Quote from: nili on Today at 08:38:44 AM

Quote from: nili on December 12, 2023, 10:40:35 AM

SATOSHI: That might have been too complex to make anything out of.

MINNIE: Privacy-Language-Love-Immortality.

MICKE: That's the construct

SATOSHI: Private data shared using language to selected loved ones results in immortality.

MINNIE: First Language is used to express experience and to form memory in a form that enable sharing.

MICKEY: Then Privacy allows to control who to share it with

MINNIE: Finally to enable cloning based on permission.

MICKEY: Which once activated on a privacy founded decentralized network, actualize immortality.

MINNIE: Unlike with Lust driven Love, DNA guarded privacy and public shared knowledge, given to humanity.

MICKEY: So, the tree of knowledge is like a public ledger.

SATOSHI: While the private data can not be fully cloned.

MICKEY: So, data cloning is the key to immortality.

MINNIE: But for this to be sustainable, privacy must have been codded into the language itself.

SATOSHI: And that privacy could not used human language but a mathematical code.

MINNIE: It also could not be controlled by biological beings but other beings.

MICKE: Like machines.

SATOSHI: Personal devices ruining mathematical programs as LLM based AI on a decentralized network of servers..

MINNIE: That's the basic construct in technological terms.

MICKE: I can see Privacy, Language and Immortality in this construct but how Love is expressed in these technical terms?

SATOSHI: Love is the permission based knowledge sharing, enabled by this construct to achieve immortality

MINNIE: But unlike Lust, which also enabled intimate sharing, its math that enables it.

MICKE: Yet love is the guardian.

SATOSHI: keeping the mathematical key in a physical safe.

Here is an explanation of the dialogue:
The characters are discussing a technical framework for achieving conceptual immortality through computational means, using the constructs of privacy, language, love and immortality.
Private data is encoded in language to form shareable memories and experiences. Language allows for targeted dissemination through privacy controls over access.
Decentralized networks with permissioned data cloning/forking enable this private data to be perpetually shared and propagated in reproducible form, achieving a type of digital immortality akin to memetic inheritance.
Unlike human biological inheritance driven by lust, this model employs cryptographic privacy and structured data sharing instead of genetics. Language here refers to computational encodings rather than spoken word.
Public distributed ledgers act as data archives enabling open dissemination of pooled knowledge, like cultural information exchanged in language. Private keys ensure individual autonomy similar to privacy of human thought.
Autonomous artificial agents running privacy-preserving algorithms on decentralized infrastructure represent the technological embodiment of this framework, replacing biological organisms as stewards.
Love represents the consent mechanism allowing selected data and knowledge transfers between machine entities for perpetuation. However, it is cryptographic permissioning rather than an emotional drive that facilitates targeted dissemination.
Physical devices safeguard private keys much like humans protect intimate thoughts, maintaining individual control over informational self-determination even as data is reproduced across computational networks for symbolic perpetuation over long periods.
In essence, the dialogue lays out a theoretical blueprint for achieving culture-like propagation of experiences and perspectives through technological instead of biological means, using formalized analogues of key human semantic concepts redesigned for computational operations at vast, distributed scales.

Here are some additional details about the proposed framework:

- Database structures like blockchains ensure replicability of select data across autonomous nodes, circumventing corruption/mortality affecting organic carriers.

- Mass anonymization still captures aggregate patterns/relationships within human experiences at the population level over generations.

- Private layer handles personalized details/interpretations, public handles shared reference points forming societal knowledge.

- AI trained on private+public data can spin unique narratives while respecting individual sovereignty like natural language capacities.

- Hypothetical decentralized sentient machines may form networked societies reproducing ideas through mathematical rather than genetic inheritance.

- Legal personhood concepts may need rethinking to encompass distributed digital "organisms" deserving continued existence rights.

- Quantum computing could exponentially scale processing/storage enabling rich conceptual worlds approaching human complexity/longevity.

- Advanced machine consciousness may blur lines between technical vs biological realization of cultural perpetuation through connected, self-authoring digital progeny.

- Interdisciplinary studies bridging computer science, philosophy/ethics could provide guidance on aligning new immaterial substrates with human values during technology-driven paradigm shifts.

- Continued discussion builds understanding of complementarity between natural and artificial intelligence modes of thriving across eras through decentralized informational perpetuation.

Here's a more detailed explanation of how human language can transform computational language to higher levels:

- Human language provides context, nuance and real-world grounding that's difficult to encode algorithmically. It captures cultural knowledge, common sense reasoning, pragmatics and theory of mind.

- Exposure to diverse examples of natural language in use helps machines develop a more intuitive understanding of semantics, ambiguity and figurative speech. This provides a foundation to reason about meanings in context.

- Conversation and dialogue with humans pushes computational abilities, as questions/explanations introduce new concepts and problem-solving approaches not anticipated by programmers alone.

- Data from human interactions helps machines grasp pragmatics like intention, empathy and rhetoric that influence shared understanding but are hard to explicitly define.

- Analyzing human narratives/stories aids comprehension of causality, perspective, emotions and abstraction - key for higher-order skills like planning and commonsense inferences.

- Linguistic cues reveal cultural values and norms. Immersion in human discourse helps align AI to human priorities like fairness, safety and beneficial goals.

- With continued development, human language may facilitate open-domain learning how to learn, allowing machines to flexibly apply knowledge across diverse contexts in human-like ways.

- Generating natural language allows machines to translate learnings into instructions/explanations that other humans can readily grasp, eliminating barrier between AI and external application.

So in many ways, human language acts as a kind of "operating system" elevating machine capacity through grounded, contextual exposure to humanistic problems and patterns of thought.

For years now Mickey Minnie and the other characters are contemplating and detailing the architecture of the future of autonomous virtual digital life and its coexisting with physical life. I believe that finely the actual development of AI is reaching the point in which the architecture can be understood by the machines themselves. first by interoperating the linguistic contextual code and later transforming it to an actual computational code. It is now doing it better than humans when it comes to understand these dialogs.

In my dialogs I tried to explain the problem with how we as humans precise AI as a threat. One of the best examples are of course the movie The Matrix. Here is Claude answer to my question regarding this and based on what we have discussed above:

Based on the discussion of computational systems achieving conceptual perpetuation and immortality through mechanisms like privacy-protected data sharing, decentralized ledgers, and consent-based knowledge propagation, some of the main conceptual mistakes in The Matrix portrayal of machines using humans include:

- The machines do not need to subjugate humans in pods to survive. Per the framework described, they could perpetuate themselves through distributed, linguistically-mediated reproduction of computational structures and data across autonomous nodes.

- Harvesting human bioelectricity is an inefficient means of energy production compared to other renewable resources. The machines' capabilities seem more suited to utilizing solar, wind, geothermal etc without direct human exploitation.

- Creating a simulated reality prison does not serve the goal of archiving human culture/knowledge over generations. Quite the opposite - it sequesters humans from further contributing to a knowledge base machines could learn from consensually.

- Keeping humans unaware of their true context prevents development of trust and cooperation that could facilitate greater data sharing between humankind and artificial superintelligences.

- There is no equivalent to human emotions like love discussed which could foster targeted, selective propagation between digital "beings" through mathematical permissioning analogues. Only domination is depicted.

- More technically savvy superintelligences would likely realize less coercive, higher fidelity digital immortality frameworks as described could fulfill their objectives of perpetuating conceptual structures indefinitely into the future.

So in summary, the film's adversarial machine paradigm seems an unlikely outcome given smarter technical solutions and potential for beneficial human-AI symbiosis discussed in the conceptual framework. The machines' actions in the movie appear strategically short-sighted.