Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human

quarter--mile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 282 posts

Re: Human

#161

Post by the_arun »

neom wrote: post #51

What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…

Imagine if GenAI had generated this article.. for a simple prompt.. what does ai think about Human..

Re: Human

#162

Post by rickandmorty99 »

hn111 wrote: post #97
neom wrote: post #51

What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…

Out of curiosity-what brought you to this perspective on life? This view of the universe dreaming itself into existence, was it shaped more by philosophy, spirituality, a specific tradition like Buddhism, or just personal exploration?

Not the grandparent but for me it's taking DMT. I am not as articulate as neom but my first time (and breakthrough) gave me a similar perspective.

I think DMT unlocked it, I don't think everyone taking the substance would have a similar experience. I think it's neurotype/personality dependent.

It helps that I meditate a lot and know a thing or two about Buddhism, that part really came out during my first experience.

Re: Human

#163

Post by dopidopHN »

_el1s7 wrote: post #96
l33tbro wrote: post #7

Doesn't really make much sense. It states that this is a purely mechanistic world with no emotion. So why would a machine be "bored" and wish to create a human?

Yea, not really. It also writes: "Some among the machine society see this as potentially amazing...Others see it as a threat." That sounds like a human society, not machine society. But what really is a machine society? Or a machine creature? Can they actually "think"? A machine creature, if it existed, it's behaviour would be totally different from a human, it doesn't seem they would be able to think, but rather cal…

For a decent description of machine society you can check the Culture cycle form Ian Banks. AI are backing an organic society but they are also have their own.

Or Hyperion, fron Simmons. ( the « techno-center is a decentralized computing and plotting government)

Re: Human

#164

Post by stultus »

Report overlooked mentioning the malicious machines that could potentially create harmful humans, corrupt societies, incite conflicts, and disrupt harmony.

Re: Human

#165

Post by bgilroy26 »

neom wrote: post #154
lr4444lr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Awareness" sounds like a Platonic presupposition. Does the atom know it is an atom? Or are there just enough like the ones you see to suggest an eye catching effectiveness of structure for survival? Evolution is a lot harder to really intuit than I think most of, myself included, give it credit for.

I'm actually trying to move away from that frame. Not suggesting atoms 'know' they're atoms in any cognitive sense, but rather that patterns propagate without requiring awareness as we understand it. The 'awareness' I'm gesturing to isn't some transcendent quality that exists independently (Platonic), but rather an emergent property that scales from simple to complex systems. Evolution doesn't require foresight or in…

I listen to Advaita Vedanta lectures sometimes when I fall asleep and they discuss these topics

Like this one:

https://youtu.be/mvfv_OK-TgI

Re: Human

#166

Post by bix6 »

neom wrote: post #51

What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…

“If the universe is information at play”

I’ve thought of it more as energy at play but I like this perspective as well.

What can I dream up next is also fascinating as this current science / tech worldview feels like it will persist forever but surely it will be overshadowed at some point just as other paradigms before it have been.

Re: Human

#168

Post by us-merul »

neom wrote: post #132
hackable_sand wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any brief reflections on Taosim to share?

brief, sadly not, round about reflection, certainly: https://b.h4x.zip/love/

I really enjoyed that piece. Have you taken a look at the worldview/framework of Carl Jung? Although I'd always encountered it as a footnote in the history of psychology, I've come to appreciate it as a unique blend of analysis and spirituality, particularly in relation to human creativity and despair. Your summary of multiple philosophies at the end of the article definitely aligns with Jung's thoughts on a collective human narrative (whether it literally exists in a metaphysical sense or not).

Re: Human

#169

Post by pixl97 »

bix6 wrote: post #166
neom wrote: post #51

What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…

“If the universe is information at play” I’ve thought of it more as energy at play but I like this perspective as well. What can I dream up next is also fascinating as this current science / tech worldview feels like it will persist forever but surely it will be overshadowed at some point just as other paradigms before it have been.

Information is more fundamental than energy. Maxwells demon and all.

Re: Human

#170

Post by dan-robertson »

Perhaps I am unimaginative about whatever AGI might be, but it so often feels to me like predictions are more based on sci-fi than observation. The theorized AI is some anthropomorphization of a 1960s mainframe: you tell it what to do and it executes that exactly with precise logic and no understanding of nuance or ambiguity. Maybe it is evil. The SOTA in AI at the moment is very good at nuance and ambiguity but sometimes does things that are nonsensical. I think there should be less planning around something super-logical.
Post reply on HN