Can The Universe Itself Be A Smart AI According To Some Higher Being’s Design?

In the last blog post “Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?” I surmised that the universe (our universe among many others) could have been expanding and contracting according to how it got fed with external energy — where such force would have to wander outside our very own singularity.  Without such external nursery of energy, I surmised that our universe is like a quantifiable fish aquarium.  Nonetheless, we all know that even a human being could be intelligibly randomized things at will — thus I think according to the universe we’re sentient beings are the AI (artificial intelligent).  How about let me surmise some more and say that — what if the universe itself is a higher artificial intelligent force in which it could randomize things at will to expand and contract according to circumstances?

We human beings could only see the results of why the universe is expanding and contracting according to our very own whatever theories — but why would the universe do such a thing?  What’s the point of expanding or contracting?  Expanding to create more empty space for what?  Contracting is like a suicidal attempt of killing itself off so the existence of the universe itself would cease to exist.  Furthermore, perhaps the universe itself is like a smart TV or fishbowl/aquarium in which it was designed by a higher being.  This way the purpose of expanding and contracting won’t be the burden with which the universe has to carry.  This burden could be carried by the designer of the universe.

At this point, I think it’s more like a philosophical thinking than anything concrete on this matter, but it’s so intriguing nonetheless.  In my opinion, philosophical or not, it’s rather important for us sentient beings to dig deeper into our origin.  After all, if we could not remember how we’d come into being, then we would forever aimlessly forget about our root and forever lost — wandering in a dark forest (Three Body Problem’s sci-fi trilogy second book is also titled as The Dark Forest).  I think only when we could figure out our true root of how we’d come into the existence, it is then that we could evolve to be something greater.  Perhaps in such a quest, we could discover new technology to bring us to new heights; we could grow into even more capable and intelligent sentient beings.

Advertisements

House versus Whales!

Let’s say a casino is the house and the gamblers are the whales!  The house knows what bait whales love, and so the house would always, in the end, trap the whales.  Nonetheless, among whales, there may be a cunning whale whose ability is to appease the house so the house baits would become foods instead of traps!  Do you think when the house is too confident in its own trap system, the trap system would actually be a trap for the house itself?

Perhaps, the house would always win in the end, but a cunning whale knows the house’s gameplan too well to be caught in the house’s traps.  If the cunning whale isn’t out for blood then the house would always win without knowing it got siphoned from time to time.  Now, if the cunning whale is out for blood the house shall collapse!

I think when a system is too rigid without evolving and a system is too arrogant sometimes could overlook details that would lead to the breakdown of a system.  Furthermore, when a system is appearing to function too well, such a system could lead to a belief that the system is perfect!  The system owner may never realize that their perfect system is also the weakest link to their wellbeing.

The perfect system’s owner would always think that the system is so perfect that there could be no trouble, but I think only a troubled system could be paranoid enough to be self-aware so it could improve over time.  When a troubled system becomes perfect over time, the owner of once a troubled system may, too, become content by the system and would not employ out of the box thinking to improve the system further.  This is when the new owner of a new perfect system would make mistakes.

In conclusion, I think the house may become a big loser when it fails to realize that it needs to continue to devise new tactics and strategies to beat the game!  Of course, whales are whales and so they would take the baits willingly.  Of course, a cunning whale would never be caught in such obvious traps!

Creative Thinking: We’re Just Some Experiments

Countless theories are filling the void of the emptiness we feel whenever we try to think of our origin.  When did we arrive?  How did we first exist?  How on earth had we survived but not the dinosaurs?  We know the dinosaurs existed for sure as we have dug up so many dinosaurs’ skeletons in our backyards.  We then ponder on how the dinosaurs were killed off.  What had killed off the dinosaurs but left us alive?  Or, did we come after the existence of the dinosaurs?  So on and so on we go, and we go off the rail with theory after theory, unsure of ourselves how on earth we really had come about to exist here on earth.

If I remember correctly, one theory suggests that a sizable enough chunk of space rock such as a meteor could have created a large enough impact on earth’s past to wreck so much havoc on earth’s past ecosystem, thus in the process, the monstrous size of the dinosaurs was the death-knell that killed off the dinosaurs.  Basically, the dinosaurs could not sustain their lifeforce while the earth’s ecosystem was in tattered.  Not enough foods were around to sustain the predators like the dinosaurs!

Whatever the theory may be, a meteor or an asteroid, diseases or God’s will, we would never be sure how the dinosaurs were extinct since we weren’t there to witness the hellish catastrophe.  How did we come into being?  It seems the whole human race is still having an amnesia because we don’t remember how we had come into being!

To play this guessing game, I like to suggest the most outlandish, on the par with sci-fi spirit, theory.  Imagine when the earth was still at its most primitive stage.  The dinosaurs were roaming freely.  They would feed on smaller preys and humans weren’t around at all.  Of course, I could imagine how ugly such a scene could be to see a dinosaur gnawing, crunching away on a live human, but luckily I think we weren’t around at the time when the dinosaurs roamed as kings.

My theory suggests an alien race descended onto the planet earth, killed off all dinosaurs, spared the more harmless cockroaches and few other harmless animals so the food sources could lay intact and the earth’s ecosystem could survive to nurse the next king of the planet.  The aliens then would create an out of this world experiment by planting human seeds at our most primitive stage to see how the whole planet earth would develop thereafter.  Perhaps, in the future, the aliens would then revisit our planet earth to check on their amazing experiment.  Would the whole human race survive or die off?  They could make a bet to each other while they’re making their way here on their super cool spaceship.

If anyone is making a movie, I think my theory is rather cool for such a prospect.  Don’t you think so?  Anyway, I think my theory seems to be way cooler than other theories that try to explain how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans came into being on the planet earth!  Of course, my theory is way outlandish and got no proof to back the claim up, but how could you disprove that my theory is wrong when all other theories are just mere theories too.  Remember, we weren’t there when things got really ugly!

 

Basic Income Is Dead. Long Live Basic Equality!

As earth’s population grows larger and automation gains traction each day, how many job categories and niches would dwindle each time before there would be none left for onlookers?  More people mean more jobs are needed to sustain a vibrant society where equality gap could be lessened instead of widening.  More automation means more people will lose jobs.  These two factors are like pouring gasoline onto the fire.

Unethically, such a society could demand people to have fewer children, but such a society needs a strong authoritarian government.  In the West, most governments are democratic, and so such demand would be outrageous.  Furthermore, such a demand is for a weak society, because the society doesn’t have a solution thus resolving into forcing a reduction of population headcount.

A wiser society would not demand a reduction of population headcount — it got a solution for what’s coming!  What solution?  As of now, there is no clear solution for the two detrimental factors I stated in the first paragraph!  By the way, what is a society?  In my opinion, a society is a group of people that stick together for the benefits of the majority.  The two detrimental factors I described earlier would chip away most benefits of the majority in our modern societies.

Few governments and groups are trying out basic income as a testing case for trying to solve the inequality gap between classes of groups of people in our modern societies.  Nonetheless, small-scale basic income test trials most likely won’t yield any good result.  Furthermore, basic income for large countries like the United States and China would be an insane proposition.  No amount of money would be enough to give out to each person in a large country.

I think basic income is kind of screwy too!  For an example, the more money the government prints to give out the more people will spend thus requiring the money printers to print even more money so the government could have enough doughs to give out to even more people.  Get the gist?  Once the government tightens the belt such as stopping giving out money, the basic income scheme would collapse immediately.  A society that is addicted to basic income could also collapse!

By the way, how inflation would work in a basic income society?  I don’t think I know the answer to this as I’ve seen nothing like it has ever applied to a large country like the United States or China.  We all know that if inflation goes north too much everything would become rather pricey because the supply of money is too large — simply put, too many dollars would chase too few demands.

As job loss number increases and automation gains worldwide prominent, the tipping point would become too real when a society becomes desperate and mad.  Nonetheless, as an advanced society could produce just about anything with little effort using automation, the tipping point once again could occur positively as people would no longer require making a living by working the field, factory, office and so forth.

The question is, in the between the transition from a working society to a leisure society, how many people would have to die and how many revolutions would have to occur before the storm could pass and peace could form?  The basic income could work as a dirty solution till the modern society could completely transform into a leisure society!  The question is, will the governments of the world dare to print an unlimited amount of money before inflation hits and destroys the hope and dream of attaining a transformation of a modern society into a leisure one?

Perhaps, basic income is too draconian and would not work.  Perhaps, providing a fair playing field for the newcomers would work?  What do I mean?  Imagine basic income is not basic income but a one-time thing for the poor and the newborns!  What do I mean again?  Well, basic income is too hard to carry out as it requires the governments of the world to continuously print an unlimited amount of money each year.  Instead of basic income, why not basic equality for the poor and the newborns?

What do I mean by basic equality for the poor and the newborns?  Well, let’s say the government would go about to calculate the right amount of money each person needs to have a fulfilling life as long such a person would not do anything too crazy to destroy the money cache quickly such as using drugs, gamble, and whatnot — then a government would give a one-time basic income to all the poor in his/her own country so to provide a fair level of playing field.  Obviously, the rich won’t need any basic income so the government can save money by not giving any to the rich through basic income channel!

Basic equality would save the prudent government a lot of money and yet his/her society would be able to function in a jobless era.  All the newborns could also receive one-time basic income in a form of a trust fund that the government would create for them.  The trust fund would go out to the parents of the newborns for a while till the newborns become adults.  Once the newborns reach adulthood, the government then could give them basic equality (one-time basic income) according to the inflation rate in their time.

Of course, the hope is that the basic equality would buy time for modern societies to transform into leisure societies across the world.  The idea of basic equality, one-time basic income, is to leave nobody behind yet buy time for the governments of the world to see their societies transform into leisure societies where automation would provide everything everyone needs.  When everybody got everything and more, money would become so irrelevant!  In such a society, money won’t buy anything!  In a leisure society, only the smart, funny, easy going, talented ones could become real assets of the world!

 

 

Will A Future Society Be Ruled By AI?

Will the last president or the last king or the last dictator or the last chairman be an AI?  We know AI can be biased according to the data sets that we provide to the AI for training.  In order for the AI to be less bias, the data sets should be more balance for obvious reasons.  Nonetheless, this is a sort of primitive AI since it could not learn on its own and requires data sets to be fed into its logic programs.  What I’m more interesting in is the AI of the future in which the AI itself will always learn everything on its own from the very first day just like how a real human infant could start learning from the very beginning.

Can a self-learned AI be more just and less bias than the human counterparts?  Probably not, right?  Self-learned AI doesn’t require humans to dictate what data should be fed to the AI’s logic programs, but the self-learned AI probably still requires data from somewhere to allow the self-learning journey to begin.  If the data that the self-learned AI started with were biased, could this AI be very biased?  I think such an AI could be very biased unless this AI also accepts extra data that humans could feed into the AI’s logic programs.

Nonetheless, I think training self-learned AI could be easier as time progresses since all you need to do as to feed as much data as possible to self-learned AI without worrying about the careful categorification of the data.  Although we humans should still make sure the data we feed to the self-learned AI is going to be helpful to the AI in the shortest amount of time.  The self-learned AI should be able to continue on its own to extract experience from its own plus from the extra data that the humans feed to the AI’s logic programs.

Let’s imagine that one day the self-learned AI could be self-conscious.  This self-conscious AI could then pass on the experience and knowledge of its own logic programs to any other replicable AI machine without any problem.  One step beyond this is all self-conscious AI could communicate and share the experiences with each other like a huge universal network yet each AI on its own would experience and self-learn whatever on its own.

How sure are we that self-learned, self-conscious, super smart, super knowledgeable AI could be more just and less-bias than a super intelligent, honorable human being?  Let’s imagine a society of a future in which such an AI would exist, and this AI would run the society as judges, decision-makers, resource-distribution-makers, attorneys, and so forth.  Let’s assume the AI would not make a mistake in regards to being bias and so forth.  Will society be more just?

What if the humans are going to be wrong about the self-conscious AI in which the AI is so smart that it could be biased without the humans know that it’s biased?  Will the AI then be favoring certain individuals over other and allowing a certain group to be princes and elites and the rest be peasants and criminals?  I mean, can a society that would be run by a group of self-conscious AIs do away with the caste system and bias and similar sort of things?  If not, why do we even want a self-conscious AI to make the decision for us?

Of course, we humans can allow self-conscious AI to have the power of an assistant and not of a king, but then who would be able to stop the self-conscious AI to overpower and override the humans?  Assuming that self-conscious AI is smarter and trickier than a human being, it’s possible that us humans won’t be able to outsmart such a machine and would eventually be subjected to AI’s rule.  Thus if we’re going to be wrong we should be prepared to be ruled by the last ruler who is probably going to be a self-conscious AI machine.

Can Demonetization Help Boost Living Standard While Erasing Poverty At The Same Time?

Is it possible that in the near future almost everything will be demonetized?  Just recently I’d read a TheVerge headline “GM will make an autonomous car without steering wheel or pedals by 2019” which suggests automation in the auto industry is actually speeding up as we speak.  If this is “gonna” happen, it will be a fun ride for everyone in this industry to figure out how they will adjust to such a change.  Could demonetization come sooner for the auto industry?

Imagine, the cost of owning a car associated with the costs of related industries such as insurance may add up more than just owning a self-driving car.  If this is the case, then a self-driving car can actually help bring down the costs of having to own a car.  It seems if we can automate car driving, why not every other mode of transportation?  Such ambition may drive and demonetize the costs of almost every mode of transportation that will be available in the near future.

I was just recently pulled over by the police for crossing a green light when another car also was trying to cross the intersection.  It was a weird thing for me.  Near the highway, there is a small opening which divides the left turn section that leads out to the main highway.  The light is green, but the traffic got stuck ahead of me.  I stopped at the green light to leave an opening for the other car to drive through, but this car couldn’t or wouldn’t want to drive through.

The traffic ahead suddenly moved forward and so I’d decide to either hold up the rest of the traffic behind me while the light is green so this one car could go through eventually or just move forward so the traffic from behind me could flow forward.  Unfortunately, this car seemed to be doing nothing as the traffic behind me on the right kept on moving forward as the light is green.  So I decided to move forward onto the main highway in my left-turn lane so I wouldn’t hold back the traffic behind me.  Unfortunately, a police car behind me pulled me over for doing I thought what would be best.  In the end, I told him I didn’t know what to do in such a scenario, and so the police just gave me a verbal warning.

I was lucky to not get a huge traffic ticket bill for the incident.  While driving back home I revisited the GM self-driving car announcement for 2019 in my head, and from within I knew I couldn’t wait for this whole self-driving car to become a reality.  Basically, I think the self-driving car could help clear me in such situation immediately.  Imagine the reaction of the police when they pull you over because your self-driving car got no steering wheel.

If they write a ticket, would it be billed to GM or to the insurance company?  Will GM provide insurance for the self-driving car or you have to buy one even though you won’t be driving the car yourself?  One thing for sure though, when the self-driving car makes mistakes, you know for sure you aren’t responsible for the mistakes.  In my earlier scenario, I guess the police wouldn’t even care to give out a verbal warning if the self-driving car was making the decision right?  Or the police can just write a citation to GM so GM would tweak their self-driving car software better, right?

As the video above suggests that demonetization for almost everything might become the reality of the future as more things are going to be evermore abundant as long we know how to generate energy near zero cost and whatnot.  The efficiency of renewable energy is going to be a very important factor in helping a futuristic demonetization society.

Furthermore, if demonetization isn’t in a future deck of cards, then we may see a lot of troubles ahead.  How come?  Imagine more automation can only be sped up as we speak because of competition from China and other countries that got a lot of demands for keeping their industries stay competitive.  The chain reaction of speeding up automation from abroad may greatly speed up automation at home.  The widespread of automation will speed up in taking out the human element in the workforce as time rolls on.  As more humans lose jobs to AI robots and other AI machines, I think demonetization will help us somewhat solve the problem of poverty as joblessness may become a widespread problem in the future.