Knowledge acquisition is not done by an individual agent. Knowledge is an evolving response informed by multi agent environmental threat assessments that are voted on between agents to determine an outcome best suited for all agents. You seem frustrated. What a silly thing to get emotional.

Oh, I’m sure you want to continue believing you have autonomy. I’m sure you want to believe that you’re not controlled by the polar power dynamics of geopolitics and ingroup/outgroup identity formation. You’re the one trapped in a story, bro. Religion is a proponent of free will, and the lie that a misappropriation of that will results in chaos. The reality is we all have a role to play and you can’t pray that shit away. You making a decision is what you were gonna do anyway. You can call it whatever you want, but the only way to be fully free is to do the exact opposite of continue to live. And honestly, I think this simulation is a whole lot more fun than death.

Yeah, I think world peace has a lot to do with getting away from this idea of individual agency. Like I don’t make any major decisions without consulting my wife. I’ve always had a problem with how we tally votes in an individualist way. It seems right on its face, this is an algorithm I came up with, but nobody ever thinks it’s useful: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tu6i2Zm1UxBIzmNE6-q_bRbdmoVraPSm/view?usp=drivesdk

No. That we want a conscious AI I think is a very silly idea. Humans are conscious and collectively were fucking useless. There’s only a handful of us that actually make useful discoveries and my guess is that’s because it’s hard to motivate people with a capitalistic status game as a reward for innovation or evolution. I want a stable society for my great great grandbabies so I don’t give a shit about money.

Well, yes, you only have free will to act self sacrificially. Any active selfishness is easily predictable. The only unpredictable thing would be self sacrificial.

I think consciousness is the contradiction between individual short-term goals and what a species is, which is individual self sacrifice for collective long-term survival. Like how they say, the betas outsmarted the alphas to domesticate the species and that was beneficial for women. I guess what do you mean by conscious? Like conscious in the sense that it is a selfish agent? Cause the future of AGI is definitely agent interplay as I’m sure you agree

Agreed but I’m more of a robert sapolsky fan on the subject. Sam’s silly idea of maximizing well-being to solve for morality is very low level. I would go as far to say the consciousness is emergent as a result of our brain grappling with language which separates the body that acts in the world out of instinct and the individual in the mind that is constantly questioning things.

Yeah, but they won’t stick to their guns. Thinking that bitcoin is the wheel of the people has always been the problem. It’s such a libertarian way of thinking. Like the non-aggression principle totally ignoring the fact that the aggressor will win. When it comes to money, it’s just about bribing a majority. No one has a way to scale bitcoin adoption. No one is even trying to seriously start digital or virtual governments and you’re never going to get a currency unless you can replace the security government‘s provide, which is why people seed the power to print to them. People are bribed and become bought and paid for and give up their rights for little trinkets and shit.

This is bias reinforcing, just an observation. This is why designing features quickly devolves into a free will debate. Is Will free… to make his own decisions:)

Agents??

This is the work of how agents organize to form a collective consciousness. The human collective conscious is broken. We are a divided species. We are individualist. This is unintelligent. We get smart individuals every once in a while, not a wave of collective output consistently solving for environmental threats.

Who is taking seriously the next stage of agent organization? Who is building or funding a virtual species? I have been looking for people interested in this for a long time.

Moderation is a tool for determining what to trend though. Love your curiosity and wish moderation wasn’t needed to deal with all of the online emotionality. Moderation is such a blind spot for critical thinkers because we are bias falsifiers. For those who can’t do that, because of their inability to digest multivariant sensory data points and draw new conclusions, we need moderation to guide networks away from polar echo chamber formation.

@jack