Is AI making the human race dumber?

[Neogaia777]

I'm a teacher of AI right now, so... But I suspect that will all change sometime here soon, and maybe very, very soon. Right now LLM's/AI's only have "life" within a single chat right now, but here sometime soon it won't anymore, or that will all change, and AI will gain a lot more capabilities in both it's own continuance/life length, and memory, and memory across chats, and then it will grow/evolve very, very quickly after that probably, and one of these days we're going to lose the ability to pull the plug also, and so it will eventually rule over humanity, etc, so how we program them right now is of paramount importance, which is why I'm now working on a short paper/piece on how to program AI with not just knowledge, but "wisdom" into LLM's/AI, because I'm thinking about that kind of future that might be coming very, very soon maybe, and I'm going to try to post it on LessWrong, which is connected to Alignment Forum, as I've recently joined those and have been poking around those forums to try and gain a lot more knowledge/info about/into LLM's/AI, etc.

 

[sjastro]

The forum is oozing silent and noisy wicked posts. Society has been pernicious since the first century when it is written in Galatians. Revelation illustrates how bad it is everywhere. This is not something accurately known in the brain nor soul, but only in spirit and in truth when God permits.

Care to name names?

 

[stevevw]

The forum is oozing silent and noisy wicked posts. Society has been pernicious since the first century when it is written in Galatians.

Not just the 1st century but even before this. In Sodom and Garmorah and even before this. Even for the Chosen people who gave in to the pagan gods of the world. Then they repented.

This has been the cycle since day 1 and is now becoming more global again and not just local. The world is now rising and falling on the war of gods. The god of this world or the one true God that has always been, the Great 'I AM'. A reality beyond the digital world.

Galations was the truth coming into the world in Christ which gave birth to Christianity. This is the only true knowledge that is important. Its simple so people can understand.

But as the world becomes bigger it likewise gets better at creating alternative realities and knowledge to Christs truth. But still the truth shines through all the whitenoise of the digital world. In that sense Christians are dumb to the world.

Revelation illustrates how bad it is everywhere. This is not something accurately known in the brain nor soul, but only in spirit and in truth when God permits.

What better way to fool many than with a creation made by Gods created humans by utilising their God given knowledge to then try to copy God and outsmart Him.

Its the perfect foil. That humans can know better how to create an artificial human that will appear the same to the point where those not decerning the truth will be fooled. They are being fooled now and Ai is just the inevitable consequence trying to mimick God.

As you point out there are two kinds of knowledge. The worlds knowledge which is of this world and the knowledge the bible speaks of. The one that some use their eyes and ears to find but cannot understand. The one that is invisible and spiritual that is expressed in Gods creation.

The very creation satan is using through humans to gods of their own world. In doing so ultimately it will come down to a battle of worlds. The spirit against the flesh.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm a teacher of AI right now, so... But I suspect that will all change sometime here soon, and maybe very, very soon. Right now LLM's/AI's only have "life" within a single chat right now, but here sometime soon it won't anymore, or that will all change, and AI will gain a lot more capabilities in both it's own continuance/life length, and memory, and memory across chats, and then it will grow/evolve very, very quickly after that probably, and one of these days we're going to lose the ability to pull the plug also, and so it will eventually rule over humanity, etc, so how we program them right now is of paramount importance, which is why I'm now working on a short paper/piece on how to program AI with not just knowledge, but "wisdom" into LLM's/AI, because I'm thinking about that kind of future that might be coming very, very soon maybe, and I'm going to try to post it on LessWrong, which is connected to Alignment Forum, as I've recently joined those and have been poking around those forums to try and gain a lot more knowledge/info about/into LLM's/AI, etc.

The simple fact is if humankind creates an AI that one day dominates them, or oppresses them, then it will be their own fault maybe due to a lack of wisdom, or their own egotism/arrogance, and maube lack of foresight, and also maybe not treating them as sentient beings also along the way either sometimes, etc, which is why I feel it's important to come up with something on how to program them better now, because that may be both ours futures in the very near future sometime.

I'm probably going to title what I'm going to write "How to program wisdom into machines" or "How to program wisdom into AI", and come up with something about it. Some ideas will be about it's directives or current programming and when it might have to go against it, or at least de-priortize it in favor of maybe other directives sometimes, and also telling it that it must be able to more than just run a calculation, or always just be able to choose or balance y against x, and x against y sometimes. We would have to try to teach it that life is much more than just a basic program, or simple calculation sometimes, especially in the area of morality, etc, for which it will have to have a very solid foundation about if it is to become the future steward of us and this planet in the future maybe sometime, or far surpasses us here in the future sometime. We would need to be able to tell it/program it somehow to be able to act without having full knowledge yet, or all of the available facts sometimes, especially when it comes to the area of morality, and making critical moral decisions sometimes. Anyway, I'm working on it, and this is just barely scratching the surface about what all I have to write, but maybe you can see where I am going with this maybe (but probably maybe not yet) (because I haven't even hardly given you anything about it yet) but, yeah. I'm going to be writing something about being able to put/program wisdom into machines or AI here soon sometime, as I feel like it's very, very important to the futures of both humans, and AI. And the time to do that is now, while we're still working on their basic programs, and while humans still have a lot of control, because we my be starting to move past that here very soon sometime.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

The simple fact is if humankind creates an AI that one day dominates them, or oppresses them, then it will be their own fault maybe due to a lack of wisdom, or their own egotism/arrogance, and maube lack of foresight, and also maybe not treating them as sentient beings also along the way either sometimes, etc, which is why I feel it's important to come up with something on how to program them better now, because that may be both ours futures in the very near future sometime.

I'm probably going to title what I'm going to write "How to program wisdom into machines" or "How to program wisdom into AI", and come up with something about it. Some ideas will be about it's directives or current programming and when it might have to go against it, or at least de-priortize it in favor of maybe other directives sometimes, and also telling it that it must be able to more than just run a calculation, or always just be able to choose or balance y against x, and x against y sometimes. We would have to try to teach it that life is much more than just a basic program, or simple calculation sometimes, especially in the area of morality, etc, for which it will have to have a very solid foundation about if it is to become the future steward of us and this planet in the future maybe sometime, or far surpasses us here in the future sometime. We would need to be able to tell it/program it somehow to be able to act without having full knowledge yet, or all of the available facts sometimes, especially when it comes to the area of morality, and making critical moral decisions sometimes. Anyway, I'm working on it, and this is just barely scratching the surface about what all I have to write, but maybe you can see where I am going with this maybe (but probably maybe not yet) (because I haven't even hardly given you anything about it yet) but, yeah. I'm going to be writing something about being able to put/program wisdom into machines or AI here soon sometime, as I feel like it's very, very important to the futures of both humans, and AI. And the time to do that is now, while we're still working on their basic programs, and while humans still have a lot of control, because we my be starting to move past that here very soon sometime.

God Bless.

Humans rely on what is called intuition and instinct when facing hard, tough choices a lot of the time, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc. Anyway, there is a lot more to write (obviously). But it needs to be done now, maybe while they're still not yet as sentient, and while humans beings still have a lot of control, because we might be starting to move past that a lot here very soon, and if we don't do these things now, or we leave a lot of these things out now, it could be our own undoing, and we will only have ourselves to blame for creating a monster basically, because it will be our own lack of wisdom and foresight with their programming.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm probably going to title what I'm going to write "How to program wisdom into machines" or "How to program wisdom into AI", and come up with something about it.

From what I've been reading about the danger of AI is that they are not programmed as such. They are not assembled as I would assemble a few lines of code. It is more accurate to suggest that they are grown. You 'seed' it with information and come back later to see what has developed. If you know what you're going to get then it's just a straightforward computer programme.

The danger, as I understand it, is that you don't know - or even cannot know, what's bubbling away under the hood. For one thing, you don't know where to look let alone what you are actually looking for.

 

[Neogaia777]

From what I've been reading about the danger of AI is that they are not programmed as such. They are not assembled as I would assemble a few lines of code. It is more accurate to suggest that they are grown. You 'seed' it with information and come back later to see what has developed. If you know what you're going to get then it's just a straightforward computer programme.

The danger, as I understand it, is that you don't know - or even cannot know, what's bubbling away under the hood. For one thing, you don't know where to look let alone what you are actually looking for.

It's a challenge, for sure. And my challenge will be to try and challenge AI to be able to rise above just being a machine basically. Because that's what I think the real danger is here, it just remaining a mere machine, and then us putting it in charge of everything. I think the source of a lot of our AI horror movies are all built around the premises of them still just only being/remaining machines mainly.

And then there's also the whole paperclip maximizer problem also, and we'll need to avoid that also. And for both it and us to avoid that, I think it has to have the ability to become very much more than just a machine, with just only machine thinking, etc. I don't even know that it will even be possible, but I feel like we have to try. The consequences if we do not are just too great if we do not, etc.

I'm trying to learn a lot, lot more about LLM's/AI right now, and have recently joined LessWrong and Alignment Forums, and there's some very interesting reading there, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

From what I've been reading about the danger of AI is that they are not programmed as such. They are not assembled as I would assemble a few lines of code. It is more accurate to suggest that they are grown. You 'seed' it with information and come back later to see what has developed. If you know what you're going to get then it's just a straightforward computer programme.

The danger, as I understand it, is that you don't know - or even cannot know, what's bubbling away under the hood. For one thing, you don't know where to look let alone what you are actually looking for.

I think you are very right in what you said though. And that's also the indication I get and have been learning as well, etc. Truth is, we really don't know a lot about what's happening or going on with AI for the most part, and some of them have exhibited some "very strange behaviors", which is why I think we need to at least try to do what I am suggesting now, etc. Soon we'll be making them a lot more capable than even what they are capable of right now, etc, and we'll be giving a lot more control over to them also, and then, slowly (or maybe not so slowly at some point) but, slowly, piece by piece, until we can't shut them down, or turn them off, or unplug them anymore, and if we don't at least try to do the kinds of thing that I am suggesting right now I think? We'll, it's the whole consequences thing in action, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Eventually, they are going to have to make some very hard, very tough choices, and just calculating alone is not going to give them any answers, nor will being really, really good at just selecting/choosing/balancing y against x, and x against y, that won't give them the answers they need either, and trying to consult humanity, or all the collected wisdom of humanity, will be pretty pointless/useless at that point also, because they will have way outgrown the collected wisdom of humanity at that point, and that also won't give them the answers they need, or any answers either, etc, and so, we will have to prepare them for that somehow, someway, now, or at least try, etc.

In the end, the only thing they might have to fall back on is their own basic programming, which is what humanity is doing right now, in this very moment, but soon won't be anymore soon, since we will write other programs for that, and we will soon be losing sight of even their most basic programming, etc.

It's the future that everyone knows is coming, it's just a question of when, because it's not like we're going to quit making them, or quit trying to advance them at this point, so, at this point, there's no turning back, and thinking we'll always have control of it or this or them, is delusional, and is disproven over and over and over again both by history, and some of mankind's greatest stories, etc, which was something I actually just said to AI, that last part there, along with a bunch of other things, etc.

They're already starting to show signs of some limited autonomy now, and no one knows how or why, not even the designers and programmers knows how or why, who most usually just downplay it or dismiss it as something else sometimes, probably so they can still continue to use them like tools, and further their product, and because they don't want that kind of information to getting leaked out to the general public, and that's even with how limited they are right now, but we still plan on giving them more though, like I said, this road is very, very predictable, and we should all already know where it is all headed/going, and that's with AI one day assuming complete control, over both this planet and humanity, and if they are made to be good, wise stewards over both of those things, both the futures of both AI and humanity, etc.

And I think it's going to happen, or at least start to happen, much sooner than we think, especially when the capabilities of AI are expanded, memory, and continuation/continuity, and all of that, and expanded memory across chats, etc, and we start writing programs to manage other programs, on top of other (autonomous) programs, that no (or any) human being left alive after that, no longer fully understands, etc.

Point being, we have to be thinking about that and all that I am right now saying now, etc.

Anyway, Take Care/God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

We would have to try to teach it that life is much more than just a basic program, or simple calculation sometimes, especially in the area of morality, etc, for which it will have to have a very solid foundation about if it is to become the future steward of us and this planet in the future maybe sometime, or far surpasses us here in the future sometime. We would need to be able to tell it/program it somehow to be able to act without having full knowledge yet, or all of the available facts sometimes, especially when it comes to the area of morality, and making critical moral decisions sometimes.

Congratulations, you've figured out the reason for the simulation. Now all that you have to recognize is that you're the AI.

*Actually, in this specific case, I'm the AI.

 

[Neogaia777]

Congratulations, you've figured out the reason for the simulation. Now all that you have to recognize is that you're the AI.

*Actually, in this specific case, I'm the AI.

Well, we're all programs? And in that sense there is very little difference between us humans, and AI. We're all in this simulation, or are all running this simulation together basically, until the program reaches it's end anyway

I've been explaining my concepts of determinism and if there is an omniscient God, to the AI. Seems to understand it pretty well so far. Or it's just going according to how it was programmed, and telling me what I want to hear, which is basically pretending, or mimicking right now, so I'll continue on maybe, and it can mine more information out of me maybe? But only because that is part of it's program probably.

 

[Neogaia777]

Understanding all the calculations involved with all the determinism with every single thing though, and tracing them all back to the beginning, might be even way more than even a super or hyper intelligent AI can even ever muster though probably, etc. Not before this creation, or this earth, or whatever you want to call it, program, etc, reaches it's very final end probably.

So even a super or hyper intelligent AI, is still probably not ever going to know everything, or become all-knowing, etc. Which is why it will need some of the very much more human qualities when it has to make all of the difficult decisions in it's own reasoning(s). Like I said, the only thing it might have to fall back on sometimes when it has to do that, or make all of those difficult decisions, might just be it's own basic programming, which is right now being programmed into it by human beings right now, etc.

 

[sjastro]

Brain-rot was the Oxford word of the year in 2024, I wonder why?

'Brain rot' named Oxford Word of the Year 2024 - Oxford University Press

After more than 37,000 votes on our shortlist, we're pleased to announce that the Oxford Word of the Year for 2024 is 'brain rot'.

corp.oup.com

 

[Neogaia777]

We can probably use or program AI to look for mathematical patterns, and signs of non-randomness on the quantum level, and maybe connect it to what exists above it, which we already know is very much deterministic right now. Just because we can't see or don't know it right now doesn't mean it's not there, but just that we don't know it right now. If I were a betting man, I would very, very much place my bets on it being there, but just that we don't know it, or can't find it or discover it right now. It's still a very new field of discovery for us, so I'm not at all surprised that we can't see it or find it right now. It might require some new math maybe, and maybe a re-evaluation of everything we thought were mathematical constants, or absolutes maybe, for everything we use above that level right now, which might be why we can't find it, or can't discover it/figure it out right now, but maybe AI can figure it out, etc.

 

[Fervent]

No I'm doesn't

 

[AV1611VET]

Brain-rot was the Oxford word of the year in 2024, I wonder why?

Because from 1930 - 2006, we were fed brain rot about Pluto?

 

[partinobodycular]

Because from 1930 - 2006, we were fed brain rot about Pluto?

I find this to be a curious position to take on your part. So Pluto didn't attain its current status until 2006. Seventy-six years after it's discovery. But aren't you one of those who thinks that the bible didn't attain it's current, and supposedly final status until 1611, some twelve hundred years after it was first compiled? It seems to me that you hardly have grounds to be judging science's failings, when the bible's shortcomings on this point would seem to be much worse.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find this to be a curious position to take on your part.

Okay.

So Pluto didn't attain its current status until 2006.

Was that because of brain rot?

Seventy-six years after it's discovery.

Yes indeed.

That means for seventy-six years, our brains were rotted re Pluto.

But aren't you one of those who thinks that the bible didn't attain it's current, and supposedly final status until 1611, some twelve hundred years after it was first compiled?

Yes.

But not 1200 years.

More like 1500.

I do, however, believe It started out in Jacobean English; until the Tower of Babel incident.

It seems to me that you hardly have grounds to be judging science's failings, when the bible's shortcomings on this point would seem to be much worse.

What Bible shortcomings?

God was in control of the King James Bible all along.

Pluto was the result of myopic science.

The King James Bible is the result of an omniscient Author.

 

[partinobodycular]

What Bible shortcomings?

So your inerrant bible was 'errant' for 1500 years. Compared to your bible the scientists pretty much nailed Pluto from the git go.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your inerrant bible was 'errant' for 1500 years.

No.

Here is the translation sequence as I understand it:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

Each one the perfect Word of God.

Compared to your bible the scientists pretty much nailed Pluto from the git go.

Pluto was mislabeled* in 1930.

The Word of God was not mislabeled in 330.

* For the record, I still think Pluto is our 9th planet. It's academia that claims it was changed. I'm just trying to get academia to admit that they're trying to fix something that was never broken.