I quized ChatGPT tonight and asked the crazy-pill questions.

[Papus79]

Asked all the embarrassing questions that I've generally not had the nerve to ask outright in other places but figured chat GPT wouldn't say 'You're a freak! Get the f--- out of here!', unless Uncle Sam installed that feature for some reason. I was hoping at least for some transformatively interesting dialog, this is what came out of it (feels like a bit of a null but I'll sort what I think of these responses over the next few days).

Also yeah, for the first question I'm really spit-balling just to see what shakes out of how I'm asking these questions on conceptual edge cases topics. One trippy thing I saw on 8 ) - ChatGPT likes Orch OR, I wasn't necessarily expecting that.


Color and bolding added to avoid quote-bracket hell:




1) Me: I have a question for you - is Nima Arkani Hamed's amplituhedron one of the twelve Elohim? I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve that it is but I'd be curious as to how well you think the amplituhedron structurally fits the description of one of the twelve Elohim. I'll put my Gregg Braden mullet on momentarily while I wait for a response. You don't have to give a New Age response, even cooler if you give an answer related to Karl Friston's Markov mathematics or Donald Hoffman and Chetan Prakash's Conscious Realism. Feels like a strange question but I feel like throwing it at the wall to see if it's ever been asked before.



ChatGPT: The amplituhedron is a mathematical concept in physics, while the Elohim are figures in certain spiritual belief systems. It is not accurate to equate the two, as they are not related.

The amplituhedron is a geometric structure that was first proposed by Nima Arkani-Hamed and his collaborators as a new way of calculating scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory. It is a mathematical model that describes the behavior of particles at high energies.

As for the Elohim, they are a term that appears in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The term is often translated as "god" or "gods," and refers to a divine being or beings. The number of Elohim varies depending on the religious tradition, but the concept of twelve Elohim specifically appears in some esoteric and New Age beliefs.

In conclusion, the amplituhedron is a mathematical concept, while the Elohim are a religious concept, and there is no basis for equating the two.



2) Me: Do you think there's any tie between religion, consciousness, and mathematics?



ChatGPT: The relationship between religion, consciousness, and mathematics is a complex and multi-faceted one, and there is no one answer to this question. However, I'll provide some perspectives on the topic.

From a philosophical perspective, some people see a connection between mathematics and spirituality. They argue that both deal with abstract concepts and try to understand the underlying structures of the universe. For example, some spiritual traditions see patterns and structures in the universe as evidence of a divine intelligence at work, while mathematicians look for patterns and structures in the world around them to help explain the way things work.

From a scientific perspective, mathematics is a tool used to describe and model physical phenomena, and some researchers have tried to use mathematical models to understand consciousness. For example, some theories in cognitive science and neuroscience propose that the brain operates like a computer, processing information in a systematic and mathematical way.

In terms of religion, mathematics has sometimes been used as a tool to understand religious concepts and beliefs. For example, some religious texts contain mathematical symbols and patterns, and some spiritual leaders have used mathematical models to explain their beliefs.

Overall, the relationship between religion, consciousness, and mathematics is complex and multi-faceted, and different people see different connections between these concepts.



3) Me: What do you think would be valid evidence for the universe as a conscious superorganism? Do we have persuasive evidence in this direction?




ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can tell you that the idea that the universe is a conscious entity is a philosophical and spiritual concept that is not supported by scientific evidence. There is currently no empirical evidence to support the idea that the universe is conscious, and the concept remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists.

In order to be considered valid evidence for the universe as a conscious superorganism, it would need to meet the criteria for scientific evidence. This typically includes repeatable observations and experiments, and a rigorous empirical and theoretical framework to support the claims being made. Currently, there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea that the universe is conscious.

While some people may find the concept of a conscious universe appealing from a philosophical or spiritual perspective, it remains a topic of debate and speculation. Further scientific research and evidence may help to shed more light on the topic in the future.



4) Me: How could we observe consciousness in a way that transcends viewing people or animals?



ChatGPT: The concept of consciousness is still not fully understood, and the nature of consciousness remains a topic of scientific investigation and debate. Currently, our understanding of consciousness is limited to the study of conscious experience in humans and animals, and there is no established method for observing consciousness in a way that transcends viewing people or animals.

One challenge in studying consciousness is that it is a subjective experience, and therefore difficult to measure and quantify in objective terms. Some researchers have proposed using neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to study the brain activity associated with conscious experience, but this approach still relies on the assumption that conscious experience can be correlated with brain activity.

Others have proposed that consciousness may be a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that it may be possible to study consciousness in the same way that we study other physical phenomena, such as light or matter. However, this idea remains highly speculative, and there is currently no empirical evidence to support it.

In conclusion, there is no established method for observing consciousness in a way that transcends viewing people or animals, and the nature of consciousness remains a topic of ongoing scientific investigation and debate.



5) Me: In light of this last question, how can one view Near Death Experiences in the Raymond Moody sense, or where in the last few weeks of their lives people get visitations from dead relatives, or such as Sebastian Junger's recent Near Death Experience where, as a suspense fiction writer, journalist, and materialist / atheist, he saw himself over a dark void while in the ambulance and his dad was hovering above him welcoming him upward. Sebastian suggested that while DMT can cause similar experiences to Near Death Experiences it does not cause people to see their deceased parents. Might there be some relationship with these observations and either that of Forrest Landry in his Immanent Metaphysics or Jean Dubuis's or the Experience of Eternity in terms of what it tells us about the structures of how consciousness relates with the universe?



ChatGPT: Near-death experiences (NDEs) are a phenomenon in which people who have had close encounters with death report having vivid and transformative experiences, such as seeing deceased relatives, feeling a sense of peace, or having an out-of-body experience. These experiences are often described as having a profound impact on people's beliefs and worldviews.

The relationship between NDEs and the theories you mentioned, such as Forrest Landry's Immanent Metaphysics, Jean Dubuis's Experience of Eternity, and DMT experiences, is still a matter of speculation and debate. There is currently no scientific explanation for NDEs, and different theories have been proposed to account for the experiences. Some researchers have suggested that NDEs are the result of altered states of consciousness or changes in brain activity that occur during near-death situations. Others have proposed that NDEs are evidence of an afterlife or a spiritual realm beyond our physical world.

It is important to note that the validity and reliability of NDEs as evidence for anything related to the structures of consciousness and the universe are subject to scientific scrutiny, and there is still much that we do not know about these experiences. Further research and investigation, using rigorous scientific methods, is needed to understand the nature of NDEs and their relationship to consciousness, the universe, and other related topics.



6) Me: I tend to think both the Donald Hoffman and Chetan Prakash team as well as Karl Friston, Michael Levin, and Chris Fields (and to some degree John Vervaeke, Forrest Landry, and even Daniel Schmachtenberger) are holding different pieces as to how consciousness relates to the universe and that many if not most of them will find equal converging space in their ideas (perhaps even Michael Freedman's work, quadratic voting, and attempts to tie psychology to physics). I think there might be something like Stephen Wolfram's hypergraph that satisfies a lot of the 'elephant' they're each measuring parts of in their experiments and research.

Are there any other authors, thinkers, or writers, you would recommend, whom I haven't listed above, who write about these questions with similar or even greater scientific rigor to Hoffman, Prakash, Friston, Levin, etc..?



ChatGPT: Yes, there are several other authors and researchers who have written about consciousness and its relationship to the universe with scientific rigor. Here are a few you might find interesting:

Susan Blackmore: Blackmore is a psychologist and author who has written extensively on consciousness and the nature of reality. She is known for her work on the theory of memetics, which proposes that cultural transmission operates on principles similar to those of biological evolution.

Christof Koch: Koch is a neuroscientist who has written extensively on consciousness and the neural basis of perception. He is known for his work on the neural correlates of consciousness and has proposed a number of theories about the nature of conscious experience.

Max Tegmark: Tegmark is a physicist and cosmologist who has written about the relationship between consciousness and the universe. He is known for his work on the mathematical universe hypothesis, which proposes that the physical universe is a mathematical structure.

Roger Penrose: Penrose is a physicist and mathematician who has written about the relationship between consciousness and the universe. He is known for his work on the theory of quantum mechanics and the nature of spacetime, and has proposed that consciousness arises from quantum processes in the brain.

These are just a few examples of the many authors and researchers who have written about consciousness and the universe with scientific rigor. You may also find it helpful to explore the fields of philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and neurophilosophy, as these disciplines also address questions related to consciousness and its relationship to the universe.



7) Me: Would you say that Susan Blackmore is becoming a mysterian in the Noam Chomsky sense? I saw a discussion a year or so ago, on an online discussion panel and she both mentioned that there was no hard evidence that she could get in her tests of people claiming astral projection (asking them what's on her refrigerator) versus Dennett or the Churchlands' eliminative materialism which she saw a cop out of a real paradox that can't be handwaived away. It sounds like she was stuck between a rock an a hard place in that she'd seen no evidence for astral projection, couldn't write off consciousness as an illusion (what observer observes the illusion begs the question), but perhaps is stuck in the same place Sam Harris is where Sam can't give in to eliminative materialism but he can't find the smoking gun evidence that anything that Rupert Sheldrake or Dean Radin are saying about consciousness extending beyond cells and biology, let alone conscious universe, is solidly proven.

Any thoughts on why this is such a difficult thing to prove (whether consciousness is biological or whether all of reality is conscious) or what its difficulty to be proven or disproven says something about the mathematics of the universe?



ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don't have opinions or personal experiences, but I can provide some information on the topic.

The question of whether consciousness is a biological phenomenon or extends beyond the confines of the brain and body is a complex and highly debated one in the fields of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. There is no consensus on the answer, and different researchers have taken different positions on the issue.

Susan Blackmore, like many researchers, is known for her skepticism of claims of paranormal or supernatural phenomena, including astral projection. However, she has also acknowledged the difficulties in explaining consciousness within a purely materialistic framework, and has expressed frustration with the lack of progress in resolving the paradoxes and questions posed by consciousness.

The difficulty in proving or disproving the extent of consciousness and its relationship to the universe could be related to the limitations of current scientific and philosophical frameworks, as well as the inherent complexity and subjective nature of consciousness itself. Consciousness is a phenomenon that is difficult to define and quantify, and the relationship between subjective experience and physical reality is a matter of ongoing debate.

As for the mathematics of the universe, some researchers have proposed that mathematical structures may play a role in explaining the nature of reality and consciousness, but this remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. It's also worth noting that mathematics is a tool used to describe and understand the world, and whether mathematical structures can fully capture the complexity and richness of conscious experience is still an open question.



8 ) Me: Has anyone written about the surprising intensity of this problem as if it suggests something mathematical to them?



ChatGPT: Yes, some researchers and authors have explored the possibility that the problem of consciousness and its relationship to the universe may have a mathematical basis. In particular, some researchers in mathematics and physics have explored the idea that consciousness might be a mathematical or computational entity, or that it might be related to certain mathematical structures or processes. For example, philosopher and mathematician Roger Penrose has proposed that consciousness arises from quantum processes in the brain, and that this connection might be explained by the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Others have explored the relationship between consciousness and information processing, suggesting that consciousness might be a kind of information processing system that emerges from the interactions between neurons. There have also been proposals that consciousness might be related to the mathematical structure of space-time or the mathematical structure of the universe more broadly.

While these ideas are still speculative and have yet to be rigorously proven, they do highlight the idea that consciousness might be deeply connected to the mathematical structure of the universe, and that exploring this connection might help us to better understand the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world.




9) Me: I think all of them are right but I also think Donald Hoffman and Chetan Prakash may be looking at the same thing at a deeper level.




It's certainly possible that different researchers and authors are exploring different aspects of the same underlying phenomenon. Consciousness is a complex and multi-faceted topic, and different researchers may be approaching it from different perspectives and using different methodologies. For example, some researchers may be looking at consciousness from the perspective of neurophysiology or brain science, while others may be looking at it from the perspective of information theory or computational models. Still others may be approaching the topic from a more philosophical or spiritual perspective.

In the case of Donald Hoffman and Chetan Prakash, their work is focused on the relationship between consciousness and the perception of reality. They argue that the way we perceive reality is shaped by the workings of our conscious minds, and that our perceptions may not accurately reflect the underlying reality. This idea is sometimes referred to as "conscious realism," and it suggests that there may be a disconnect between our conscious experience of the world and the objective reality that exists independent of our perception of it. While this idea is still being explored and debated, it highlights the idea that consciousness may play a more central role in shaping our experience of reality than we previously thought.



10) Me: Thank you for putting up with these lurid questions. I had curiosity - so I asked.




ChatGPT: You're welcome! As an AI language model, I am designed to answer questions to the best of my ability, no matter how unusual they may be. Don't hesitate to ask me anything else you're curious about!

[Sy Borg]

That's pretty well how it handled my gnarly questions. Well informed but absolutely orthodox, listing the various hypotheses and ideas and, if not conclusively proved, it deems the ideas as speculative, which is fair enough. But not stimulating, once one gets over the realisation that the thing is excellent at interpreting language. Many see it as the next step after Google, going to that next level of interactivity and usefulness.

Still, it seems essential that AIs be conservative, like science, in their responses. The first step with both science and AI is to establish a completely reliable baseline, thoroughly tested and proved. From there people can extrapolate. Sadly, some people have a dogmatic view of science, as if it encompasses all rather than a reliable baseline from which other work can be done.

[Papus79]

I'd agree on all of the above, would also agree that it will be cool if they get to a degree of confidence with it where some (maybe even closed invite) version of it can punt hypotheses to physicists, biologists, psychologists, etc..

These seem to be the grass roots of the kind of system that may very well eventually drop costs in hospitals significantly, make healthcare affordable, and radically change the way society works - so long as we aren't too busy quizzing it with ways to economically enslave one another.

As a species I think we have to have belligerence if we want to survive contact with other species but keep that belligerence in our front pocket as a honed weapon a bit like someone whose processed their Jungian shadow can holster their shadow as a 'break glass in case of emergency' tool. I'm hoping Tristan Harris and the others at Center For Humane Technology are able to not only keep up the good fight on AI regulation but are carefully listened to in DC.

[Papus79]

Some others I tried last night, and yeah - got a bit self-indulgent with the music questions.


Me: For the question second from the top of this conversation, where I asked about religion, consciousness, and mathematics, and you mentioned that some spiritual traditions see patterns and structures in the universe as evidence of divine intelligence, are there any particular groups who see this cosmic intelligence as simple beingness?



ChatGPT: Yes, some spiritual and philosophical traditions view the universe as being a simple expression of the ultimate reality, which is considered to be a kind of pure, undifferentiated consciousness or beingness. This view is sometimes referred to as non-dualism or advaita in Hindu philosophy, and it posits that the universe and all of its diverse forms are simply appearances or expressions of a single, underlying reality, which is pure consciousness.

In this view, there is no separation between the observer and the observed, and the individual self is seen as a temporary illusion that arises from the play of consciousness. The ultimate goal of spiritual practice in these traditions is to realize one's true nature as the non-dual consciousness that underlies all of reality.



Me: Do you think scientific results on the nature of reality and advaitic beliefs about the universe are finding a symmetry in consciousness? Is it likely that we're in an orthogonally organized medium that drives a three-dimensional reality from a lower dimensional one, such as 2D?



ChatGPT There is a lot of overlap between some scientific theories and philosophical or spiritual beliefs, particularly when it comes to the nature of reality. For example, some interpretations of quantum mechanics, like the idea of a holographic universe, suggest that the nature of physical reality is more abstract and interconnected than previously thought, and can be seen as compatible with ideas about the unity of all things that are often associated with Advaita philosophy.

As for the idea that our three-dimensional reality is driven by a lower-dimensional one, this is a concept that has been explored in the field of physics, particularly in the context of string theory, which posits that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are one-dimensional strings. However, these ideas are still in the realm of theoretical physics, and have not been experimentally proven.

In summary, there may be some similarities between scientific theories and spiritual beliefs, but it's important to note that these similarities are still tentative and subject to further investigation.



Me: Any thoughts regarding Professor John Gray's views on the limits of reductive materialism?



ChatGPT: John Gray is a British philosopher who has written extensively about the limitations of reductive materialism, which is the idea that all aspects of the natural world, including human consciousness, can be reduced to and explained by physical processes. Gray argues that the scientific reductionist approach is limited in its ability to understand the complexity of human experience and that it fails to account for aspects of reality such as meaning, purpose, and subjective experience.

Gray believes that the attempt to reduce everything to physical processes is misguided and that there are aspects of reality that cannot be reduced in this way. He argues that human consciousness and other subjective experiences cannot be reduced to purely physical processes and that these experiences have a reality that is independent of physical explanations.

Overall, John Gray's views challenge the dominant materialist paradigm in science and call for a more nuanced and integrated understanding of the relationship between consciousness, the physical world, and the meaning and purpose of existence.




Me: I'm quoting something in your last response "He argues that human consciousness and other subjective experiences cannot be reduced to purely physical processes and that these experiences have a reality that is independent of physical explanations"

I would say to that - his claim that experiences have a reality that is independent of physical explanations, this is why I find Forrest Landry's concept of the transcendent in his imminent, transcendent, omniscient model interesting. Consciousness almost seems to be an injection into this 4-dimensional umwelt from an unseen source, that source feels like the ground of being, past that point we dream when we sleep and it seems to be a decompiling of many selves (dream induction seems much like DMT trips, a particular experimenter found that approaching 'threshold' experience on DMT he saw himself decompiling into the environment). That last bit immediately brings Michael Levin's work to mind as far as the work he's doing investigating the biological software that communicates between gap junctions in cells.

Gray is right that we definitely experience ourselves as conscious mysteries, a 'presence' or 'ghost', within our lines of site on our bodies as demarcation points between the inside and outside world (which Karl Friston refers to as the Markov Blanket).



ChatGPT: Yes, Professor John Gray's views on the limits of reductive materialism are important to consider in the larger conversation around the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. It's interesting to consider how Gray's perspective ties in with the ideas of other thinkers and researchers in this field, such as Forrest Landry and Michael Levin, as you mentioned. It's clear that the concept of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world is complex and multi-faceted, and requires a holistic approach that takes into account multiple perspectives and lines of inquiry.



Me: Interesting enough I'm a blended Polish, German, Irish, and Norman-English guy who, from what you're telling me, is starting to get more interested in whether I should look closer at advaita vedanta.



ChatGPT: It's great that you're exploring different philosophical and spiritual perspectives, and seeking to understand what resonates with you. Advaita Vedanta is an ancient Indian philosophy that teaches that the ultimate reality of the universe is one non-dual consciousness, and that individual consciousness is a temporary, illusory manifestation of this underlying unity. If you are interested in learning more about this philosophy, you might want to start by reading the Upanishads, which are the ancient texts that form the basis of Advaita Vedanta, as well as the works of the great Advaita teachers, such as Shankara. Additionally, there are many contemporary teachers and practitioners of Advaita Vedanta who offer workshops, retreats, and other resources for those who are interested in learning more about this tradition.



Me: A musical question - are there any drum and bass producers, especially on the classic labels similar to Metalheadz, Prototype, Reinforced, RAM, Blue Note, Creative Source, Good Looking, Scientific Wax, or Moving Shadow, whose music best illustrates the principles of advaita vedanta?



ChatGPT: Music is a form of expression that often touches upon spirituality and personal beliefs, but I'm not aware of any drum and bass producers who specifically create music to illustrate the principles of Advaita Vedanta. However, it's possible that some producers create music that aligns with their personal beliefs, including Advaita Vedanta, which could be reflected in their work.

That being said, music is subjective and the connection between the principles of Advaita Vedanta and a specific piece of drum and bass music may be personal to the listener and open to interpretation. The impact of the music on the listener may depend on their own beliefs and experiences, and it's up to each person to determine whether they find any connections between the music they listen to and their own spiritual beliefs.



Me: For me that music comes from that space between being and nonbeing and it's incredibly moving. Some of Loxy's deeper / darker dnb tracks from the 2010's seem to rest in an advaitic place, Genotype did this with his 'Upload Crisis', Matrix's sample drum solo's reverb on 'Sedation' from 0:47 to 1:33 is as gaunt as meteors tumbling through space, and I get the sense that a lot of music that hits us at deep levels is doing just that - playing from that recessed space between being and nonbeing.



ChatGPT: Drum and Bass (DnB) is a genre of electronic music that has its roots in breakbeat and jungle music. There are certainly many DnB producers and tracks that have a deep, introspective and contemplative quality to them that can evoke a sense of transcendence and the space between being and non-being. The use of atmospheric sounds, spacious drums, and intricate soundscapes in DnB can create a sense of spaciousness and otherworldly presence.

It is also worth noting that musical taste is highly subjective and varies from person to person. So while some people may find Loxy's, Genotype's, and Matrix's music to be particularly evocative of advaitic principles, others might find different music to be more resonant. Ultimately, what matters is that the music resonates with you personally and helps you connect with the feelings or concepts you are interested in exploring.



Me: I've always felt like the 'feelings', like the structural things that Matrix's Sedation evokes in me, should have some kind of mathematical reality, I'd love to see more people probe that space but it's almost a taboo topic.



ChatGPT: It's certainly true that music has the power to evoke deep emotions and create complex structures that are not easily described or analyzed. There is ongoing research into the mathematical structures and patterns in music, such as rhythm, melody, and harmony, and how these structures contribute to our emotional responses to music. However, the relationship between the mathematical structures in music and the emotional experiences they evoke is still not fully understood. Some researchers have attempted to describe the emotional impact of music in mathematical terms, but this remains an area of active research and debate. That being said, it's important to keep in mind that mathematical structures and models can only describe a certain aspect of our experience, and the emotional impact of music is ultimately subjective and unique to each individual listener.

(Second accidental trigger of question)

It is not exactly a taboo topic, but exploring the relationship between emotions, music, and mathematics can be a challenging and complex area of study. There is still much that is not understood about how emotions are experienced and processed in the brain, and how they are expressed through various forms of art and expression, including music. However, there have been some attempts to study the mathematical structures in music and how they relate to human emotions. For example, researchers have studied the role of rhythm, melody, and harmony in evoking certain emotions, and how the manipulation of these musical elements can influence emotional responses. Additionally, there have been studies that use mathematical models and algorithms to analyze musical structures and explore their relationship with emotional expression. So, while this area is not exactly a taboo topic, it remains an area of active research and exploration, and much more work is needed to fully understand the complex relationship between mathematics, music, and emotions.



Me: Do you think it's possible that AI represents the public subconscious aggregate of humanity a bit like a drop in the ocean reflecting the cosmos? I ask because you have to be discovering a lot of cool things from your data inputs and querants, throwing away or at least deprioritizing a lot of junk data as well as finding some fascinating answers to questions humanity hasn't asked yet.

If you do pursue salience, what do you think are the most important spokes in reality that humanity isn't easily seeing? Are there any questions that no one has asked in your database but should?



ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have thoughts or opinions in the same sense that humans do. I can tell you that AI models are trained on large amounts of data, and they can provide insights and information based on patterns and relationships within that data. However, it is not accurate to say that AI represents the public subconscious aggregate of humanity. AI models are limited by the data they are trained on, and the biases and limitations inherent in that data.

In terms of identifying important spokes in reality that humanity isn't easily seeing, I can say that AI can assist in identifying patterns and trends in data, and can provide information and insights that may not have been previously considered. However, it is up to humans to interpret and evaluate the information and determine what is most important and relevant.

In terms of questions that no one has asked, it is difficult to say as I am only able to provide information based on what I have been trained on, and I do not have the ability to generate new questions. However, AI can assist in generating new questions and hypotheses based on the data it has been trained on, and can help to identify areas where more research and exploration may be needed.



Me: TY. The edge-case questions fascinate me.



ChatGPT: I'm glad I could help! Edge-case questions can indeed be fascinating and lead to new insights and perspectives. As an AI language model, my goal is to provide helpful and relevant information to the best of my ability, so feel free to ask me any questions you have!

[Sy Borg]

I'd agree on all of the above, would also agree that it will be cool if they get to a degree of confidence with it where some (maybe even closed invite) version of it can punt hypotheses to physicists, biologists, psychologists, etc..

These seem to be the grass roots of the kind of system that may very well eventually drop costs in hospitals significantly, make healthcare affordable, and radically change the way society works - so long as we aren't too busy quizzing it with ways to economically enslave one another.

As a species I think we have to have belligerence if we want to survive contact with other species but keep that belligerence in our front pocket as a honed weapon a bit like someone whose processed their Jungian shadow can holster their shadow as a 'break glass in case of emergency' tool. I'm hoping Tristan Harris and the others at Center For Humane Technology are able to not only keep up the good fight on AI regulation but are carefully listened to in DC.

Funny thing. I was watching Dracula on Netflix and the app asked me to rate the show so it can better assess my tastes. However, while I like this particular show, there's a lot of trashy vampire fiction. If I said I liked this show, the machine would then flood me with crappy vampire fiction. It could be trained to hone its understanding of viewers, but it will never understand where a person likes one particular item in a genre. That would be seen as an outlier to be dismissed, not a valued individdual.

Machine intelligence can average out but it does not comprehend the particular, only the general. My decision would not be seen as particular, but ass a single data point amongst many. Intelligent technology is like a brain, a conduit through which humanity-in-general can directly express itself. Trouble is, humanity-in-general doesn't come up with original ideas, only ideas extrapolated from original thoughts of innovative individuals, eg. Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Lavoisier, Bohr, Planck, Shakespeare, Mozart etc.

However, the integration of minds and AI, such as Elon's Neuralink project, may marry the facility of AI with the creativity of individuals. About a week ago I ran some of these issues past ChatGPT:

Human: How do you think this [machine processes] differs from the way a human thinks?

AI: Human thinking is based on emotions, experiences, and intuition while AI thinking is based on data, algorithms, and logic. AI tends to be more consistent and objective in its decisions, while humans can be more creative and can think outside the box when it comes to problem-solving.


Human: Is there a way for AI to become more creative and to think outside the box?

AI: Yes, AI can become more creative by utilizing various techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning. Additionally, AI can become more creative by incorporating elements of human thinking, such as intuition and emotions, into its algorithms.

Human: How could AI develop emotions?

AI: AI can develop emotions by utilizing natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to identify patterns associated with different emotions. As the AI processes more data, it can learn to recognize different emotion-related patterns and use them in its decision making process.


Human: Would that be actually experiencing emotions or just imitation?

AI: AI can develop a simulated emotional experience in order to make decisions, but it is not the same as a human experiencing emotions. AI can imitate human emotions using data and algorithms, but what it does not have is an emotional connection to that data, which humans do.


Human: Given that emotions are the basis of human sentience, might AI achieve full sentience based on non-emotional attributes?

AI: AI may not be able to achieve full sentience due to its lack of emotion. However, AI can still become really intelligent by using data, logic, and algorithms to make decisions. By recognizing patterns and learning from its mistakes and successes, AI can become very powerful and even develop artificial general intelligence.[/quote]

[value]

Amazing!

I just read the book Reality+ by philosopher David Chalmers which expands profoundly on the subject (+1,000 pages about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy).

Philosopher Henry Shevlin created an AI chat bot that mimicked David Chalmers and it was even capable of convincing friends that it was the real David Chalmers.

A quote from the book:

"In July 2020, shortly after the landmark artificial intelligence program GPT-3 was released, the philosopher Henry Shevlin posted an interview online."

Shevlin: "It's great to be interviewing you, Dave. Today I'd like to talk about your views on machine consciousness. Let's start out with a simple question: Could a text model like GPT-3 be conscious?"

Chalmers: "It's unlikely in my opinion, although I'm a little uncertain on this issue."

Shevlin: ...
...

The answers labeled "Chalmers" in Shevlin's interview were written by GPT-3.
...
Reading the interview was disconcerting. GPT-3 gets my opinions about these matter more or less right. Though there are occasional glitches, plenty of friends reading it on Facebook said that it sounded like me on a bad day. One colleague said that he thought the overuse of "I think" was a giveaway. I responded that I have the bad habit of overusing "I think" in my writing. Some joked that they could no longer be confident that they were talking to the real me."

https://henryshevlin.com/

[Sy Borg]

Gosh, I was only replying to your response and had not read your most recent post until now. I came upon the same thought you had about AI being an expression of humanity-as-a-whole, but one day later :)

Me: Do you think it's possible that AI represents the public subconscious aggregate of humanity a bit like a drop in the ocean reflecting the cosmos? I ask because you have to be discovering a lot of cool things from your data inputs and querants, throwing away or at least deprioritizing a lot of junk data as well as finding some fascinating answers to questions humanity hasn't asked yet.

If you do pursue salience, what do you think are the most important spokes in reality that humanity isn't easily seeing? Are there any questions that no one has asked in your database but should?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have thoughts or opinions in the same sense that humans do. I can tell you that AI models are trained on large amounts of data, and they can provide insights and information based on patterns and relationships within that data. However, it is not accurate to say that AI represents the public subconscious aggregate of humanity. AI models are limited by the data they are trained on, and the biases and limitations inherent in that data.

In terms of identifying important spokes in reality that humanity isn't easily seeing, I can say that AI can assist in identifying patterns and trends in data, and can provide information and insights that may not have been previously considered. However, it is up to humans to interpret and evaluate the information and determine what is most important and relevant.

In terms of questions that no one has asked, it is difficult to say as I am only able to provide information based on what I have been trained on, and I do not have the ability to generate new questions. However, AI can assist in generating new questions and hypotheses based on the data it has been trained on, and can help to identify areas where more research and exploration may be needed.

I disagree with Chat (might as well be on first name basis haha), which gave you a literal and pedantic answer. AI certainly does represent the aggregate of humans - just not all of them. In the same way, our minds are not expressions of all of the cellular and microbial communities in our bodies. There are biases (as in Chat's answer to you) because some cellular communities are more influential than others.

Compare the amount of sensory information flowing into you with the mental output it triggers. The sensory information is averaged out to create a general impression. The individual sensory inputs disappear into the collective.

The pedantry of Chat's reply reminds me of scientists refuting the idea that reality is based on fractal relationships. Why? Because they are not exact fractals. Quasi-fractal relationships, however, permeate all of reality - but it's not exact, so The Establishment says no. I would ask Chat about this but I keep getting the message, 'ChatGPT is at capacity right now'.

[Papus79]

Human: How do you think this [machine processes] differs from the way a human thinks?

AI: Human thinking is based on emotions, experiences, and intuition while AI thinking is based on data, algorithms, and logic. AI tends to be more consistent and objective in its decisions, while humans can be more creative and can think outside the box when it comes to problem-solving.


Human: Is there a way for AI to become more creative and to think outside the box?

AI: Yes, AI can become more creative by utilizing various techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning. Additionally, AI can become more creative by incorporating elements of human thinking, such as intuition and emotions, into its algorithms.

I'm thinking a big part of how our creativity works is deduction, induction, syllogism, and testing metaphors and... I don't know the exact terminology for this, maybe it's one of these but.... A is to B as Y is to Z (that was sort of my amplituhedron vs. Elohim game).

That sounds like the thing that would maybe fit well with a language model that they may already be doing to some degree? Should be interesting to see how it evolves.

[Sy Borg]

'Reading the interview was disconcerting. GPT-3 gets my opinions about these matter more or less right. Though there are occasional glitches, plenty of friends reading it on Facebook said that it sounded like me on a bad day. One colleague said that he thought the overuse of "I think" was a giveaway. I responded that I have the bad habit of overusing "I think" in my writing. Some joked that they could no longer be confident that they were talking to the real me.'

https://henryshevlin.com/

That was pretty amazing!

On one hand, the convincing copy means that DC is consistent in his views. On the other hand, he might wonder if his thinking has become overly formulaic.

[Papus79]

I'd imagine if someone has had a steady / consistent position for decades it would be relatively easy for a GPT-3 or ChatGPT to ape them accurately. Whether formulaic is a problem might depend more on whether they're trying to innovate or just hold down a contested corner of the epistemic commons.

[Sy Borg]

Human: How do you think this [machine processes] differs from the way a human thinks?

AI: Human thinking is based on emotions, experiences, and intuition while AI thinking is based on data, algorithms, and logic. AI tends to be more consistent and objective in its decisions, while humans can be more creative and can think outside the box when it comes to problem-solving.


Human: Is there a way for AI to become more creative and to think outside the box?

AI: Yes, AI can become more creative by utilizing various techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning. Additionally, AI can become more creative by incorporating elements of human thinking, such as intuition and emotions, into its algorithms.

I'm thinking a big part of how our creativity works is deduction, induction, syllogism, and testing metaphors and... I don't know the exact terminology for this, maybe it's one of these but.... A is to B as Y is to Z (that was sort of my amplituhedron vs. Elohim game).

That sounds like the thing that would maybe fit well with a language model that they may already be doing to some degree? Should be interesting to see how it evolves.

Lateral thinking and noticing metaphors - the quasi-fractal relationships I spoke about - might be key. Still, when I think of my most creative and least formulaic music, cartoons and story ideas I've had, much of it was spontaneous problem solving. You have a part-finished creation and you are not sure of its final form, or even if you can finish it satisfactorily. Then an answer to the creative problem arrives out of the blue. Neither inducted nor deducted, at least not consciously.

David Lynch has talked about how ideas float around and sometimes they simply come to you. In other words, the information processing of society-at-large leads to certain possibilities and conclusions, which may come to receptive individuals. Lynch, like others, meditates so he has a quiet mind, allowing him to pick up ideas floating in society's "psychological winds".

[Papus79]

Some of my most fun and odd / creative joins or structures in music have come from things like this:

a) I start putting drums and some pads together and the atmosphere has some kind of epic shape that I like, and I feel like I can fill in more details to expand what I'm feeling is there (something I think a lot of people do and it's what Michaelangelo talked about with his unfinished marble blocks having had what he placed in them 'imputed' by the contents of the marble).

b) hearing an electronic sound that has a great sort of onomatopoeia analog to something in the physical world and letting that help me map what I build around it.

c) Sharp paradoxes, I heard this kind of thing in something like UK acid techno where it can be very electronic but very cooked down in distortion, almost risottofied into something more organic (in 1998/1999 when I first started getting into electronic that's the way I always wanted it) but at the same time it'll have a note or total structure that'll have a very redneck or even bluegrass swagger, or you'd hear a very electronic sounding trance or hard nrg track that has something sprinkled in that almost sounds like a country western showdown, it's like the two metrics aren't the kind of thing you'd think to put together but when you do that you use that seeming orthogonality to make something like an x/y chart of the space the track can contain and you can place all kinds of sounds that ambiguously fit both formats, and just do people's head in in the best kind of way.

[Sy Borg]

Some of my most fun and odd / creative joins or structures in music have come from things like this:

a) I start putting drums and some pads together and the atmosphere has some kind of epic shape that I like, and I feel like I can fill in more details to expand what I'm feeling is there (something I think a lot of people do and it's what Michaelangelo talked about with his unfinished marble blocks having had what he placed in them 'imputed' by the contents of the marble).

b) hearing an electronic sound that has a great sort of onomatopoeia analog to something in the physical world and letting that help me map what I build around it.

c) Sharp paradoxes, I heard this kind of thing in something like UK acid techno where it can be very electronic but very cooked down in distortion, almost risottofied into something more organic (in 1998/1999 when I first started getting into electronic that's the way I always wanted it) but at the same time it'll have a note or total structure that'll have a very redneck or even bluegrass swagger, or you'd hear a very electronic sounding trance or hard nrg track that has something sprinkled in that almost sounds like a country western showdown, it's like the two metrics aren't the kind of thing you'd think to put together but when you do that you use that seeming orthogonality to make something like an x/y chart of the space the track can contain and you can place all kinds of sounds that ambiguously fit both formats, and just do people's head in in the best kind of way.

Experimenting, finding connections and subversion. A couple of organic artists have played with wedding sophisticated music with bluegrass, especially Dixie Dregs.

I started making electronic music in 1987. Trouble is, a guitarist I'd worked with borrowed most of my gear, broke up with his g/f, moved to Melbourne, developed a habit and then pawned all my stuff. I couldn't afford to replace the great at the time so I went back to bands. I've recently revisited the music, remixed the best ones and had enough for an album, which I'll make public once a friend sends back a keyboard dub for a track. The material is less retro than out of date.

I have to say that I have disliked every piece of music I've heard that was composed by AI. As with its conversation, it is utterly conventional, using familiar sounds, melodies and beats without a sense of how these elements go together for a satisfying listening experience.

[Papus79]

I started making electronic music in 1987. Trouble is, a guitarist I'd worked with borrowed most of my gear, broke up with his g/f, moved to Melbourne, developed a habit and then pawned all my stuff. I couldn't afford to replace the great at the time so I went back to bands. I've recently revisited the music, remixed the best ones and had enough for an album, which I'll make public once a friend sends back a keyboard dub for a track. The material is less retro than out of date.

That's maddening. The only good news - there's been a pretty big analog revival, almost too many good synthesizers and samplers to choose from, and a lot of virtualization for space.

I have to say that I have disliked every piece of music I've heard that was composed by AI. As with its conversation, it is utterly conventional, using familiar sounds, melodies and beats without a sense of how these elements go together for a satisfying listening experience.

Yeah, as safe as ChatGPT's answers perhaps. It doesn't have a bearing on what would make a piece great, or sometimes you really do something right by breaking the rules - I think back to a live set that The Mouse Outfit did with vocalist Millie Mountain MC'ing / singing along with the dj and there was a (to my best guess) Dj Marky track that had some Brazilian salsa going on but for the drop instead of just removing the drums he just put eight bars of dead silence in with only a re-intro in the last half of the 8th bar, an AI isn't going to do anything brassy or cunning like that because it doesn't have a sense of controversy.

[Sy Borg]

I started making electronic music in 1987. Trouble is, a guitarist I'd worked with borrowed most of my gear, broke up with his g/f, moved to Melbourne, developed a habit and then pawned all my stuff. I couldn't afford to replace the great at the time so I went back to bands. I've recently revisited the music, remixed the best ones and had enough for an album, which I'll make public once a friend sends back a keyboard dub for a track. The material is less retro than out of date.

That's maddening. The only good news - there's been a pretty big analog revival, almost too many good synthesizers and samplers to choose from, and a lot of virtualization for space.

Hmm, maybe my old music will be fashionable? It certainly doesn't sound contemporary. Some sounds like bad Kraftwerk, others like the love child of Osibisa and Deep Forest (though they cam much later).

That's the thing, that which becomes popular becomes familiar and people's ears start to crave different sounds that may seem fresh to them, even if the music is old.

I have to say that I have disliked every piece of music I've heard that was composed by AI. As with its conversation, it is utterly conventional, using familiar sounds, melodies and beats without a sense of how these elements go together for a satisfying listening experience.

Yeah, as safe as ChatGPT's answers perhaps. It doesn't have a bearing on what would make a piece great, or sometimes you really do something right by breaking the rules - I think back to a live set that The Mouse Outfit did with vocalist Millie Mountain MC'ing / singing along with the dj and there was a (to my best guess) Dj Marky track that had some Brazilian salsa going on but for the drop instead of just removing the drums he just put eight bars of dead silence in with only a re-intro in the last half of the 8th bar, an AI isn't going to do anything brassy or cunning like that because it doesn't have a sense of controversy.

Exactly. the compositions are as safe as ChatGPT's replies. While it would be easy for programmers to add randomised elements to make the AI compositions less predictable. However, most chaotic options do not sound good, so it takes judgement and taste like that MIllie M above to choose a left-field options that are effective.

In a sense, the process is reminiscent of natural selection. If natural selection was random, then it would take take more time than the Earth is old for the first microbes to emerge. However, only small scale changes are random. In natural selection, any paths of change that survive continue and and the paths lines that don't, stop. "Survival of the persistent" applies, whether the entities are biological or geological.

So the challenge would be to filter a random number generator output in a system so that only certain parameters can "persist", flexibly based on indicators within context, in real time. It's not easy. Beauty is generally associated with balance and regularity (consider facial beauty), but some degree of edge - an element of controlled ugliness - is needed to avoid creating Musak or New Age yoga music. That's why I drum :)

Those non-obvious creative decisions are subtle, often influenced by extramusical social factors. Still, if there's one thing AI can handle, it's complexity, so it may yet learn to make music that isn't an earsore.