This short article of "psychology today" will interest everyone here perhaps save the OP for sure...😊

I recommend it to tylermunns in particular a true musician which A.I. will never be for sure and could not be ...

The metaphor with Black hole is right...

But suggesting to integrate A.I. in our education to maintain our autonomy and amplify it as Nosta said is not enough at all ...It is "not even wrong" ... I will only gave my opinion about this if others read it and want to discuss it here ..

I posted too much... 😉

LLMs and the Specter of the Cognitive Black Hole

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202403/llms-and-the-specter-of-the-cognitive-black-hole

Great testimony as artist... Thank you tylermunns... 😊

It is because i feel the same as you even if i am not a musician as you are that i am interested also by A. I.

The threat and his nature ...

My very best ...

I’m not so interested in discussing the meaning of “intelligence,” or whether AI is such as I am interested in discussing the implications of an already-difficult occupation, artist (in this case musical artist), now entailing a threat from computers. Really, really smart ones.  
Further, I have no interest in what a computer makes.  
Can’t relate to it.  
I ain’t a computer.  If I was, I might be interested to hear what my AI brethren created.   
I’m a human. When I experience art, the humanity is absolutely 100% the reason I’m interested in it. Because I’m human.  This is a form of communication; art.  
The creation of a bunch of algorithmic gobbledyguk?  
A curiosity.  
Not art.  
Unfortunately it will sold as such, whether the consumer knows it was excreted from a network of robot gobbledyguk or not.

I’m not so interested in discussing the meaning of “intelligence,” or whether AI is such as I am interested in discussing the implications of an already-difficult occupation, artist (in this case musical artist), now entailing a threat from computers. Really, really smart ones.  
Further, I have no interest in what a computer makes.  
Can’t relate to it.  
I ain’t a computer.  If I was, I might be interested to hear what my AI brethren created.   
I’m a human. When I experience art, the humanity is absolutely 100% the reason I’m interested in it. Because I’m human.  This is a form of communication; art.  
The creation of a bunch of algorithmic gobbledyguk?  
A curiosity.  
Not art.  
Unfortunately it will sold as such, whether the consumer knows it was excreted from a network of robot gobbledyguk or not.
 

You can view collective intelligence as the intelligence of individuals times the number of individuals times the reproduction (read: evolution) rate. In the middle of the spectrum between bacteria and humans are ants and bees.

AIs will be things as smart or smarter than us that can multiply as fast as bacteria. The best of both worlds.

@falconquest 

I will argue until I'm blue in the face that AI is not a source of creativity equal to that of the consciousness of humans.

Another perspective:

We think of intelligence as an individual thing. But another way to look at it is as a collective thing. We are smart (so we say!). We do complex biology and math and manufacturing to kill a bunch of bacteria with an antibiotic that we designed. But, while individual bacteria are very, very, stupid (unthinking, most would agree), there are billions and billions of them. And they reproduce every second or so. And they mutate. Most of them die because of this new antibiotic they've been exposed to, but a few of them mutate to be resistant. And soon enough, there are billions of the new, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These bacteria have collectively said, "F- you! We outsmarted your stupid vaccine..." So collectively, they are smart. You can view collective intelligence as the intelligence of individuals times the number of individuals times the reproduction (read: evolution) rate. In the middle of the spectrum between bacteria and humans are ants and bees.

Now think of AIs. Are they creative? Well, first, how creative are we? For 1000 years of western music, we had only what we'd call the "white notes" on the piano -- the 7 "natural" notes. Bb was discovered/invented in medieval times. It took another almost half century to figure out the rest of the black notes on the keyboard (i.e., all the key signatures that we recognize today). Looking at the population of Europe in the year 1000 (36 million) and the year 1500 (61 million), that equates to about 25 billion people-years to develop the chromatic scale and related key signatures. Is that "creativity"?

Look at what AIs can do now compared to ten years ago. A researcher was recently doing some prompt engineering on a large language model (LLM), and the LLM said to him, "Hey, it looks like you're trying to engineer my prompt..." Do I think it's "intelligent" right now? No. But in 30 years, AIs will be a billion times faster than they are today (just due to Moore's Law). A billion times today's abilities likely will be emulating consciousness, if not actually being functionally conscious. Thirty years later, they will be yet another billion times faster. A quintillion times faster than today. It's unimaginable.

And millions or billions of AIs (since copying them is as cheap as multiplying bacteria), each a quintillion times more powerful than today. Much in the same way that we can't fathom evolution over a billion years in anything but the most abstract terms (how do you get from a paramecium to a human?!?), we just can't fathom this computing change. There's no visceral reaction to such numbers; humans are not built to understand those timescales or magnitudes.

But AIs will be able to do things we can't even imagine today. And that's in 60 years, well within a human lifespan. If it took us 500 years to invent the black keys on a keyboard, how long do you think it will take something with a quintillion times the "intelligence" of today's AIs to posit and test the successors to Einstein's theories?

AIs will be things as smart or smarter than us that can multiply as fast as bacteria. The best of both worlds.  

The Quantum Origin of Life: How the Brain Evolved to Feel Good

by Stuart Hameroff

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978012420190300020X

We are all in the evolution starting point and end point simultaneously , which point is related to que inner question "how to feel good"...Because the Source of life is eternal joy...

But feeling really good in this material world is not just a sensual impression related to the body state...

It is also a conscious inspired , imagined and intuited impression coming from the source of all life....

This is also the source and goal of music as a body/soul gesture which is the craddle of language itself ..

No A. I. will ever reproduce this gesture of the body/soul... Life cannot die nor the soul which is only the clock hierarchical musical ladder around the timeless source coming from and returning to it. In fact always united with the source.

Because this pure joy is the moving wave of the universal information field of the creative cosmic memory..

As i said i think this field is mathematically projected in the geometry of the prime number distributions..

No algorithm can replace it , only imitate it or used it...

To resume Anirban Bandyopadhyay theory of consciousness , which is grounded in time not grounded as all others theories first and last in space material content :

«These theories of consciousness emphasize on spatial material, but consciousness may not be located in any particular space. It may arise from the collective vibrations of matter, which create a complex information structure made of discrete times. A more complete theory of consciousness may need to reject space altogether and focus only on the structure of time in nature. That could be a starting point.»

In A.B. time and the prime number matrix play the main role...

Here is the important point.

it is my opinion here not the opinion of A. B. here.

The matrix constituting the future artificial consciousness which is coming soon will imply a finite number of primes in the constitutive matrix.

But the cosmic field of information is infinite because the number of prime is infinite.The root of all living soul is then infinite not finite because all life is ONE.

We have a soul, but A. C. or artificial consciousness even if autonomous being will be just a conscious machine not soul... There will be no unconsciousness in A.C. as there is one in all life cells. The unconscious is reflection of all there is in the source which is not accessible immediately . Searle is wrong by the way saying the existence of an unconscious is incoherent .

Now It is possible to ask the most important spiritual question : why are we creating an artificial "soul" which will never be grounded in life unity but only grounded by his temporal matrix forever finite prime hierarchies to the material world and not to the ultimate infinite field and then this A.C. will stay captive of this material world and will die forever ? This is heavy responsability for us his creator to create a councious mortal being...

is a "soul" will be given or can be given to these A.C. or replicant ?

I dont know...

It is the question of this replicant in this absolutely marvellous movie ending

Listen to the movie Blade runner last scene and this ultimate question asked by the replicant a question formulated as an ultimate poem... The replicant give an idea about what is a pure A. C. as designed by the genius of Anirban Bandyopadhyay:

the dying replicant ask why he will die forever ?

This question is not new. Mary Shelly asked it through his Frankenstein creation, in the midst of materialism triumphant. The Blade Runner question is asked in the techno-cultist transhumanist era.

Poets know more than mathematician. No great mathematician anyway can be great without being a poet.Ask Grothendieck, Cantor, Ramanujan, they are all mystics or poets... If not poet engineers or accountants but not mathematical genius.😊

:

I certainly appreciate this conversation and while some of us may disagree, that's okay because we are dealing with something completely brand new....at least for us lay people, I won't go into it here but I will argue until I'm blue in the face that AI is not a source of creativity equal to that of the consciousness of humans. And whatever is said about music being adapted and re-framed from previous music I would argue that while there are a limited number of notes available and a human frequency spectrum of ~20-20K hz, coming up with creative tunings of instruments and creative lyrics is not a matter of previous work unless using very broad interpretation. I do wish to thank everyone for all of their contributions to this thread because I think it is important to understand and debate this topic.

Here is a symphony where despair and hope are together and immediately recognized as a consolation  played in a waiting meditation culminating in pure enlightenement and liberation ...

Is an A. I. will give us this set of emotions as craftly designed to move us exactly as the composer intended it to do in this specific way  soon ? 😊

This is the best version i know of this work ....

 Music is not a simulation as the brain is not a simulation but the two are  instantiation of the universal in the individual...  As said Hameroff an orchestration There is no algorythm for that ...

For sure artificial biology is the next level...You are right.

Read Anirban Bandyopadhyay and my link above. He is the top expert in the world right now and incredibly not so well known. He is the father of the incoming A. C.  artificial consciousness over  simple A. I.

Neural networks are kind of fascinating, but I suspect the real advances will be bio-tech, not just circuitry

To me, AI is the current "pet rock." We have undergone SXSW 2024- and all the panels were devoted to this. I wouldn’t mind learning how to code in Python, only to understand the technical side better. I’ve been a copyright lawyer for more than 40 years, and to me, the legal issues are pretty straightforward, though not necessarily favorable to the rights owners of existing works that are ingested for "training." Remember Y2K? The world was going to go all SkyNet. Nothing happened. Next "new" thing. Neural networks are kind of fascinating, but I suspect the real advances will be bio-tech, not just circuitry.

For what little it is worth, one needs human authorship to claim copyright in any "AI" created work and then, only to the extent of the human contribution. 

«There are 12 orders of frequency and both classical and quantum information processing in neuronal and glial microtubules in each cell. We need to fully map one neuron. The brain is a quantum orchestra, not a computer of cartoon neurons.» Stuart Hameroff

This is why any model of consciousness grounded in neural network computing cannot work.. The main non algorythmic processing is INSIDE each neuron .

« What’s missing from the above picture is that neurons have thousands of internal elements called microtubules, organized in bands. They are incredibly, thin, the inner diameter is only about 10 nm (billionths of a meter).»

@falconquest I stand by my opinion that there has never been anything truly original in music composition. Going back to the great classical composers, they often used folk melodies in their compositions and they built upon religious music that was performed in churches and monasteries. Yes, it got more complex, but it was not completely original.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds regarding music history but there has been a steady progression of composition for thousands of years, culture by culture, that has slowly and predictably built upon what came before. The music traditions of every culture are remarkably consistent with the musical development of that particular culture. For example, before there was cultural interchange, no East Indian person woke up one morning and wrote a classical composition in the style of Bach or a blues song in the style of Muddy Waters. Nothing like this has ever happened. But once people hear music from another culture they start to incorporate elements of that music into their own and they create something "new."

"Genius" has been defined as relating the normally unrelated. Jim Winey, the late designer of Magnapan speakes, had his revelation for speaker design while bonding two magnets together and he looked up at the perforated ceiling tile. Bingo! Flat Panel Speakers! What may seem like a completely novel idea always turns out to be a synthesis of other information.

In the book I referenced the author tells the story of teaching an A.I. to play the Chinese game of Go. It was strongly believed that no computer could ever defeat a human at the game. The computer not only beat the Chinese Go Master but it came up with a novel strategy that nobody had ever devised in the 2500 year history of the game. Now we are waiting to see if an A.I. robot can fold laundry.

This is why I have committed invest in an analog setup and get high quality vinyl records now. I know that in future the way we access digital music will be very different. Depending on your social status or score, you might not be able to listen to some genre or tiles. Let alone not being able to have access to music services all together.

I concur with your post opinion...😊falconquest

Most litterature about creativity sources point toward altered states of consciousness , as NDE, dreams, Nature meditation and walks, even dialogue with god or goddess, in the Grothendieck case and Ramanujan cases which are not isolated cases...

The molecule of benzene was dreamed in his geometry ... «The nineteenth-century German chemist August Kekulé claimed to have pictured the ring structure of benzene after dreaming of a snake eating its own tail»

@8th-note I have to disagree with hour premise about all new music is rehashed from others. I’m no scientist but I have long been fascinated by how musical artists come up with their music. I’m talking about truly creative artists not pop artists with which I would agree with you. Without delving into consciousness or the phenomenon, if you listen to interviews with these people they will say that the ideas or at times entire pieces of music just come to them, sometimes in dreams. This mimics some esoteric scientific theories that come to scientists the same way. We don’t understand what that is or how it works. I posit we know precious little about human consciousness. Why are some conduits of information and others not? I find this fascinating and I applaud those creative artists who share their “downloads” with us.

@8th-note I have to disagree with hour premise about all new music is rehashed from others. I’m no scientist but I have long been fascinated by how musical artists come up with their music. I’m talking about truly creative artists not pop artists with which I would agree with you. Without delving into consciousness or the phenomenon, if you listen to interviews with these people they will say that the ideas or at times entire pieces of music just come to them, sometimes in dreams. This mimics some esoteric scientific theories that come to scientists the same way. We don’t understand what that is or how it works. I posit we know precious little about human consciousness. Why are some conduits of information and others not? I find this fascinating and I applaud those creative artists who share their “downloads” with us.

Why not discussing and reading about A.I. ?

Why coming after my post without even adressing their content ?

Why my invitation to discussion is considered useless ?

have you a personality problem ?

I consider personal attacks the only posts that are sucking the oxygen here...

No poster with a real content is useless...

If you are not able to read a thread where someone can contribute more than you then dont open a thread about interesting and difficult matter ...

Anybody can object and propose his answers to my proposition...

I just propose a deep and free book new and very deep on the matter. Instead of thanking me you claimed that i suck the oxygen around your ego and you then  push the thread in personal attacks..

Do you know how many times you did it to me ?

😊

ban me forget my posts and keep silent ...if you are unable of any philosophical deep discussion...

 Take a poll and ask other people if my posts are useless here if the information annoyed them  and i will immediately erase all of  them ..

Take the poll ...

@mahgister

Don’t you understand what it means when someone won’t stop talking?

However interesting your comments or information -- it's not good thread etiquette. It's obsessive-compulsive, in my opinion.

You’re sucking the oxygen out of the thread by posting over and over and over. I’m done with this thread for a while.

Sorry but i think that those who can contribute and propose interesting facts and knowledge are invited to do this...no?

You perfectly can insert a post of yours everywhere...

the thread invite a reflexion about A.I.

The books articles i propose are directly related not well known and revolutionary if you take time to read them ...

😊

Annoying posts devoid of content and concerning the many posters personalities are useless... I dont think that my posts are out of matter and relevant for this categories...

We need information here , oxygen is easy to grasp , dont read my post and post yours...Discussion about A.I. matter... our opinion of the posters does not matter ...😊

Am i right ?

 Why not thanking me for suggesting unknown information books and articles about the next A. I. wave  which will not be neural network llm only  ?

did you already know that ?

😊

6 posts in a row @mahgister 

Oxygen...I need oxygen.

Clearly, this is your topic.

a test here :

By the way as in Goethe the whole is present in the parts... In Anirban Bandyopadhyay works the Whole (cosmos) is already in the part(brain) the part contain the whole and express it...

This is why A.B. who work on the first Indian quantum computer dont understand the relation between classical and quantum in the same way as most physicists...

Also his insistence on the concept of time and timing is crux of the matter... I will stop here ... You must read him ...It is not for the fainted heart because all is new in his approach nothing resemble actual neural network llm models at all ...

Genius dont walk they fly .

For those who want to understand how could be formulated a philosophical epistemology which is non reductionist and when it was formulated i suggest this article from "medium" excellent magazine internet :

https://designforsustainability.medium.com/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-goethe-s-aphorisms-on-the-theory-of-nature-and-science-ba6e12ebd5f1

i recommend also three books on Goethe by Henri Bortoft a physicist who is the best contemporary student of Goethe epistemology... His book : "Taken appearences serriously " is stunning read... Goethe is only on par with the greatest human scientific and artistic geniuses in one individual as Leonardo Da Vinci who anyway used the same methods in natural science ...

It will be an antidote to reductionism A.I. poisonning promoted by the like of Kurzweil...

Trying to keep up here but there are too many words. I will ask A.I. to summarize. ;-)

I am sorry as all know i am too verbose...

But how to describe complex matter in few sentences ?

😁😊😉

I will be surprized if A.I. can relate together Cantor, Mystics methods, Shai Haran Grothendieck, Mochizuki and Anirban work in one meaningful explanation...

But ask him he will answer this : The prime numbers is the core of the works between all these names... But he will affirm to you that there is no relation between Cantor works and the prime numbers distribution... The only exception will be a note in a book of Hao Wang about the unexplained intuition of Godel about a relation between the existence of measurable cardinals and the prime distribution ... An idea so deep no one ever explained to my knowledge ...

It is what A. I. chat gpt will say to you if it is efficient ... 😊

but i doubt he will explain well the link between mystical methods and Cantor but it is possible ... Ask him ... And report here ...

Trying to keep up here but there are too many words. I will ask A.I. to summarize. ;-)

I feel the same as you it is too rapid, too much, by too big big corporations...

I just submit my books suggestion for those interested and hoping it will be useful...

My best regards to you too ...

Sincerely ...

Of course we are in for a sea change in just about everything and no I personally don’t think it’s a good thing. I don’t mind change...it the rapidity that bites you in the butt.

I recall 30 some odd years ago as a software developer when I realized all of a sudden that anything can be faked. It is just bits and bytes, and manipulated properly can produce anything you can imagine. Was scary to me then and even more scary to me now. Particularly because it seems today’s youth seem to accept whatever is on a screen (obvious generalization).

@mahgister Please understand I respect the width and breadth of your knowledge base...to me it’s simply a matter of "to much to read". All the best.

Hold onto your shorts because they’re trying to pull them down!

Regards,

barts

I just finished a very interesting book on A.I. by Mustafa Suleyman titled "The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the 21st Century’s Greatest Dilema. I highly recommend it if you are interested in this subject. I guarantee that it will sharpen your perspective on this issue.

Thanks for the book recommendation i will buy it now... I know the writer by youtube...he is interesting...

AI isn’t really intelligent. It’s a data mining algorithm. It creates nothing on its own without referencing human work. It just accesses what is already created very well and can assemble it however it is asked to perform.

@falconquest I would submit that this is exacty what humans do. The phenonemon we call creativity is actually just a resythesis of elements that have come before. Music is an excellent example. There is nothing that is completely "original" in new music. Every new composition and performance references what has come before it. The concept of A.I. is modeled on how our brains work. It is only a matter of time before it A.I. exceeds the capabilities of the human brain and A.I. sentience is going to happen whether we like it or not.

Now this matter in your post is very complicated to understand...

Saying that A. I. will exceed human intelligence is not even wrong...

Saying that A.I. do the same thing that human creativity rewashing and mixing old historical patterns is not even wrong either...

The fact is that any A.I. and even the unknown A. C. designed by Anirban B. about whom i spoke in my above posts, they are all machines which cannot be rooted in the universal information field of all living creatures... Life had a guiding soul which is a cell of this infinite cosmic field.

No machine can gain a soul by definition of being artificial or designed out of the grounded flow of life...

But someday we will use living cells materials for our machine...Soon... Then we will play God...

In the universe right now some civilizations had already designed "robots" made of living cells... Are they own a soul ? i dont know.... Extraterrestrials or beings from another dimensions exists already anyway and used these beings/machines way over our actual primitive A. I. and even over the artificial brain of the artyificial conscious machine designed by Anirban ... ...

Now creativity in human beings by all means come from spiritual sources in dreams or by intuition as it is well attested by scientific testimonies of many geniuses... It is not the results of the brain as described by neural networks computing models...

Perhaps A.C. as designed by Anirban synthetic biology will be able of some "creativity" but man is linked to an infinite field of primes not to a finite field as synthetic biological entities through his soul ... Nobody can create soul because nobody ever created the primes numbers infinity... They emanate together from the Source of all fields or cells...

Music is an excellent example. There is nothing that is completely "original" in new music.

I differ of opinion about that...

Bach creation may be previsible as possibilities in some measure but appear totally new even today and unique... The same is true for Gesualdo or Scriabin or any geniuses...Imitating is not creating...

The instantiation of the universal through an individual living soul/body is not equal to a simulation through mere variations between imitation and modelization by a machine or by a brain working as a machine like neural network llm ....

music as language /speech also is so complex that we dont have a mathemathical model explaining his production and infinite creativity...

Music/sounds and language/ speech are complex symbolic forms related to two irreducible levels : the body and the meaning or symbolic level...

You cannot program our actual machine to be creative... Productivity is not creativity... Turing test is only an artefact describing our deception/confusion level and reflecting our ignorance about ourselves...

Of course we are in for a sea change in just about everything and no I personally don't think it's a good thing.  I don't mind change...it the rapidity that bites you in the butt.  

I recall 30 some odd years ago as a software developer when I realized all of a sudden that anything can be faked.  It is just bits and bytes, and manipulated properly can produce anything you can imagine.  Was scary to me then and even more scary to me now.  Particularly because it seems today's youth seem to accept whatever is on a screen (obvious generalization).

@mahgister Please understand I respect the width and breadth of your knowledge base...to me it's simply a matter of "to much to read".  All the best.

Hold onto your shorts because they're trying to pull them down!

Regards,

barts

I just finished a very interesting book on A.I. by Mustafa Suleyman titled "The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the 21st Century's Greatest Dilema. I highly recommend it if you are interested in this subject. I guarantee that it will sharpen your perspective on this issue.

AI isn’t really intelligent. It’s a data mining algorithm. It creates nothing on its own without referencing human work. It just accesses what is already created very well and can assemble it however it is asked to perform.

@falconquest I would submit that this is exacty what humans do. The phenonemon we call creativity is actually just a resythesis of elements that have come before. Music is an excellent example. There is nothing that is completely "original" in new music. Every new composition and performance references what has come before it. The concept of A.I. is modeled on how our brains work. It is only a matter of time before it A.I. exceeds the capabilities of the human brain and A.I. sentience is going to happen whether we like it or not.

sfgak

93 posts

03-14-2024 at 12:31pm

@mahgister Well articulated, and I share your pessimism... also, like you, optimistic in the long run, should we survive the short-term consequences of our actions.

Read up on the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter... this could be one of the deciding/defining moments for us as a species...

Fermi Paradox and his solution with the idea of a drastic filtering of survival by a fitness survival testing . modulo an evolution which in most case drive most primitive civilizations to destruction then making them unable to exist and manifest out of the scale of their own planet is logical and probably right to a great extent...but it is not a complete solutuion and explanation. Why ?

Because there exist from a long time ago civilizations that had passed this test many billions years ago, and their spiritual status make them more Gods than mortals...

These masters or advanced beings or angels, names do not matter here , supervised and control the evolution in the cosmos coordinated by a conscious link with the Source. Nothing is only randomness anymore at this scale...Randomness is constrainted...Randomness is very hard to define in maths, it does not exist as an absolute single concept...

My intuition about this is born 50 years ago in my quest to understand the core and meaning of maths.

my basic intuition was founded in an understanding of the impossibility for any conscious primate or any other evolutive species to design or invent the prime numbers distribution geometry...

A long study of Cantor and set theory convinced me and a reading of Grothendieck books...As an aside i discovered that Set Theory intuition were grounded in the works of Dionysos the Areopagite and Nicolas of Cues by Cantor heavy study of them. Cantor taught theology and would had never defied orthodox mathematician about the infinite without an insight in mystic experience that assured him he was not a fool facing Kronecker and Russell and half of mathematicians in the world wanting to put him in an asylum for mental delirium .. This is forgotten today but was very real debates.... Hilbert cut the knot saying : "nobody will throw off from Cantor paradise".... Few people only know that the concept of limitation of size inspiring set theoretical methods before axiomatization come from mystical Duionysus methods ( the hierarchical principles first and then cataphatic and apophatic methods and non discursive intuition) See Michael Hallett book about Cantor principle limitation of size meaning .

My basic intuition about primes meanings  was also  confirmed to me 12 years ago by the book of Shai Haran : the real prime... A masterpiece about the importance of the non archimedean  reals world over the archimedean reals  ... Read his articles online... Buy his book ...

Then this was confirmed by the controversial inter-universal geometry of Shinichi Mochizuki...

In all these two works the search circle around the prime geometrical meaning...

But in 2020 i was astounded to stumble on the Book of Anirban "Nanobrain" which use the prime numbers matrixes to design brain as well as the cosmos...

To say it in a word i had no doubt at all after studying these three geniuses that no one invented the primes, they are discovered...Alain Connes the founder of non commutative geometry is sure of this fact...

The primes as the circle geometry are transcendant infinite objects we observe and which precede and survive any cosmos... They are the code of the brain as well as the cosmos...Their rooting together in a musical way...

Sorry but call him Brahman or Allah or God the father or the Goddess or the Source will not change mathematics... A universal field of creative memory is the core of mathematics and cannot be understood in any others ways...

We live in love source expressing itself as absolute knowledge from which we are a rooted extension ...

Maths demonstrate it in an evident way...

It is the reason why almost ALL true great geniuses in maths were mystics in orthodox ways as Pascal Cantor, Euler and many others in an unorthodox ways as Godel, Grothedieck or Ramanujan ...The list is too long...

Materialism is already dead but alas! was replaced by a very negative false religion : techno-cultism and idolization of our own machines... Destruction of our own soul or roots for an alleged constructed "immortality" by fear of what does not exist anyway : death ...

@mahgister Well articulated, and I share your pessimism... also, like you, optimistic in the long run, should we survive the short-term consequences of our actions.

Read up on the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter... this could be one of the deciding/defining moments for us as a species...

The problem with A.I. and with A. C. even more, is that human societies are not prepared and matured enough in their actual conscious design to assimilate in a non destructive ways these technological revolution which cannot be even compared to writing but to the invention or mastery of fire combined with writing.

We live in a world of total criminal control by corporate powers. it is not conspiracy , it is a fact.

A small corporation by definition has two choices : staying small and serving well a limited base of customers or growing and serving itself and his investors.

Then no corporation by design in the actual social fabric where money control not only politics but worst education and even the spiritual journeys through any working jobs, no corporation can do good for the well being of mankind.It serve himself, and his own greed by financial design and in the race to power serve his survival, NONE is good among big corporations. Not because those at the wheel are conscious criminals, not at all , they mostly had good intentions. But hell is paved with good intention. See how Gates delude himself helping humanity through vaccinations. But the end result is not well being but his own profit not only in money but his own vision is vindicated not by facts confirmed helpful but by brute forces linked to his own survival as an actor. He control the WHO.

Now imagine A.I. impact on us in such societies under control.

listen the last podcast of Rogan with Kurzweil where K. balbutiate in circle answering a question by the uneducated but  astute Rogan about the very important aspect of PRIVACY ...  K appear as a balbutiating  man as if he  do not understand what is at play hypnotized by his ideology ...Kurzweil is the pope of transhumanism, the idea that human must be replaced by machine for their own good.

I am pessimist at short term...Very optimistic in the long run only because i do not fear death because i always had known that soul exist and is immortal. For me it is mathematics evident interpretation. Especially confirmed by Anirban brain and cosmological insight .

I hope that someone will read this genius and give me an informed opinion. 😊

+1 @puptent

As T.S. Eliot said, "For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business."

@hilde45 that’s what I said about streaming.

Ha!

@hilde45

Be nice if we cured cancer with A.I., no?

That’s in part what I’m working on. Caveat: for reasons too complex to go into here, my belief is that we will never completely cure cancer, because the same mechanisms that drive and optimize evolution (a base mutation rate driven by the size of DNA and external influences like cosmic radiation) also drive the mutations that cause cancer; you can’t have one without the other. But we will cure specific instances of cancer in specific individuals. Over and over again. In other words, it becomes a long, slow game of whack-a-mole, rather than a death sentence.

AI comes into play in a lot of areas, including drug discovery. But where I’m using AI is in clinical care -- helping find and organize a medical record that is distributed among many providers, make sense of it, and provide rational options for treatment to the physicians. It’s an "augmented intelligence" approach, rather than a "get out of the way and let AI drive" approach; the human caregivers are the ultimate decision makers, and the intelligent system helps the human be more productive, comprehensive, and accurate.

The place we are focusing on is in cancer and rare diseases -- places where a single patient can have hundreds, sometimes thousands of health care encounters, and the overall record of the patient is overwhelming for any one person to deal with. When you couple that with the (sad) fact the Medicare only reimburses for 15 minutes total for both prep and a patient visit in any encounter, if you can condense that prep time from 9 minutes down to 3, your have doubled the amount of time the physician gets to actually spend with the patient. And provide better options for treatment.

Most of my career has dealt with either engineering tools or various aspects of computational finance and transaction processing, helping people make more money. This current work is so much more karmically rewarding...

@sfgak 

Great artwork!! 

The term "AI" is, in itself, both artificial and unintelligent. There is nothing artificial about human engineering algorithms that process ones and zeros to reach outcomes directed by -- humans. Just faster computations by machines that can toil endlessly to produce workable outcomes quicker than unaided humans. And, yes, arrive at (valid) conclusions to complex scenarios that would be impossible without machine interaction. In AI music, we assume we are getting an aggregate of a vast pool of the creative minds of many individuals to produce something of value. So, an AI music designer decides to "scrub" all diminished 7ths in the musical score and "scrub" any reference to "cars", or any mode of transportation from the lyrics. You/we may "like" what we hear. But, we could also be hearing a highly personal human contribution to the final product, while being completely unaware that certain aspects have been "canceled" due to bias, and/or personal agenda. Accurate musical history can be erased forever, and our all-knowing current AI references tell us that we’re only imagining that diminished 7th were once commonplace in popular music and references to "modes of transportation" were .. moving.

@hilde45   that's what I said about streaming.

Good conversation. I assume you are all real.

I appreciate @mahgister pointing out that the social and economic systems controlling A.I.’s development and uses require the greatest scrutiny. Of course, we’re all raised to resist criticisms of economic and political systems. In that sense, we have already ceded a fair amount of autonomy to algorithms -- it’s just that they’re human-made ideologies. (If you find yourself revolted at that idea, you might just be the victim of an ideology.)

Thanks for additional insight, @sfgak 
It’s nice to see someone not just shooting from the hip.

"I use AI and language models to help people in healthcare, and it can do amazing things. But the history of the Internet and computing says that the bad and/or careless people will dominate in the end, and in this case more than any other to date, the genie is out of the bottle. The people who can make money or influence elections won’t care how dangerous AI can become if not properly nurtured in the early stages."

Be nice if we cured cancer with A.I., no?

This will be a test about how much we care about our children and one another. We cannot give in to pessimism. We have to question our presumptions -- and that may mean questioning the profit-motive (sacred cow!) and any other fixed ideas which prevent us from safeguarding what we value.

As T.S. Eliot said, "For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business."

Well, if you've into playing an AIs' 'mind' and intro iT into Your concept of
All This (gesturing.. ? ...'turing' ?  *L*

You might provide that and your experience with this lil pet.

No litter box or 'outs'....'feeding' something you do already.

I have no relationship with these people or their event...tempted? Well...

Think of a pet you can argue with, and yet teach it to be anything you'd consider it to do...

"...answer my SPAM cell calls for me....be undecisive...but cheerful..." 😏

@parker65310 @wsrrsw

I’ve been in AI since the 1980’s, I’ve had the good fortune to have worked at some of the world’s best academic and commercial AI labs. I’ve seen a lot of where the field has gone in the last 40-some-odd years.

When the Internet (actually then ARPANet, NSFNet, uucp, and BBS’s -- it wasn’t a unified "Internet" until 1993) first came out, we thought infinite connectivity would bring humanity together. Instead, it has created fake news, factionalized everyone it has touched, and become a haven for hateful and violent rhetoric.

In the earlier days of AI, we (mostly) thought of the good that our research would bring. There were always the Skynet scenarios, though, too.

The computing power we have today is literally billions of times more powerful in just a single iPhone when compared to, say, Xerox’s or Schlumberger’s research labs back in the 1980’s. It boggles the mind in the abstract, yet I lived through all that and it didn’t seem that strange. It’s weird to me that we spend much of that compute power in an endless arms race (cryptography, spying, bitcoin), and so much less on the creative endeavors that we envisioned in the early days of AI (and BTW @mahgister, at MIT’s AI Lab in the 1980’s we had a Bosendorfer grand piano outfitted with special microsensors as part of a project to detect minute changes in timing/velocity/force of a pianist’s fingers, in an effort to understand what separated good music from great).

Now what is clear to me, with large language models and generative AI, is that the amount of AI-generated output will soon dwarf the human output on the Internet. When that happens, AIs will no longer be responding to what humans do or say, but rather 95%+ to what other AIs do or say. If you think disinformation on the Internet is a problem today, boy, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet... The AI’s reality and our reality will not overlap all that much in relatively short order. Human opinions will be irrelevant; we will be spectators.

I use AI and language models to help people in healthcare, and it can do amazing things. But the history of the Internet and computing says that the bad and/or careless people will dominate in the end, and in this case more than any other to date, the genie is out of the bottle. The people who can make money or influence elections won’t care how dangerous AI can become if not properly nurtured in the early stages. I fear Geoff Hinton is right to fear AI, but I think where he and I differ is that I think we are the creators not of our destruction, but rather of our own irrelevance (having created something, that while not yet mature, can evolve at rates we will not be able to fathom).

On a less pessimistic note, @snilf -- curious: are you more in the Dan Dennett camp, John Searle camp, or something else? I’ll look forward to reading your paper at some point.

Very interesting stuff here. ++ @snilf , @sfgak 

Great post!

I will read your paper...If you want... Thanks in advance ...

Here my own guiding ideas:

I think that any future A.I. will be rooted in an information field containing at most a finite number of primes numbers...

By contrast all living organisms are rooted in an information field containing an infinite number of primes numbers. All life is the result of a source of infinite information.

Then any robots or A.I. even with a civilization of the future cannot own a "soul" nor reincarnate as a spirit inhabiting and owning the cosmic information field in the form of a continuous evolutive chain of living bodies ( this field  is primarily  an ether of numbers not an energy field which is only a manifestation of the primary field  ).

A robot may become at most a captive entity in a cosmos, his life span even indefinite will stay finite forever. All living organism are ONE and not captive save temporarily ...All life is immortal...

In a way we must choose between the Borg assimilation or stay human...

The choice is easy if we let our soul guiding us and not fear or greed ...

I just published a paper that speaks directly to this subject ("Our Minds, Our Selves: Mind, Meaning, and Machines," forthcoming in Borderless Philosophy 7 later this year). It argues that machines cannot be minds because they lack sentience and community, the two features of embodied beings (human beings) for whom things have meaning and value. Computers certainly can, because they already do, create poems, artworks, stories, music, even jokes. But such products become valuable and meaningful (become "art," if you like) only in a complex process of reception. The essay is fairly technical, regarding both computer engineering and philosophy, but I’d be happy to provide a PDF to anyone who might be interested. DM me if you’d like to take a look.