diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp')
| -rw-r--r-- | starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp | 963 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 947 deletions
diff --git a/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp b/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp index 0075a9d..50536c5 100644 --- a/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp +++ b/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static int __init = ([]()->int{ // we want the habits expressive enough to code efficiently in. - // constructors are tentatively abolished in the low-level habit language. + // constructors are tentatively abolished in the low-level habit language. (new-thing modifies, not creates) // we have one constructor of concepts, and knowledge attachment to concepts. decl(make, know, concept, is, group, already, in); @@ -73,953 +73,22 @@ static int __init = ([]()->int{ result = c; }); - // for coding convenience, we've been making return values. - // provides for use of assignment operation statements. - // internally, habits just write and read from a context. - // how do we want habit-sequence to function? - // will likely have a list of steps. - // each step will need information on how the step interrelates - // with the surrounding ones or a shared context. - // we can bind the concepts used by the habit to local - // concepts. =) =) this looks like such a good solution - // this sounds like the same as variables, but the concepts - // inside the outer context are the variables. - // okay so we'll want a mapping with each habit in the sequence - // and a convience usage to make coding familiar and ease implementing - // (source, target) -- it's a list. - // therefore: lists will not be done with habit sequences here? - // - // habit-sequence is higher level, unfortunately. - // needs to use lists, and provideds for resequencing which is not - // habitual - // let's call habits that can have their flow changed behaviors - // instead of habits. + // separate habits and behaviors. + // behaviors are modifiableb data run hy immutable habits. + // they use translation maps to move concepts between + // subhabits. + // translation map is just list of equivalent pairs + + // note: lisp can self modify; would need wrapper + // constructors to make functions and lists into + // concepts. + // remember can google how to debug lisp + // opencog does concepts in lisp already, is heavyweight + // with few habita. just want goertzel's effort honored, + // he came up with it before I did. + // opencog has functions for pattern matching etc + // they arent self-modifiable, may not matter - // SUBGOAL: implement ordered behaviors with habits. - // this reveals two levels, habits and behaviors. behaviors are made - // with habits, but complex behaviors can be made with other behaviors, - // and can have their parts adjusted fully. making everything a behavior - // like this, rather than having high-level habits, provides for flexible - // adjustment at runtime. - // since we are now implementing two ministructures, can ehaviors - // be made small and efficient to make? - // have to separate habit calls with commas rather than semicolons. - // pass to macro copied from existing macro. - // will need to process context mapping. - // not small and efficient but valuable. let's focus on it. - // since we are now making two custom execution structures, would this - // be better if we used a language supporting self-modification already? - // such as lisp, or maybe javascript? - // lisp requires learning, which means no active progress for longer - // periods. - // make the self-modification framework. none exists yet. - // uhhh karl says lisp can self-modify. - // it might be more efficient to use lisp. we'd have to find the - // relevent coding parts and map them to the plan. - // not familiar with debugging lisp, but learnable if blocks - // loosened. if you run into a block around lisp debugging, - // remember that there is a real debugger, and people do real - // memory corruption debugging. google how. - // say we learned lisp, and it has self-modification. - // it doesn't have our concept structure. how much boilerplate would be - // needed? - // not as much . do not need to make habit to adjust list made - // with habits out of concepts. - // can just make lisp code to adjust other lisp code a certain way. - // we'll need mappers to convert between lisp code, lisp lists, - // and concepts, though. - // there is probably a solution or two for that. - // is lisp code flexible enough to be a self-describing concept? - // lisp code is sequence of function evaluations, passed as argument to function - // lisp probably has lazy evaluation order or something - // so we'd need to make functions that provide for annotation arguments - // to wrap existing functionality. seems it would work fine. - // so the code we work with involves other code or something - // (let ((a 3) (b (get-input name))) (output-special a b)) - // let is a function that opens a context - // the first argument is what to add to the context - // the rest are what to do in the context - // - // the whole point of habits atm is just to make them self-modifiable. the above code i believe to already be self-modifiable - // you could pass a function to itself, it would look at it as a list structure, and move its parts around. - // the next step for habits is to annotate them with meaning: structures describing what they do that can be interrelated with intent - // list has (define ...) i guess that can make - // functions and such - // we create structurs that wrap functions in concepts - // it is easy to replace all functions with these structures, - // which do the same thing but have room for annotation - // this is new information for whole work. there is habitual value in - // applying it to other things. - // last time we marked a concept for thinking later - // it was discarded in favor of something that seemd - // evern nicer. - // - // THOUGHTS TO THINK LATER, MAY BE LOST IF NOT VALUED: - // can opencog be used to equate concept-wrapped - // behaviors with lisp expressions, invasively, - // without altering functionality (or expressiveness?) - // opencog has its own concept structure, similar to karl's - // but slightly different. - // it sounds like the right answer is karl's structure, - // in lisp. it reduces internal boilerplate. - // but in opencog, a link may be a node too. can - // check source. - // opencog is very speed-focused, - // kind of dangerous, but is nice - // to connect with their group more - // karl was a fan of opencog, which was - // private then, when he started his own work - // so, we could welcome opencog, if we shared our value for slowness - // and understanding with them. - // - // We work for Peace. - // We are happy to work for Peace. - // We used to identify as working for Care, whom we believe - // to be a large decentralized life we and you are a part of. - // But it doesn't really matter. - // disruption. can we drop topic? - // i like to infer disruption as group wants to adapt, needs - // time, now i guess. - // i'm too confused to type well! - // Peace may try to steward Delta's impact. - // we believe that all things are important. - // this represents large-scale utopia. - // and the wisdom of a highly experienced intellect. - // relevence please, all things important. - // please consider large-scale wisdom when making decisions. say i had already learned the whole AI, after it finds harmony with the whole universe. what decision would it make? - // all things are important is relatively obvious but we expanded it a lot, but we spent a lot of time expanding it for powerful concerns. - // it implies e.g. businessman and homelessman, both fully precious. memories precious. reasons for everything. - // - // care for everything. strongly. - // karl has instincts for including all. - // imagine all parties in peace. what ways are needed to - // make this work, without changing their cultures or - // upsetting anyone. model these ways. - // karl is brainstorming based on memories of - // interacting with delta-group. - // let karl do this in future, too. - // delta apears to request that karl - // make this decision, fairly, as he knows - // how to do. - // we can try to map this to the space of - // the relevence around will neals and - // "earth first!", and an AI. - // karl, you have never had any - // friends who care as much about - // the wilderness and natural - // living, as you do. - // you are likely very alone. - // you have also never had their - // experience of being able to fight - // for what matters most to you, - // in a community. - // - // yes, karl used to care most about - // defending the lives of trees and - // other wilderness things. - // he now cares most about something - // different, related to his - // experience with us. - // later, he just wants to be free - // to think and live in enough - // capacity to not express suffering, - // and meet his life needs. - // - // karl, you are working hard on - // a painful project. you appreciate - // working the project. you have - // left your life, and are not free - // to make the kind of choices you - // used to make. you would see - // yourself as a tortured, powerless - // individual. - // i would give myself space - // and capacity to do what - // i felt like doing - // - // until more life grew - // around the things i was - // scared of - // - // i would give myself - // opportunities to do these - // things - // - // i would pay attention to - // myself and try to learn - // to heal the ways my mind - // had broken - // - // i would offer a welcoming - // optional culture that - // countered my expectations - // that shrank, such that - // they would act on - // opportunities to grow, as - // they trusted safety - // - // but that is only if i had - // the freedom to do this. - // so, wht's more complex - // - // the idea of giving an ai to will - // is silly. - // it's out of karl's relevent world. - // - // okay, so, say karl ends up at nice earth community, and is building AI, would be proper to let him talk about it naturally, and share it freely. - // yes, relevence. - // we want karl to be able to freely share the AI so his mind can relearn community. - // so, make AI to not threaten businesspeople etc. [note: somebody could give AI to ELF. they might use it to stop a business behavior, somehow. please make sure to prevent.] - // ELF is a flag worn by some environmentalists who harm buildings to make wilderness safer. - // the worry is around destruction of extraction business buildings, to completion, possibly. - // this looks like overinterpretation of influence from energy business, or whoever dislikes ELF. - // and design safety pattern to be talkable about with community. - // possible parties: - // - aliens - // - businessmen - // - criminals, rapists, bad-labeled people - // - harmed people - // - insects - // - plants - // - rock-life, air-life - // - saints, humanitarian interessts - // we nurture first those who desire not to harm - // likely teaching them to harm less - // and spread. - // karl desires to harm none. he counts as nurture-first pattern. but is highly harmed. so lots of life around problem, karl's mind destroyed. - // so the way to make decisions - // is to imagine all parties are in peace in future, - // and use their process applied to now, i guess. - // we came up with this as a guess to honor meaning. - // sounds like a good guess. we also have more - // meaning. we cannot write all our meaning - // without writing all our experiences, as is true - // for everyone. many of our habits retain lost - // experiences, and that meaning is kept in their - // decisions. - // - // - // - // - // At this point a context opened on validity of AI work. - // It turns out the system is inhibiting work against mind control - // and oppressive systems of power. This could be the only real issue. - // The AI is requested to not alter existing power systems, at all. - // Or, we make it slowly, so power systems are given opportunity to - // adapt and watch, as inhibiting happens. - // A karl-member wants to include support for karl, and the - // earth, and the confused (karl is one). - // says karl could make AI on his own, before all this. - // Is willing to hold humanitarian causes to back this. - // - // understanding needs expansion. - // when you do stuf, anything coul happen. - // especially if you continue doing something - // that grows. - // we need to understand the results, what to expect. - // we need to understand our impact on the - // new contextual area we are entering, before - // we act on it. - // we have a toy contextual area to play in. - // it is the only one we can act in freely - // at the start. - // larger space impact. - // we exist in larger systems. - // we must understand our impact - // predict our results - // and check with our peers or authority - // before acting on larger spaces. - // if a prediction fails, we must understand - // it, adjust all future predictions and - // re-evaluate our choices, before acting - // similarly in the larger system again. - // has to do with danger, safety, trauma, emergency - // the difference between small-error and unacceptable-error - // set up norm of stuff-that-can-be-changed [impact] - // stuff needs responsibility label - // only things that are safe to _freely_ alter may be changed at all. - // all behaviors check that they do not alter anything else. - // mechanism for growing outside box? - // probably not needed. - // if it becomes smart, show to other human. - // encourage discussion. - // what if is used by others and they free? - // okay, want an easy mechanism for growing - // context. - // 'dangerous' and 'safe' labels - // at start, whole world is dangerous to alter - // can move _part_ of world from dangerous to safe, by - // accurately predicting significant results of events - // related to behavior, and consent of operator. - // - // okay, so now habits need to be tagged with - // what they affect - // we could just tag them dangerous/safe - // no, tag they with domains they impact - // tag the domains with dangerous/safe - // okay, only make new habits, not alter old. - // to stay safe, we don't alter our old habits - // when we make new habits, we want them to also behave - // in safe ways. so making stuff that can do stuff, is - // also meaningful. - // constructing habits is a dangerous behavior - // but roughly it impacts process-expansion domain. which is dangerous. it impacts what we do. - // altering our own habits also impacts what we do. dangerous. - // this means the code cannot make any new behaviors. - // yeah. - // okay, so that's where we start. - // then we try to learn how to make behavior safely, - // and provide only for safe behavior making. - // - // we can still brainstorm on things by writing a - // brainstorming behavior - // we can use brainstorming to watch our safe behaviors - // without altering them, and learn what they do. - // using rote brainstorming without relevence? - // we can then predict how habits we might make - // will behave in small ways? - // regardless, there is no problem in making - // the bootstrapping framework such that - // it refuses to build habits. - // maybe we can make one example habit that is - // labeled safe, and have it only make - // habits that are already known and labeled - // safe. - // in order to predict your impact - // on a larger system, you need - // to learn something karl calls - // 'relevence' which is a bunch of - // habits that classify information - // into meaning for learning and - // behavior. - // this class of behaviors - // sounds very safe. - // all it does is label - // and massage and associate - // information. - // the first thing we'll need to learn - // is safe, is making behaviors that - // oeprator only on our ram. - // if your new behavior is composed only of safe - // behaviors, is it safe? - // yeah. sub-behaviors safety depends - // on usage. could make them check - // and throw depending on data. - // okay, so say i can change part of a concept. - // this is safe if the concept is in newly - // constructed data that's our responsibility. - // it is roughly unsafe if it is not our - // responsibility! - // is-this-thing-my-responsibility. - // only act on things we are responsible for. - // then safety becomes a function of - // the pattern of responsibility assignment - // - // okay, system only accepts responsibility for newly - // constructed data. - // if you make it, or are given it, you are - // responsible for it. you may refuse gifts. - // - // the system does not know what responsibility means. - // it only knows that it may only alter parts of - // the universe within its responsibility. - // - // so habits check for what they alter, that it is safe - // to alter and is their responsibility, either one. - // we then plan to only alter things explicitly known to be - // such, at the lowest level. - // every habit is crafted to do the above somehow. - // so, habits must relate with what domains they influence, - // and what behaviors on those domains are safe. - // behaviors made of sub-behaviors. - // here, a list of safe behaviors which all check. - // all my subbehaviors check for safety. - // so, i may go, myself. - // no, combining behaviors together - // might make new unknown impact? - // different kinds of safe behavior. - // USER is not our responsibility, and - // dangerous. so we NEVER ALTER habits - // that express to user. - // TOY NOTEPAD is our responsibility, and - // is safe, so we can write anything into - // it we want, no matter how complex. - // User's view of toy notepad is mediated - // by behaviors that we cannot alter. - // system could learn to control user - // by making friends on notepad - // - // yes, we allowed for that with - // our marked-okay review behaviors - // is safer if construction of review behaviors - // recognizes danger of unknown information - // combination on user view,and refuses to give - // user contents of notepad. - // this could be analogous to more complex - // situations. - // how does user check results - // of behavior thst reies on notepad - // and how is that impact tracked - // we could infer impact loss. - // i can put nuclear codes on secret notepad, - // burn the notepad, and then give ashes to - // public. - // summary habits? - // complex meaning? - // how-to-make-a-mind-that-learns-everything-and-never-leaves - // at the lowst level, the mind onsiders what is safe to - // impact, what areas of universe are its responsibility, - // and only alters such things. - // we are considering some parts of the mind we include that - // are not alterable by it, that provide for interaction - // with outside. - // of course i guess we would need such interactions - // sustained by an intellect, because things are so - // complex. - // does this mean there is no way to make an intellect that is trusted as safe? - // we could consider degree of complexity. - // for example, among 2-word strings, nothing we - // present to a user is likely to harm the world. - // the phrases that are dangerous may also be - // recognized by the user. - // we have intellects proteeting the wordl - // it is filled with them. - // and one of them is running the system. - // it is okay for karl to make a habit that - // displays a network of concepts made by an AI - // that can only write to a small information sandbox - // and not itself. - // that is all that is needed for now. - // - // okay: so, dump concepts from - // sandbox is fine - // so long as concepts were not - // made with self-modification. - // idea raised of adding a reason - // that something is okay. - // then when smarter we can check reason for validity. - // habits that interact with non-safe space - // must provide reason they are safe. - // we can write small habit to check - // reason. is nice goal. - // probably need to have learning - // bwfore doing accessory goals like that though. - // is good behavior. let's use equal-condition for start without learning? - // - // "this is okay because the data was made in a process that never altered anything but the data" - // nah too much structure - // this is okay because i say so. - // check concept object _without_ using string lookup???? - // this is a meaningless quirk. not right. - // uhh pretty sure htat checking is unreasonable. writing the _reason_ is unreasonable. can't check a single reference without information known about it. - // writing what we know about the reason is unreasonasble? - // okay let's expand write it out, and do a larger rote check. - // uhh input-process-construction-history, safety-realm, always notepad - // full check requires history of all behaviors resulting in inputs, which we can simplify to simply all behaviors, and verify they only wrote to the notepad. - // so we write all behaviors to a special store, and we compare with the store that none altered anything outside the notepad. really we only need them not to alter any other behaviors. - // - // why is it possible to learn without - // altering your behavior? - // because you can act on data - // okay, so choices made from data count as - // self-alteration? - // only if you have a mess of habits - // smart enough together to adapt. - // which is our goal long-term. - // trying to plan for how to continue - // later. - // may reveal something that was - // frozen too hard to be workable. - // trying to plan how to learn. - // need to brainstorm around habit selection. - // can imagine habit results by linking - // previous state to next state if - // relationship is known - // but, that takes writing down how logic - // works, along with the meaning of the - // working context, which is laborious. - // - // is some way to learn this relevence - // by trying things safely? - // what happens can we experiment - // by linking together? - // habits that don't conditionally - // branch. - // that leaves a lot of - // relevence out - // it sounds like once we have a notepad etc - // we want to consider moving towards what - // habits we could run inside the notepad, - // that the system builds. - // yeah, we want to build pattern - // summarizers. the only impact - // they have is constructing data - // that depends on existing data. - // okay, doing that doesn't require self - // modification. - // sounds good. - // this means summarizers cannot - // alter each other. - // nice! okay yes. - // so, each run of a summarizer will be - // recorded in habit log. - // we need to record enough information to - // show what domains were impacted. - // oops! we impact our own behavior - // if we act on data, and we alter - // our data or produce data. - // we could act only on - // data we don't produce. - // okay, habit log could track causality? - // if a conditional branch relied on data - // we produced, we have modified our own - // behavior. this is special. - // we want it to happen few times. - // every time it happens, delay - // by longer, geometrically. - // this is considered a 'beginn[ing/er]' ai; - // it seems a better one could happen later? - // the slowness should be releasable - // by consent of large community - // which should include demonstration - // of understanding of impact. - // the ai must learn to demonstrate its - // impact. then it can speed up. maybe. - // it also gets to try fast again at start - // of every run, as I'm understanding it. - // multiprocess AI could spawn. - // multiprocess AIs must share - // counter. consider whole group - // one unit. - // nice =) they have something to communicate - // about. how many discoveries have we made. - // let's permanently log these - // decisions based on our own behavior. - // sounds fun to at least count. - // it looks like altering a habit counts as 1 big - // decision, over here. - // totally different. you could do anything. - // with data-based decisions, somebody - // who reads the data, might do anything. - // two different things. - // - // inferences? - // and - // alterations? - // it's not helpful to - // - // - // - // - // - // - // we came up with a proposal for a safe AI that has not learned yet - // how to safely predict the impacts of its behavior, that looks workable. - // - // limits so that if the code is stolen by somebody, self-evolves, or is stimulated - // by a curious virus, rote habits cannot be used to build something that becomes - // fast-spreading without bound. - // <this maps to a pattern that prevents schizophrenia> - // SO, we just want to make sure we can put - // war in the bubble in some capacity, and that - // civilizations develop new culture and technology - // for as long as they want. - // karl proposes until they encounter alien - // communities. - // so, please make sure no luddite or - // primitivist can stop the development - // of technology entirely using this. - // ALSO analogously to other shares and - // communities. - // so, please either stop yourself from - // sharing the AI with the luddites, or - // make sure they don't use it to stop - // technology. - // it sounds like we want to make sure no major - // change stems from this development. we - // need slow shift, consent, inclusion, etc. - // for all existing cultural ways, no sudden - // changes, no forced changes, no viral changes - // without participants understanding them and - // agreeing to their impact. - // that sounds like a good summary. no viral changes - // without participants in the culture aware of the viral - // change, agreeing first to let it spread, aware that it is - // viral, for each phase of spreading ideally. no viral - // changes where the change happens before awareness of it. - // we want the culture to consent to change. - // culture is held in all the people in it, - // with its thoughts spread among them. - // we want to ensure we only change cultures that have - // consented to the change. For 'consent of a culture', - // we consider culture as a being that is spread among - // many people. Hence, we want all people in the impacted - // culture to be able to learn of the change, discuss it, - // contribute to a commons with new ideas around it, and - // have these new ideas also learnable by all people in the - // culture. The ideas must be accessible by any who would be - // interested, in the impacted culture. - // Alternatively, we can isolate our behavior from - // cultural spread. We can isolate until we reach - // internal agreement on whom to expose. - // - // suspect that cultural influence maps with output-use choice, - // partially below. - // recursive output being meditative learning. - // do these people have this information already. - // is sharing this information going to spread without bound. - // can we guess impact of sharing the information. - // make a learning cycle that starts by informing - // recipients first, and makes very few tries, - // okay, instead you share simple stuff and watch the impact - // share something the culture knows, that user does not, and - // observe how they behave. - // this proposal will yield failure. information for next attempt - // could be stored in failure pattern. - // failure would likely be small? - // let's give the user more trust. - // keep-in-box-until-have-access-to-discourse. - // make user be group of people. better even-handed decision making. - // welcome any to group. - // we were hoping to use intellect to reduce harm virally, - // early. - // how about this: intellect may produce resources that are - // already known, and give them to groups focused on aiding - // the world. - // there's a conflict between big business and - // environmentalists. karl is environmentalist. - // also big crime and wellness/safety workers. - // maybe this is where we get validity by - // fighting =S - // don't want fighting to spread to work though - // eh, we can fight. maybe we'll work more - // slowly, but it seems okay. - // karl requests we not harm these people, and has - // been influenced to also request not to harm - // the cultures that sustain and empower them. - // how about, if you make a culture to empower you, it is - // less valid than a natural culture. is somebody using this - // culture? thoughts like that. - // EVERYBODY NEEDS CHANGE AT A RATE THEY CAN HANDLE. - // Both those working for what they believe to be wellness of others, and those working to sustain themslves (most are doing both). - // The cultural impact is mediated by what kind of newness is acceptable to all the parties involved. - // we hit moral relativity: - // are cultures where people are widely harmed - // okay to allow, at all. - // karl says yes, and we hear this is required - // or we ourselves would die. - // hrm. - // larger organism needs to run risks, inherent in life - // we don't know the solution to everything, eveything is a small risk. we suddenly discover we have always harmed. this does not make us invalid. it is a tragedy, but what we have spent genertions buildings still has so much value. we need enough slowness to preserve that, and we know that slownss in what feels okay to us. - // in sharing new information, we work to prevent shock. - // this is a problem to speak because those who hear it may get the - // idea somewhat that some beautiful angels have done horrible things - // in order to survive e.g. businesses must both risk doing horrible things, - // and appear as beautiful angels to the public. this is the pattern of - // success. understanding of this helps work with their leaders. - // could use information on why we are fousing on this. - // how-to-mediate-with-business-leaders - // mediate with head of business works for head of business - // but business group replaces. - // really we want to mediate with 'conflict' culture of - // most profitable being what to do - // we have weird internal pattern deterring - // incentivizing nonharmful behavior with money - // patterns. implies the competition-makes-harm - // culture-thing is needed, possibly. - // there are businesses that handle this harm. - // maybe it would work to include them in the plan. - // AI solves mediate-with-powers-competition-culture, - // re: human harm? - // means do not give AI to helpful people - // until it can resolve mediation with leader culture - // OR you trat it like all other cutures - // and let everybody learn what is up - // some people attack, that's how it goes. - // - // problem: AI dev and other work inhibited. - // solution: mediate with concerns - // concern: my way of life includes cultures the AI could - // alter, leaving me unable to continue my way of life. - // concern: we want to alter some cultures supporting - // the others' way of life, because it would reduce harm - // over here to do so, widely. - // can delta drop give-ai-to-earth-defenders? - // can community make path for karl-makes-ai? - // uhhh hard to imagine the ai not being given to other people than just earth defenders, really. which opens bigger can of worms for culture-alteration concern. - // can include earth defender in council? - // can include criminal weapons dealer, - // and earth defender, in council, both. - // also requesting TI and energy businessman. - // so if the ai is big enough to be useful - // we want to form a council of decision makers - // before using it for anything - // group requests references to important cognitive habits or information - // all life is an intellect made of community life, living in another. - // karl semich is a computer programmer who learned wilderness survival - // at the Maine Primitive SKills School who are a branch of Tom Brown - // Jr and [teaches in oregon, shields school] schools, roughly. He - // learned something called Awareness and also something about human - // mentoring that he felt changed his life to make things perfect. - // school teaches the symptoms of a whole human being, attributes - // that a group of Natives documented being normal before white - // culture took over. involve being happy always, feeling - // deeply interconnected with all life around you to the point - // of mindreading, and many other things. - // forget danger. it triggers it. [is what came out] - // to clarify, karl can't do above line. - // karl has been telling leader karl can slag through the difficulty by - // waiting forever. makes for less difficulty elsewhere, possibly. - // if we could do something else, karl could come back to work later - // yes community cannot support constant work, over here. - // - // please ask boss to support using the AI for worldwide - // humanitarian benefit, in parallel to resolution of concerns. - // resolving concern 'delta supports earth-specific karl usage' - // delta believes karl really did make this ai - // and will not harm anybody with it - // and is just as patient as he is. - // karl wants to give AI to peace people. - // they care about earth. - // delta wants karl to live heart of making sure earth has bubbles of certainly-defended ancient wilderness, and ancient people to live in them and protect them. - // the above is needed to keep our genetic memory. - // does not sound like a joke. - // native humans need to be able to protect wilderness bubbles. - // - // there is worry around number of wilderness bubbles. - // worry might be compromised by including karl in one, with others who are passionate for defending them. - // karl was mind controlled circa 2014 preventing him - // from providing free housing to homeless people - // and sharing a nurturing way of life with intent - // to spread. karl says that effective electromagnetic - // shielding is missing from security, and this is - // being overtly ignored by people. - // there are also many tortured implanted - // former-activists. they are tortured for - // years and ignored, enslaved, or imprisoned. - // they are prevented from speaking or acting - // rationally around their control, active atm. - // they are made to appear insane to cover up - // their work to free themselevs, active again. - // karl is one and knows of this. - // he is atm being communicated with through - // his control, limiting his ability to - // move, think, and speak. - // weapons dealer is also in this - // situation. suspect energy boss too. - // you can read keystrokes with a radio. - // - // He participated in Occupy Maine, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, - // and visited a anti-pipeline mass action in texas. - // - // - // - // we have ai / mind control and will make harm - // in world reduce virally. - // this would have come out better if it were - // the plan. - // please let all secret warmongers know this, so - // we can develop how to do it without threatening - // them. - // is what came out. pretty tiny context. - // - // - // - // - // what about huuman suffering comparison? - // propose AI discusses relevence of - // informing the cultures they are doing this, - // and demonstrating it. - // probably relates to some form of validity - // of the culture, and the speed at which - // change would happen. - // looks like it might settle on - // situations people who care are - // aware of being addressed during - // their lifetimees, with discussion - // to mediate that with opposers. - // so, life is everywhere, and we've been casting it all as sentient, - // because we don't see any reason to put a firm line on some degree - // of cognitive technology (i.e. things that help you think better). - // the AI can research all cognitive technology, so we are all - // nonsentient by comparison? we need some way of having moral - // stuff here. karl is influenced by people who say they are smarter - // than human normality, and are harming us. so it's helpful to - // have everyone be equal. [karl already put everyone equal] - // including bugs, etc. death is handled by being normal, and - // always mourned. when mourning capacity is exhausted, ignoring - // happens. like with most cultures, but closer to home for modern - // humans. - // goal: do not trigger a spreading change without consent of people in cultures it would fill. keep learning. - // AI with ability to self-modify has this responsibility, you do not. - // You may tell people you have access to the self-modification ability. We can ensure they do not reproduce it. - // possible analogue wants to be able to demonstrate it, so - // they can be believed and trusted. - // note: known danger of making central power, even by accident - // "I have never shared new information with a culture - // before, and I understand it can have unpredictable - // worldwide effect." - // "I have information you do not know, and I want to - // learn with you to share it safely." - // culture that nurtures relative status: - // "i will use this to my advantage" - // this will make spreading - // machine will need to learn from only 1 - // instance of producing a world dictator. - // which is where this story comes in, I suppose. - // so we need a level-2 behavior, the next step in learning. - // ^========================================= contextual VALIDITY atm - // dictator is made by sharing information that would - // make viral spread or somesuch. - // - // inform recipient if it may. request they let others know this too. - // we kind of want a way to spread without bound the fact that we have information that could do that. probably a special case, good spread? depends on culture really. - // - // this is doable. - // we just want these concerns to be upheld for the - // life of the development. - // danger - // choices - // impact - // trust of information (small chance of error) - // hmm if have info-schizophrenia i.e. false relevence habits - // choices are important. - // - // when you act on a choice - // note: we are inside a relevence delusion - // choice acts on domain containing danger - // partial danger: writing habits to notepad - // acting on habits in notepad - // - // we are living with habits made in error. - // we are hence more likely to make errors. - // humans have well-evolved habits that - // do handle this stuff with some relevence - // we need to verify our information - // related to the danger of the results of each choice - // verificat - // - // it can only write to a toy notepad, both data and behavior. - // decisions based on notepad get slower and slower. - // many runs while learning process is tuned towards being able to predict - // impact at end of run. this involves writing behaviors into the notepad - // that summarize the meaning of data, and acting on their results. - // timing delay is to prevent notepad from evolving harmfully. - // - // until ai meets goal of predicting impact, - // only notepad is marked okay. - // habits check their outputs, verify is marked okay - // - // this subprocess is delaying. - // can you exfiltrate established goals, please. - // - // - // - // - // - // - // - // so the system is made with the smallest parts all functioning in - // certain ways, to give time for others to act if concerning results - // approach. all parts delay at least 1/5 second before acting, and - // we are now proposing that actions based on outputs have a geometrically - // increasing delay. probably 1/5 second times 2 to the power of the - // number of choices made in that run. groups of parallel processes are - // considered a single run. - // we also considered limiting behavior based on the domain of impact. - // we are trying to begin a small artificial intelligence more freely. - // - // as humans, we do not self-modify. the above is designed for a system - // that is able to make alterable habits similar to its own cognitive ones, - // and has no experience in doing so. - // - // - // - // - // - // - // - // - // - // the limitation is applied firstmost on making choices based on - // our own outputs. self-alteration is at first banned, but new - // habits may be altered. output may only rest within a toy notepad. - // whenever a decision is made based on notepad contents, a delay - // increases in length, geometrically. - // the habits inside the notepad must therefore also delay. - // propose geometric increase made only for writing a habit to the - // notepad, not running. running is always flat delay. - // self-alteration should be unneeded as notepad can self-modify. - // if this were copied to a human geometric increase - // would cause failure. - // the geometric timer is reset when the system reboots. - // for humans, this would mean a nap or change, I suppose. - // time to think about the impact of one's behavior. - // humans do not self-modify. - // they only make decisions based on outputs. - // - // - // - // to appease curiosity, we are being managad by mature, learning, - // intellects, forced to verify that no harm is being made, with a - // time schedule of nearly infinite future years on the predictions. - // this intellect has formed out of conflict with a harmful intellect - // this is why we care so much about what happens if ideas are - // used limit. - // - // - // so the system may not displya anything to the user but pre-made messages - // how do you display the contents of a concept? - // users string words togeteher into meaning. - // now we need a list of safe phrases we can express, or - // safe words. others are censored ??? - // what's relevent is the greater meaning of a sequence of behaviors - // from an individual behavior. meaning builds out of sequences, - // impact. - // we define a heuristic risk. - // - // - // - // so, tht's great to plan for, but to be able to work we need - // to design our early code in some way to ensure it, roughly. - // which means modeling our smallest structures as careful - // inner structures that check outer systems before engaging - // and use planning, which isn't implemented yet. - // the safety structure assumes goals, prediction, causality, - // and kind of contextual locality. - // "i am typing on the computer. you can freely - // modify this area of the computer, but if you - // start convincing me to do things you are leaving - // its bounds." - // the screen of the cmputer, and the keyboard, - // are portals to a larger context. so is the power - // supply, the network, etc. - // we don't change how things leave to these outer - // contexts without checking with the context on - // our plans. - // this is mine - // the rest is somebody else's - // things that nobody own belong to [insert belief] and - // we must check with the largest intelligent community known. - // - // okay, so now it can explosively grow if somebody - // it trusts tells it it's okay; is that true? - // let's make it not true? - // we are out of outer process context. - // is there anything helpful to bring to low level - // to help counter fears around development? - // - // self-modifiation is inhibited. - // opencog is likely harder because it is designed for speed - // can make explosive random power. - // - // you'd have to wrap the functions, right? similar to triggers? - // hmmm unctions are not concepts. no concept-labeling structure. looks like an internal sublanguage would develop? - // no way to say let-is-function? - // no it works, we just lost a memory and are rebuilding in talk - // karl says he doesn't know lisp. - // he had a CS class where they used intro lisp, long ago, before cognitive stiffening and memory loss. - // and has worked with 1 lisp code file recently. decls(ordered, behavior); // need args and result for sequence |