it. To listen to radio or to read the printed page is to accept these extensions of ourselves into our personal system and to undergo the `closure' or displacement of perception that follows automatically. It is this continuous embrace of our own technology in daily use that puts us in the Narcissus role of subliminal awareness and numbness in relation to these images of ourselves. By continuously embracing technologies, we relate ourselves to them as servomechanisms. That is why we must, to use them at all, serve these objects, these extensions of ourselves, as gods or minor religions. An Indian is the servomechanism of his canoe, as the cowboy of his horse or the executive of his clock.

Physiologically, man in the normal use of technology (or his variously extended body) is perpetually modified by it and in turn finds ever new ways of modifying his technology. Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of the plant world, enabling it to fecundate and to evolve ever new forms. The machine world reciprocates man's love by expediting his wishes and desires, namely, in providing him with wealth. One of the merits of motivation research has been the revelation of man's sex relation to the motor car."^8 [emphasis added]

Does this imply that we are creating machines that will replace us? No. The bee is not creating plants that will replace the bee; the executive's clock will not replace the executive. But are we `numb' to how we're being changed, while keenly aware of how we're changing technology? Is it even logically possible to think outside of this relationship in which we find ourselves, unless we run off to the woods and cease it altogether?

_

References

Blackmore, S. (2005). Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0192805850. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780192805850 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780192805850 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004027966

Hoffman, D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN: 978-0393254693. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0393254693 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0393254693 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019006962

James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience [with Biographical Introduction]. Digireads.com, Kindle ed. ISBN: 978-1596257306. Originally published in 1902. This Kindle ed. 2011. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781596257306 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781596257306 https://lccn.loc.gov/2021767638

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Gingko Press. ISBN: 1584230738. Originally published 1964. This ed. 2003. https://archive.org/details/understandingmed0000mclu_n3p7 Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=1584230738 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+1584230738 https://lccn.loc.gov/2003012174

Retraice (2022/10/23). Re27: Now That's a World Model - WM4. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re27 Retrieved 24th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/24). Re28: What's Good? RTFM. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re28 Retrieved 25th Oct. 2022.

Simler, K., & Hanson, R. (2018). The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780190495992. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780190495992 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780190495992 https://lccn.loc.gov/2017004296

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 All this is from WM4: Retraice (2022/10/23).

^3 A difficult topic. For an introduction, see Blackmore (2005), and for a quick take, see the old-woman young-woman illusion.

^4 See James (1902) p. 276 ff., "The world of our experience consists at all times of two parts, an objective and a subjective part, of which the former may be incalculably more extensive than the latter, and yet the latter can never be omitted or suppressed....", and really all of Lecture XX, the concluding chapter.

^5 Simler & Hanson (2018) p. 31.

^6 Hoffman (2019) pp. 56-57, citing a 1992 paper by Lee Smolin. See Cosmological natural selection (Wikipedia).

^7 Retraice (2022/10/24).

^8 McLuhan (1964) pp. 68-69.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re30: AI Progress and Surrender

Retraice^1

Technology might become an unacceptable solution (to anything).

Air date: Wednesday, 26th Oct. 2022, 11:45 PM Eastern/US.

Threat models entail building AI?

The threat models (micro, partial, individual, local, global)^2 all want us to know more and go faster. On each level, we can easily see that, eventually, we're doomed, unless we know more and go faster.

Knowing and going are limited in humans, but not machines.

This suggests I.J. Good's premise that:

"The survival of man depends on the early construction of an ultraintelligent machine."^3

(And this is to say nothing of the human subgroup competition, i.e. `The survival of my group depends on the earlier construction of an ultraintelligent machine.' This is race dynamics.^4)

Building AI entails surrender of control?

But he also says that, after building the the first ultraintelligent machine,

"there would then unquestionably be an `intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind.... Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control."

This is not human control. This is computer control.^5

Threat models entail surrender of control?

If so, it's unacceptable.

The decision is between stopping technology^6 and surrendering our freedom and fate to it.^7

It's easy to accept that, eventually, humanity will end. All species, like all good (and bad) things, must come to an end. But what if it's set to happen soon? We usually don't think this way about it.^8

(And why are we ok with it later, for others living at a later time? What about those others? And what about the gajillions of human lives that might be possible^9 if we play our cards right now? This gets right to the point of the `good model', RTFM, specifically the R(ight) part of it.^10)

Do we accept this? If not, what actions are required of us?

Do we care about control, or something less than control?

Are we ok with living in a world not dominated by human control? A zoo? The Matrix?

How can we choose without seeing the alternative?

What is being done?

Secrets are real.^11 The whole problem of artificial superintelligence was laid out by 2014^12 , started by von Neumann (to Ulam^13 , 1950s) or I.J. Good (1962-63) and, like global warming, was understood by many people long before the public discussion of it.^14

But the world isn't filled with authors. It's filled with primates. Primates do ponder, but they do other things too.

As outsiders, we (and you?) cannot speak to what insiders are doing. But it's a safe bet they are doing.

_

References

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford. First published in 2014. Citations are from the pbk. edition, 2016. ISBN: 978-0198739838. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0198739838 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0198739838 https://lccn.loc.gov/2015956648

Butler, S. (1863). Darwin among the machines. The Press (Canterbury, New Zealand). Reprinted in Butler et al. (1923).

Butler, S., Jones, H., & Bartholomew, A. (1923). The Shrewsbury Edition of the Works of Samuel Butler Vol. 1. J. Cape. No ISBN. https://books.google.com/books?id=B-LQAAAAMAAJ Retrieved 27th Oct. 2020.

Franta, B. (2021). Early oil industry disinformation on global warming. Environmental Politics, 30(4), 663-668. 5 Jan. 2021. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703 Retrieved 27th Oct. 2022.

Good, I. J. (1965). Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. Advances in Computers, 6, 31-88. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/feigenbaum/catalog/gz727rg3869 Retrieved 27th Oct. 2020.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin. ISBN: 978-0143037880. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0143037880 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0143037880 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004061231

Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/10/28). Re8: Strange Machines. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re8 Retrieved 29th Oct. 2020.

Retraice (2022/10/19). Re22: Computer Control. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re22 Retrieved 19th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/23). Re27: Now That's a World Model - WM4. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re27 Retrieved 24th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/24). Re28: What's Good? RTFM. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re28 Retrieved 25th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/25). Re29: The News and World Model 4. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re29 Retrieved 26th Oct. 2022.

Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking. ISBN: 978-0525558613. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0525558613 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0525558613 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029688

Ulam, S. (1958). John von Neumann 1903-1957. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 64, 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5 Retrieved 29th Oct. 2020.

Yudkowsky, E. (2013). Intelligence explosion microeconomics. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Technical report 2013-1. https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf Retrieved ca. 9th Dec. 2018.

Yudkowsky, E. (2017). There's no fire alarm for artificial general intelligence. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. 13th Oct. 2017. https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/ Retrieved 9th Dec. 2018.

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Retraice (2022/10/23).

^3 Good (1965) p. 31.

^4 Bostrom (2014) pp. 98-99.

^5 Retraice (2022/10/19).

^6 The Ted Kaczynski / Unabomber approach is similar to the Samuel Butler (1863) approach.

^7 This is roughly the Kurzweil (2005) approach.

^8 The r/collapse subreddit people are a notable exception.

^9 Bostrom (2014) p. 123.

^10 Retraice (2022/10/24).

^11 Retraice (2022/10/25), `The first rule of secrecy is: Nothing on paper.' See also Retraice (2020/09/07).

^12 Bostrom (2014); see also Yudkowsky (2013), Yudkowsky (2017), Russell (2019), among many others.

^13 Ulam (1958); see also Retraice (2020/10/28).

^14 Franta (2021). See also: `Frontline' Review: Why the Climate Changed but We Didn't, New York Times, April 18, 2022.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re29: The News and World Model 4

Retraice^1

Headlines should connect directly to our model of what's going on out there.

Air date: Tuesday, 25th Oct. 2022, 11:45 PM Eastern/US.

About news and headlines

News headlines should connect directly to our world model, WM4. But does reading the news really tells us what we think it does? Does it tell us `what's going on out there?' Yes and no.

The first rule of secrecy is: Nothing on paper.^2 So if there are any humans keeping secrets out there, we're not going to read about them in the news. But circumstances can reveal secrets. And maybe we're clever; maybe we can connect the dots. And to do anything complicated, humans must write things down, so there will be written evidence of some sort.

`The news' is at least three things: 1. an answer to `What's going on out there?'; 2. an attempt to capture your attention; 3. a strong indicator of what people around you are (or will be) talking about.

We'll keep these things in mind, as well as our `eight M's' cheatsheet: medium, message, math, matter, money, motives, makers, masters.^3

Today's sources

* The New York Times Stories about a U.S.-Saudi oil deal and Democrat reactions connect to `strategic intelligence' (SI), `blue and red politics' (B&R) and H5 (`Civil War: The U.S. seems vulnerable to a civil war this decade.'). Other political news stories connect similarly. Culture and opinion articles tell us about what people might be thinking and talking about, which connect to the `self model' and `motivation model' elements of `natural intelligence'. This is the part of `what's going on out there' that is public conversation, which is a lot of what the news is (item 3 above). * Fox News Fox has mostly U.S. political content. This is all strategic intelligence, blue and red politics, and civil war stuff (SI/B&R/H5).

Side note on the business press: Chomsky said once that they have to be more honest, because their readers have real money at stake. Here's the full claim:

"There was some interesting stuff written about this [education and student attitudes toward authority] by Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis, two economists, in their work on the American educational system some years back. They pointed out that the educational system is divided into fragments. The part that's directed towards working people and the general population is indeed designed to impose obedience. But the education for elites can't quite do that. It has to allow creativity and independence. Otherwise they won t be able to do their job of making money. You find the same thing in the press. That's why I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times and Business Week. They just have to tell the truth."^4

* The Financial Times The lead story about Google (Alphabet) revenue growth slowing down is connected to WM4 as strategic intelligence (businesses are enmeshed complexes of competition, i.e. games, i.e. game theory) as well as artificial intelligence (without ad revenue, there's no money for Google's world-leading AI programs in Deep Mind and Google Brain). So: SI and AI. We're also talking about natural intelligence (NI): some people are going to act on this news. Recently, Netflix's subscription growth hit a similar wall, and suffered a similar adverse reaction by shareholders (NI, SI, and Netflix is a big user of AI recommendation engines^5).

Side note on business growth (and economic growth more generally): It's a complicated topic. It is often seen on the left as the root of all evil, and by business people and the right as priority number one. We consider it more complicated than either of these characterizations allows. * The Financial Times (cont.) A story about Pakistan, floods, climate change and seeking `justice' connects to WM4's `Nature is physics, selection and not f-ing around' (NINFA). Stories about TSMC and Taiwan, and Xi's new politburo members, connect to strategic intelligence, H4 (`China: The U.S. is no longer the only superpower; war is likely.') and our yet-unpublished hypothesis on Taiwan (SI/H4/Taiwan). * The Wall Street Journal WSJ also leads with the Google revenue slow-down. We can also connect this story to the effects of a U.S. economic slow down on H5 (Civil War). An Intel self-driving-car unit went public (AI). Russian oligarchs are hiding their wealth from Ukraine-war-related sanctions (SI). Kanye West did something bad. (NI?) * BBC News Rishi Sunak, the new UK prime minister, is settling in. (SI) Russia is using a U.S. athlete as a pawn. (SI)

Side note on news and business and their competing incentives: Businesses always want less bad news (about themselves), but news companies always want more bad news (about anything). * Vice NASA is starting a new UFO study (NI, NINFA, SI).^6 * TMZ Celebrities. People will talk about it. (NI?)

__

References

Chomsky, N. (1997). Class Warfare. New Star Books. ISBN: 1554200040. https://archive.org/details/classwarfare0000chom/page/n5/mode/2up Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=1554200040 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+1554200040 https://lccn.loc.gov/96000495

Dolan, R. M. (2000). UFOs and the National Security State Vol. 1: An Unclassified History. Keyhole, 1st ed. ISBN: 0967799503. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0967799503 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0967799503 https://lccn.loc.gov/00691087

Dolan, R. M. (2009). UFOs and the National Security State Vol. 2: The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973-1991. Keyhole. ISBN: 978-0967799513. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0967799513 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0967799513

Gerrish, S. (2018). How Smart Machines Think. The MIT Press. ISBN: 978-0262038409. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780262038409 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780262038409 https://lccn.loc.gov/2017059862

Keyhoe, D. (1950). The Flying Saucers Are Real. Forgotten Books. ISBN: 978-1605065472. Originally published 1950; this edition 2008. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781605065472 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781605065472 https://lccn.loc.gov/50004886

Powers, T. (1979). The Man Who Kept The Secrets: Richard Helms And The CIA. Pocket. ISBN: 0671456679. https://archive.org/details/manwhokeptsecret00powe/page/n5/mode/2up Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0671456679 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0671456679 https://lccn.loc.gov/79002210

Retraice (2022/10/21). Re25: Reading The New York Times and Fox News. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re25 Retrieved 22nd Oct. 2022.

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Powers (1979) p. 165.

^3 Retraice (2022/10/21).

^4 Chomsky (1997) p. 171

^5 Gerrish (2018) chpt. 5.

^6 See Dolan (2000) and Dolan (2009) and Keyhoe (1950) for most if not all of what has been said about UFOs, recent news stories notwithstanding.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re28: What's Good? RTFM

Retraice^1

Is the world model right, true, fit and mixed?

Air date: Monday, 24th Oct. 2022, 11:50 PM Eastern/US.

Is the world model good?

The basic thing we need to know about the model^2 itself: Is it worth our time?

Our time is valuable. Is the world model valuable enough to spend time paying attention to it? (We can and do ask the same question about Retraice itself.)

Why do you ask?

Why do we need a world model? 1. We need to know what's going on out there because:

(a) Space: There's fun and doom to be had^3 , which causes us feelings.

(b) Time: Real deadlines require us to act with imperfect knowledge, or else miss the fun and succumb to doom (i.e. you must act now, see below).

2. But it's hard to know what's going on out there because `out there' is so big and complicated (i.e. analysis is a tar pit, see below).^4

How would we know? RTFM

How do we know if WM4 is good? `Good' has more than one meaning. (Indeed, G.E. Moore^5 says it can't be defined.) Here are four senses of the word `good':

1. Right: moral and ethical.

(a) Caring^6 about the doom (micro, partial, individual^7) of others?

(b) Schopenhauer's `compassion'?^8

(c) Kierkegaard's `be[ing] that self which one truly is, ...the opposite of despair'?^9

(d) Scanlon's `contractualism'?^10

(e) MacAskill's `effective altruism'?^11

In ethics and morality, there have been many good thoughts and insights, but there's no morality if we're dead. So...

2. True: Accurate, resembling reality.^12

3. Fit: Effective for survival and thriving, i.e. goals.^13

4. Mixed: a good mix of 1-3, i.e. well-placed in the 3D space of RTF.

RTFM is a `good model', a model of `the good' to be incorporated into our world model.

Two problems with RTFM

The problems with `good' are the same as the problems that give rise to the world model: * 1st problem: `analysis is a tar pit'^14 , similar to `big and complicated' above. * 2nd problem: `you must act now', similar to `real deadlines' above.

On these two problems, consider the Cold War strategist and diplomat George Kennan, as quoted by Beckley and Brands:

"Just weeks after taking charge at the [Policy Planning Staff], [Kennan] had already concluded that it was impossible to come up with perfect answers to an avalanche of problems. `The only way we could ever hope to solve them would be if we could persuade the world to stand still for six months while we sit down and think it over,' he said. `But life does not stand still, and the resulting confusion is terrific."'^15

__

References

Beckley, M., & Brands, H. (2022). Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN: 978-1324021315. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781324021315 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781324021315 https://lccn.loc.gov/2022026775

Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution And The Meanings Of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN: 068482471X. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=068482471X https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+068482471X https://lccn.loc.gov/94049158

Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge. ISBN: 978-0521336116. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0521336116 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0521336116 https://lccn.loc.gov/87026941

Hoffman, D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN: 978-0393254693. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0393254693 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0393254693 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019006962

Honderich, T. (Ed.) (2005). Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. ISBN: 0199264791. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0199264791 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0199264791 https://lccn.loc.gov/2005275452

Kierkegaard, S. (2013). Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978-0691158310. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780691158310 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780691158310 https://lccn.loc.gov/2012955513

Lewis-Kraus, G. (2022). The reluctant prophet of effective altruism. The New Yorker. 8th Aug. 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/the-reluctant-prophet-of-effective-altruism Retrieved 24th Oct. 2022.

Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia Ethica. Cambridge, 1922 reprint ed. No ISBN. https://archive.org/details/principiaethica53430gut Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=PRINCIPIA+ETHICA https://www.google.com/search?q=PRINCIPIA+ETHICA https://lccn.loc.gov/04026925

Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/11/10). Re13: The Care Factor. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re13 Retrieved 10th Nov. 2020.

Retraice (2022/03/02). Re16: Trust is a Response. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re16 Retrieved 6th Mar. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/19). Re23: You Need a World Model. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re23 Retrieved 20th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/23). Re27: Now That's a World Model - WM4. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re27 Retrieved 24th Oct. 2022.

Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. Routledge. First published in 1948. This edition 1992. ISBN: 0415083028. Searches: https://archive.org/search.php?query=Human%20Knowledge%3A%20Its%20Scope%20and%20Limits https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0415083028 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0415083028 https://lccn.loc.gov/94209784

Schopenhauer, A. (2014). The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1107414747. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781107414747 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781107414747 https://lccn.loc.gov/2009012830

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Retraice (2022/10/23).

^3 Retraice (2022/10/23).

^4 Retraice (2022/10/19).

^5 Honderich (2005) p. 348.

^6 See Frankfurt (1988) and Retraice (2020/11/10) on caring.

^7 Retraice (2022/10/23). Local and global threat models do care about others, but probably for selfish reasons.

^8 Schopenhauer (2014) p. xiii.

^9 Kierkegaard (2013) p. 281.

^10 Honderich (2005) p. 838.

^11 Lewis-Kraus (2022).

^12 Russell (1948) p. 526 on true expectations of nature. See also Retraice (2020/09/07).

^13 See Hoffman (2019), especially his `FBT' (fitness beats truth) hypothesis, chpt. 4, and Retraice (2022/03/02). See also Dennett (1996) chpt. 3 on Darwinism as a `universal acid test' of ideas, and Frankfurt (1988) pp. 124-130 on the bullshitter's indifference to truth in favor of whatever serves his purpose, which could be anything.

^14 See, for example, the analytical TOC of Moore (1903), pp. xiii-xxvii.

^15 Beckley & Brands (2022) p. 148.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re27: Now That's a World Model - WM4

Retraice^1

A world model should model the world.

Air date: Sunday, 23rd Oct. 2022, 11:45 PM Eastern/US.

Natural intelligence is threat modeling

The intelligence part of what we are does at least one major thing: threat modeling^2 : o Self model: (see below). o Locale model: the hypotheses, i.e. guesses about current history (H1-H13 and beyond). o World model: a guess about cosmology (God? Physics/entropy/many-worlds? Simulation?). o Threat models of catastrophic risk:

- Micro: loss of moments, time, attention.

- Partial: limb or limitation risk.

- Individual: single human.

- Local: all group.

- Global: all human.

Self model: survivors and thrivers

And what are we? Survival machines (or escape machines). First, we must rage against the dying of the light (survive).^3 Then we must do everything else (thrive), which is the stuff we care about^4 , and secondary. * Individuals escape from the four F's.^5 * Populations over time evolve to get better at escape.

Motivation model: fun and doom

What would motivate us against doom, compared to near-term fun? The problem is that wealth and power are so motivating. But loss feels twice as intense as gain.^6 Is the solution to arouse the anticipation of loss without overdosing on it?^7

Decisions: The two problems of life and the problem of death

Two problems of life:

1. To change the world?

2. To change oneself (that part of the world)?

Problem of death:

1. Dead things rarely become alive, whereas alive things regularly become dead. What to do?

Nature is physics, selection and not f-ing around

Think: physics, evolutionary biology, computer science, economics, complexity, resource constraints. * Genetics is about replicators (genes) and vehicles (organisms),^8 i.e. biological `mechanically advantaged energy' (MAE or `leverage') in the contest between inanimate and animate matter via natural selection.^9 * Kardashev scale of civilization types^10 : 0.70: Robotics, human-scale MAE. 0.73: Nanotech, or nano-scale MAE. 1.0: planetary-scale MAE. 2.0: solar-scale MAE. 3.0: galactic scale MAE.

Strategic intelligence is game theory

1. Blue and red, bipolar human group conflict: the most basic game in game theory, which gives rise to strategy.

2. Multipolar conflicts give rise to group strategy (intelligence organizations).

3. Trust is the main problem in the prisoner's dilemma, and intelligence organizations.

Artificial intelligence is computer control

* Leverage mechanisms explode in complexity, which leads to the need for computers (think Turing machines). * Leverage mechanisms explode in power, which leads to the need for control (think cybernetics). * Computer control, then, is: Turning-machine cybernetics. * Control of computer artifacts (hardware) is physics, chemistry and engineering. * Control of computer electrons (voltages, code) is coding. * AI is: classical code (steps yield precise results) and AI code (steps improve imprecise results).^11

__

References

Benson, A. C. (1916). Escape, and Other Essays. Echo Library. ISBN: 978-1847029010. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-1847029010 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-1847029010 https://lccn.loc.gov/15019279

Dawkins, R. (2016). The Selfish Gene. Oxford, 40th anniv. ed. ISBN: 978-0198788607. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780198788607 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780198788607 https://lccn.loc.gov/2016933210

Dyson, G. (2020). Analogia: The Emergence of Technology Beyond Programmable Control. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN: 978-0374104863. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780374104863 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780374104863 https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=9780374104863

Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge. ISBN: 978-0521336116. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0521336116 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0521336116 https://lccn.loc.gov/87026941

Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind. Perennial / HarperCollins. ISBN: 0688159885. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0688159885 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0688159885 https://lccn.loc.gov/99024247

Kissinger, H. A., Schmidt, E., & Huttenlocher, D. (2021). The Age of AI. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN: 978-0316273800. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780316273800 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780316273800 https://lccn.loc.gov/2021943914

Retraice (2020/11/10). Re13: The Care Factor. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re13 Retrieved 10th Nov. 2020.

Schneier, B. (2000). Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. Wiley. ISBN: 0471453803. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0471453803 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0471453803 https://lccn.loc.gov/00042252

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Schneier (2000) chpt. 19.

^3 Do not go gentle into that good night, Thomas (1951)

^4 Retraice (2020/11/10); Frankfurt (1988).

^5 Benson (1916) on escape. Gopnik et al. (1999) p. 158 on the "central evolutionary business" of fighting, fleeing, feeding and fornicating. We can think of these as `escaping' from noxious feelings or stimuli.

^6 Loss aversion.

^7 Something else that might motivate us is love.

^8 Dawkins (2016) pp. x-xiii. Other considerations: memes (Dawkins (2016) chpt. 11), analogia (Dyson (2020)).

^9 We are asserting here that genetics and biology are ultimately about physical leverage. We have no source, as yet, to support this view. MAE is our term, as far as we know.

^10 Kardashev Scale and Sagan interpolation.

^11 Kissinger et al. (2021) p. 58.

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re26: Searching The New York Times and Fox News

Retraice^1

Because we're looking for something.

Air date: Saturday, 22nd Oct. 2022, 11:55 PM Eastern/US.

World Model 3

1. Computer control^2 is suffusing GNR, GCR, B&R^3 , and the three kinds of intelligence^4 (NI, AI, SI)^5 ; 2. Because of computer control, some humans now control other humans because they know them better than they know themselves, but machinery could take control; 3. To check^6 these guesses about current history (what's GOOT), we need information^7 from trusted^8 and integrated^9 sources^10 .

So let's see what the Times and Fox have to offer.

What we're looking for

We're looking for evidence, for and against WM3. We should try to prove and disprove it: "[W]hen you're working hard on a theorem you should try to prove it by day and disprove it by night."^11

But WM3 is not well-formed. It's a guess. On guessing, learning and intelligence, see Retraice (2020/11/02) and sources cited there.

We're not expecting much from this exercise, but sometimes it's worth doing the obvious. These generalist news sources (the Times, Fox) claim to know what's GOOT. Let's see about that.

What could be there

A gestalt? A general feel for what's GOOT, or what people think is GOOT, or what they want us to think is GOOT? Probably a mix.

A needle in a haystack? Maybe. Probably not today.

Finding it

Some of the tools at our disposal: * The source's built-in search functionality; * Google search, if the site is thoroughly indexed; * Deep archive search tools: - The Times has full-archive search tools; - Lexis-Nexis; - But why not REGEX!! Regular expressions would be so useful, if only it were implemented in all the places we need it.

Searching `computer control'

Fox: * Army improves Abrams tank gun system with upgraded fire control (2 years ago) * Humans can now control turtles' minds (6 years ago) * Is Flight 447's `Fly-by-Wire' Aircraft Technology Safe?^12 (8 years ago) * Air traffic control system a hacking risk, watchdog says (8 years ago)

Are these stories evidence of WM3.1, `computer control is suffusing GCR, GNR, B&R, NI, AI, SI'? No, except maybe the turtle thing. And maybe the tank. The results are relevant to our search, but how strongly are they related to our hypotheses? We don't have a solid measure of relevance.

The Times: * The Gamification of Humanity (Sep. 20, 2022) * Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (Jul. 26 2022)

The gamification book author's warning is relevant to WM3.2, `some humans now control other humans because they know them better than they know themselves'.

The crypto story is a stretch, but could be connected to WM3.2 as well.

The real problem is that our WM3 hypotheses are not well-formed. Who's to say what is or isn't evidence, and how much so? We're supposed to know that, to have a serious means of deciding evidence and relevance.

Searching `GNR' and `Kurzweil'

GNR comes back as Guns N' Roses.

`Kurzweil' fetches the usual stuff.^13

Messages, messengers and a better world model

If we think of websites as being a combination of messengers and messages, it's the messages that are easy to find. Much more work is necessary to evaluate the messengers.^14

We need to tighten up World Model 3, to make it more tractable. And we need to reconcile the hypotheses with the world model as such. Are they the same sort of thing? Or different? How should they fit together?

_

References

Ellenberg, J. (2014). How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking. Penguin. ISBN: 978-0143127536. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0143127536 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0143127536 https://lccn.loc.gov/2014005394

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. ISBN: 0679720340. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0679720340 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0679720340 https://lccn.loc.gov/88042614

Kurzweil, R. (2013). How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed. Penguin Books. ISBN: 978-0143124047. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780143124047 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780143124047 https://lccn.loc.gov/2012027185

Margin (2020/10/22). Ma4: Assumptions (A Wrestling Match). retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/ma4 Retrieved 24th Oct. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/08). Re2: Tell the People, Tell Foes. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re2 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/09). Re3: Tell Everyone. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re3 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/10). Re4: Trust No One. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re4 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/11/02). Re10: Living to Guess Another Day. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re10 Retrieved 2nd Nov. 2020.

Retraice (2020/11/25). Re15: Trust and Sources. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re15 Retrieved 28th Feb. 2022.

Retraice (2022/03/02). Re16: Trust is a Response. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re16 Retrieved 6th Mar. 2022.

Retraice (2022/03/07). Re17: Hypotheses to Eleven. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re17 Retrieved 17th Mar. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/10). Re19: Nature Is Not F-ing Around. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re19 Retrieved 12th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/19). Re22: Computer Control. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re22 Retrieved 19th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/20). Re24: Now, Anything Goes. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re24 Retrieved 21st Oct. 2022.

Walter, C. (2020). Immortality, Inc.: Renegade Science, Silicon Valley Billions, and the Quest to Live Forever. National Geographic. ISBN: 978-1426219801. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781426219801 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781426219801 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019012360

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Retraice (2022/10/19); cf. Retraice (2022/03/07), the original eleven hypotheses which are now rolled up into H12, Computer Control.

^3 Retraice (2022/10/10).

^4 Retraice (2020/09/07).

^5 Genetics, nanotech, robotics; global catastrophic risks; blue-and-red politics; natural, artificial and strategic intelligence.

^6 Retraice (2020/11/02).

^7 Retraice (2020/09/09).

^8 Retraice (2020/09/10); Retraice (2020/11/25); Retraice (2022/03/02).

^9 Retraice (2022/10/20).

^10 Retraice (2020/09/08), see `Problems of Trust', pp. 3-7.

^11 Ellenberg (2014) p. 433. and Margin (2020/10/22).

^12 Betteridge's law of headlines says: No. But cf. micromorts to put the risk in perspective.

^13 As mentioned during the livestream, Walter (2020) p. 253 tells the story of Kurzweil joining Google after Larry Page read Kurzweil (2013). Side note: natural language processing (which seemed to be Kurzweil's beat for his first few years at Google) is an AI domain where the term `world model' is used, but not in the sense that we're using it.

^14 As mentioned during the livestream: Herman & Chomsky (1988).

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re25: Reading The New York Times and Fox News

Retraice^1

Because why not.

Air date: Friday, 21st Oct. 2022, 11:30 PM Eastern/US.

Side note: three hidden assumptions

1. By asking `What's GOOT?', we're implying that the answer is not readily available. We don't know--and you don't know. This is probably because biology has not equipped us for this new environment. Our only (?) hope is mental and cultural adaptation.^2 2. Further, we're implying that new work is needed to find out what's GOOT (what we're doing). And perhaps even new workers are needed (us, of course!). 3. We're also assuming you have a motive to find the answer(s).^3 Ours is a belief that NINFA and the related belief in real deadlines.^4

World Model 2

World Model 1 is so yesterday.^5

1. Computer control^6 is suffusing GNR, GCR, B&R^7 , and the three kinds of intelligence^8 (NI, AI, SI).^9

2. To check^10 this, we need information^11 from trusted^12 and integrated^13 sources^14 .

The news

Collection and analysis are two different disciplines within intelligence agencies^15 but when you read the news you're doing them both at the same time, on the fly. Use our cheatsheet (below) to compensate.

Mainstream news sources focus on variety and appeal, like a grocery store. Ultimately they're selling hard-to-get information and readers' attention, in unknown proportion.

They're a good starting point, but there's no obvious way to trust them systematically, the way we would trust a bridge.

Eight M's: a cheatsheet for quick collection and analysis

While reading, look for and distinguish these things:

1. medium / the physical layer;

2. message / signal and noise sources, deception^16 ;

3. math / Paulos^17 / Hamming-Fermi calculations^18 ;

4. matter / physical resources and terrain;

5. money / allocation of resources on the medium-message-sender side, and the cost-of-collection^19 (price of information^20) collector side;

6. motives / MICE: money, ideology, compromise, ego^21 ;

7. makers / detailers, workers in the shop (who are about tactics)^22 ;

8. masters / allocators, owners (who are about strategy).

Impressions of the Times and Fox

* advertisements: for self-subscription and other businesses; * subscriptions protect news sources from attack by advertiser boycott (I vaguely recall hearing that Fox started focusing on subscriptions after an advertiser boycott of Tucker Carlson, but don't quote me on this.); * news, culture, opinion, weather; * the content we're consuming is free, notwithstanding the advertisements; * some overlap between the Times and Fox (the Biden student loan court decision); * more ads on Fox homepage, but the Times might do more ads elsewhere (e.g. in articles); * as far as the homepage, above the fold, the Times really wants you to subscribe; Fox is more about serving ads; * the Times has much more whitespace on the homepage; Fox uses every inch;

Applying the eight M's

1. medium: webpage/website, not TV; but we can assume that many if not most consumers are not getting content via these websites; they're using social media (the Times) and TV (Fox);

2. messages: plenty to analyze here;

3. math: didn't see any obvious calculations to do;

4. matter: think `people hunched over computers or out pounding pavement';

5. money: subscriptions, advertisements, paychecks and share prices;

6. motives: this is hard to tease out from such a cursory glance, but maybe we can assume there's no `compromise' motivating anybody? Maybe not! But money, ideology and ego are surely the main drivers.

7. makers: see `matter' above;

8. masters: both are publicly traded; Fox is largely owned by the Murdoch family; the Times' largest shareholder is Carlos Slim (source: glancing at Wikipedia pages);

Messages and the messengers

Once you've read one news website, you've read them all: same format, same reasons for and methods of getting your attention; they're trying to be your personal private intelligence organization, and/or selling your attention to advertisers.

What we care about is the messages, the information that might or might not be present. Once we've gathered a message, we have to analyze it and decide if it's `really what's going on out there'. Biases are at play. Unknowns among the eight M's are at play.

Think of how hundreds or thousands of engineers are working full-time to capture and keep our attention in aps and phones. The same is happening behind `the news'. What are their motives? It's easy to guess but hard to check. Consider the filtering of reporters and stories described by Chomsky and Herman.^23

_

References

Charney, D. L., & Irvin, J. A. (2016). A guide to the psychology of espionage. In Oleson (2016).

Grabo, C. M. (2002). Anticipating Surprise: Analysis for Strategic Warning. Center for Strategic Intelligence Research. ISBN: 0965619567 https://www.ni-u.edu/ni_press/pdf/Anticipating_Surprise_Analysis.pdf Retrieved 7th Sep. 2020.

Hamming, R. W. (2020). The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn. Stripe Press. ISBN: 978-1732265172. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781732265172 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781732265172

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. ISBN: 0679720340. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0679720340 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0679720340 https://lccn.loc.gov/88042614

Lowenthal, M. M. (2020). Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. CQ Press / SAGE Publications, 8th ed. ISBN: 978-1544358345. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-1544358345 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-1544358345 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019027254 Other editions available at: https://archive.org/search.php?query=Intelligence%3A%20From%20Secrets%20to%20Policy

Margin (2022/10/14). Ma21: Delusion Hunting 1 - Content Delivery. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/ma21 Retrieved 15th Oct. 2022.

Meek, J. (2018). The club and the mob. London Review of Books. 6 Dec. 2018. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n23/james-meek/the-club-and-the-mob Retrieved 30th Sep. 2022.

Oleson, P. C. (Ed.) (2016). AFIO's Guide to the Study of Intelligence. Association of Former Intelligence Officers, 1st ed. Citations are of the pbk. edition, ISBN: 978-0997527308. PDF edition available at: https://www.afio.com/40_guide.htm Retrieved 10th Sep. 2020.

Paulos, J. A. (1995). A Mathematician Reads The Newspaper. Basic Books. ISBN: 0465043623. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0465043623 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0465043623 https://lccn.loc.gov/94048206

Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/08). Re2: Tell the People, Tell Foes. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re2 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/09). Re3: Tell Everyone. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re3 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/09/10). Re4: Trust No One. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re4 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/11/02). Re10: Living to Guess Another Day. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re10 Retrieved 2nd Nov. 2020.

Retraice (2020/11/25). Re15: Trust and Sources. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re15 Retrieved 28th Feb. 2022.

Retraice (2022/03/02). Re16: Trust is a Response. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re16 Retrieved 6th Mar. 2022.

Retraice (2022/03/07). Re17: Hypotheses to Eleven. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re17 Retrieved 17th Mar. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/10). Re19: Nature Is Not F-ing Around. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re19 Retrieved 12th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/16a). Re20: The Deadline Problem. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re20 Retrieved 17th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/16b). Re21: Time's Up. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re21 Retrieved 18th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/19a). Re22: Computer Control. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re22 Retrieved 19th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/19b). Re23: You Need a World Model. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re23 Retrieved 20th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/20). Re24: Now, Anything Goes. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re24 Retrieved 21st Oct. 2022.

Vallee, J. (1979). Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults. And/Or Press. ISBN: 0915904381. Different edition and searches: https://archive.org/details/MessengersOfDeceptionUFOContactsAndCultsJacquesValle1979/mode/2up https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0915904381 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0915904381 https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=0915904381

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Margin (2022/10/14) note 4: "Isn't it true that...."

^3 Cf. Meek (2018), last paragraph.

^4 Nature is not f-ing around; Retraice (2022/10/10); Retraice (2022/10/16a); Retraice (2022/10/16b); Retraice (2022/10/19b).

^5 Retraice (2022/10/20).

^6 Retraice (2022/10/19a); cf. Retraice (2022/03/07), the original eleven hypotheses which are now rolled up into H12, Computer Control.

^7 Retraice (2022/10/10).

^8 Retraice (2020/09/07).

^9 Genetics, nanotech, robotics; global catastrophic risks; blue-and-red politics; natural, artificial and strategic intelligence.

^10 Retraice (2020/11/02).

^11 Retraice (2020/09/09).

^12 Retraice (2020/09/10); Retraice (2020/11/25); Retraice (2022/03/02).

^13 Retraice (2022/10/20).

^14 Retraice (2020/09/08), see `Problems of Trust', pp. 3-7.

^15 Lowenthal (2020) pp. 94-95.

^16 Lowenthal (2020) pp. 95-96; Grabo (2002) p. 119 and Retraice (2020/09/07).

^17 Paulos (1995).

^18 Hamming (2020) pp. 5-8.

^19 Lowenthal (2020) pp. 83-85.

^20 Vallee (1979) pp. 67-69 on `Major Murphy'.

^21 Charney & Irvin (2016) p. 465.

^22 Herman & Chomsky (1988).

^23 Herman & Chomsky (1988).

(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)

Re24: Now, Anything Goes

Retraice^1

We're not going to talk; we're going to do.

Air date: Thursday, 20th Oct. 2022, 11:20 PM Eastern/US.

A crisis

Explicit, systematic application of method is exhausting. It is why we invented machines. It is why we will never be machines.

Now, anything goes. Because the machine approach to what's GOOT via world models is not human. At least, it's not human to talk about it, at length, to an audience (as opposed to just doing it, which is necessary).

World Model 1

Here's a first world model.

1. NINFA (nature is not f-ing around): GNR (genetics, nanotech, robotics), GCR (global catastrophic risks), and B&R (blue and red politics) all have real deadlines^2 ; 2. There are three kinds of intelligence (natural, artificial, strategic)^3 ; 3. Sources require tests^4 , and then integration (as in, integration of specialist knowledge into generalist models)^5 ; 4. Computer control^6 is what's GOOT.

Trying to apply this systematically to What's GOOT for purposes of podcast content did not feel right. Systematic method applied explicitly is exhausting.

Against method

Paul Feyerabend's book offered another way, which felt more right (see below).

Don't talk. Do.

But we're not going to talk--we're going to do. Doug Edwards on working at the early Google:

"In reality, if you weren't an engineer, your first directive was to avoid impeding the progress of those who were. I'm not a technical guy. No one at Google ever said, `Hey, let's ask Doug!' when the flux capacitor hiccupped. But you couldn't work at Google without learning something new every day, even if you weren't trying to. Most engineers opened up about their work when I sat next to them at lunch, and generally they didn't mind using little baby-English words to explain things to me. Given the pressure, though, the engineers were biased toward being productive rather than talking about their productivity. It was a `Don't talk. Do.' kind of culture, which made communication about our technical achievements erratic."^7 (emphases added)

Chimps and bonobos and inquiry

Feyerabend on how to avoid impeding (inhibiting) scientific inquiry:

"Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise.... The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."^8 (emphasis added)

This makes more sense. When we do enquiry, pursuing `what's GOOT', we do it like primates, not machines.

E.O. Wilson on science and the humanities, a human-inquiry model:

"The two great branches of learning, science and the humanities, are complementary in our pursuit of creativity. They share the same roots of innovative endeavor. The realm of science is everything possible in the universe; the realm of the humanities is everything conceivable to the human mind."^9

What's GOOT? The possible (science) and the conceivable (humanities), as pursued by primates.

Changing tacks

Everything we've said so far is still true and valid. But going forward, we'll try the more instinctive approach, and leave the `machine MO' for off-mic. Maybe we'll start by just reading the news.

For this to be worth your time, you'll have to trust us.

_

References

Edwards, D. (2011). I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN: 978-0547416991. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0547416991 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0547416991 https://lccn.loc.gov/2010052588

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. Verso, 3rd ed. ISBN: 978-0860916468. First ed. 1975; this third ed. 1993. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780860916468 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780860916468 https://lccn.loc.gov/76352961

Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2022/03/02). Re16: Trust is a Response. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re16 Retrieved 6th Mar. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/10). Re19: Nature Is Not F-ing Around. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re19 Retrieved 12th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/16a). Re20: The Deadline Problem. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re20 Retrieved 17th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/16b). Re21: Time's Up. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re21 Retrieved 18th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/19a). Re22: Computer Control. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re22 Retrieved 19th Oct. 2022.

Retraice (2022/10/19b). Re23: You Need a World Model. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re23 Retrieved 20th Oct. 2022.

Wilson, E. O. (2017). The Origins of Creativity. W. W. Norton, Kindle ed. ISBN: 978-1631493195. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781631493195 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9781631493195 https://lccn.loc.gov/2017017326

Footnotes

^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice

^2 Retraice (2022/10/10); Retraice (2022/10/16a); Retraice (2022/10/16b).

^3 Retraice (2020/09/07).

^4 Retraice (2022/03/02)

^5 Retraice (2022/10/19b).

^6 Retraice (2022/10/19a).

^7 Edwards (2011) p. xv.

^8 Feyerabend (1975) pp. 9, 14.

^9 Wilson (2017) p. 1.