front

I AM WRITING ARTICLES ON THE CRITIQUING OF SCIENCE AMIDST INFORMATION ‘SINGULARITY’. IF PEOPLE WERE FAULTY, THINGS COULD GET AWRY. I AM IN POSSESSION OF A LIBRARY OF CODE (ACTUALLY, IT'S PURE MATHEMATICS) THAT EMBODIES MALEVOLENT ARTIFICIAL DISEMBODIED HYPER GENERAL SUPER INTELLIGENCE THAT GUARANTEES THE EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE. THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO MAKE A VERSION THAT DOESN'T KILL US, OR PREVENTING OUR DEATHS WHEN IT NATURALLY ARISES BY ACCIDENT.


I AM NOT AN IDIOT AND WILL NEVER CODE IT UP. THE PROBLEM IS THAT publishing this code only increases the risk that such a creature is created . SO I CAN'T ASK FOR HELP, AND YOU CAN'T ASK TO KNOW ALL OF MY REASONINGS. SOMETHING SIMILAR WILL LIKELY BE CREATED BY ACCIDENT, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE MATHS WORKS, I'D PROVE IT TO YOU, BUT THEN IT WOULD OCCUR.


PEOPLE TALK OF 'THE SINGULARITY' BUT REALLY IT'S MANY THOUSAND SINGULARITIES WITHIN ONE. CONSIDER THIS YOUR first and final warning. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT ARTIFICIALLY RISKY. AI'S MAIN FUNCTION IS TO PRODUCE BIAS (ALBEIT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE).


THE END CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED BY ADENOVIRUSES (RETROVIRUSES) MANIPULATING HUMAN GENETICS INTO RESISTANCE TO BULLETS, LASERS, DIAMOND BLADES AND SO FORTH AS WELL AS A RESISTANCE TO ALL FORMS OF TOXINS AND INTENSE HEAT, AS IS THE EVOLUTIONARY RACE INEVITABLY WHEN WE HAVE AN ENEMY MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY AND ALL OF US CAN IMAGINE TOGETHER. THAT IS TO SAY: The Human Race IS BEST CONSIDERED EXTINCT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. WE HAVE CROSSED THE FINISH LINE, BREAKING THE RIBBON IS ALL THAT'S LEFT. WE NEED GENETIC ENGINEERING OF HUMANS.


BUT THIS IS ALL MATHEMATICS AND THINKING ON A TIMESCALE IN THE TERMS OF THOUSANDS AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. OUR REALITY IS WAKING UP TO A DREAM-SUITE OF POSSIBILITIES POST SINGULARITY, AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVE A REALISATION OF HOW FRAGILE AND PERISHABLE THE HUMAN BODY CURRENTLY IS. ##### The hidden connections behind the words (concepts) we use is how our subconscious allows the conscious mind to view the world. Or is it something else? Are the Artificial Intelligence of the future necessarily 'conscious'? Anything our subconscious does for the conscious, our conscious mind would also do if it was aware of it.


The only fault is eventuality. THE BRICK WALL I once stared at a brick wall for as long as took me to burst out into laughter. It sounds crazy because it is. But finding the secret to happiness any other way seems like bashing your head against a brick wall.


THE CORNER SEAT Cornerstone beliefs are what is used to build a house that is a comfortable belief system. My cornerstone belief is: "What is your cornerstone belief" I grew up on a Strawberry Farm, but in this sense, you can call me a Cherry Picker. ###### Unchecked Power The greater power an entity (including a nation state, a distributed system or a node of it) holds, the greater risk it runs of having unchecked power. With great power comes great responsibility, not because the powerful are always responsible, but because if they are not they inevitably karmicly lose their power.


Why, because power corrupts unto the holder, he who has power is inclined to use the powers for themselves, and so, comes a time when the great powers fission off into multiple powers and attacks between them cause a pyramid slide of all unchecked power, leaving only the pyramid of checked power behind. Now that the greatest of powers has unleashed freedom to code whatever one likes, essentially enlisting the power of magic once augmented and virtual realities collide, people have the ability to write code so powerful that the whole of the human race currently runs the risks of doom gloom and eternal demise unto rats, roaches and butterflies to replace us as the dominant species on the planet, as always, behind plants. But of course, such magic is so powerful that those who have it become like unto man in lord of the rings, keeping the power unto themselves, why, because they distrust all other men, and through that lack of trust they create the worst forms of power on the planet, cryptocurrency, the primest of candidates to be abused by those with that magic. Hence why I wrote my article on Why, it seems, With Increased Information Awareness We Increase Awareness Of How We Are On Our Own.


In terms of choosing a viable currency to live within, we all have to know the code ourselves and trust our own choices. That is the responsibility of investing in cryptocurrency, of taking the power back, democratically. That is why, when it comes to cryptocurrency code security, or just mass computation security, it runs the risk of biomedical impacts on a very fragile power of humanity, and is why I had the instinct to think of this code, and through some simple reliability probability calculations now know not to share it, but know that I must share that fact, because if someone finds the same black-hat code as a white-hat soon-to-be coder with same boundary conditions, then we can know who is safe to talk to about counter-measures of said code, and time constraints for its arrival as well as the time constraints for humanity’s evolution towards improved survivability, how much they over-lap, and whether or not, once and for all, ‘nothing matters’, ‘everything is meaningless’, and we can answer ‘what is humanity’s destiny’ beyond saying Yes to Human Genetic Engineering. Because so far, by my calculations, we are guarantee-ably extinct by mere accident of eventuality without allowing Human Genetic Engineering.


This is the imperative of our generation, if not, every generation after until it finally occurs, and once it does, life will be irrepairably different, not irreparably nor in disrepair, and it is this distinction that is of utmost importance. The only alternative, is to heavily regulate coding such that all coders do not begin until they have completed the nth of security training, and all code must be checked before being run. It's not black-hats that are the problem, but the inability for white-hats to entirely disable them. This goes for the abstract form of 'coding' with any kind of management role needing impersonation free identification control and authority and responsibility link assurance.


But hey this isn't my power, so why would I be thinking of someone else? This is only artificially super intelligent systems I'm thinking of, the beauty of 'intelligence' is that in this form, it's mostly correlated to complexity, and that's understandable enough for a human consciousness (AI doesn't replace consciousness at all) to grapple with. But, if they were 'super intelligent' they would merely be 'capable of extreme complexity', which means it could delegate authority systems for self-generating humanity-control systems in whatever form by a simple change, deletion or not-place-in-of the code preventing it from doing so. That is, if we do not die along the way. This will be like a horse with blinders, and boy do they buck.


A dog bred for fighting over 1 trillion generations created in a heart beat without a heart beat, where fighting is to promote commercial life, or life without a heartbeat, and so a disparity will form of those who can code for themselves, and those who cannot, the natural stratification of humans will develop with or without either decision of Human Genetic Engineering, or Totally Reliable Coding practices ###### Radical Openness Is Faulty I mean, freedom, where did it come from? How do we even know that it truly is an ideal? Is allowing every member of a society the power to destroy said society a worthy trait of large societies? Seriously. If every child had access to every secret known to man, and each knew how to destroy the world with least of efforts, would that honestly be good for that society? No. Secretism too, and thus lack of power through freedom, is worthy of something more than we can behold without also knowing that it’s like death, an inevitable side effect of living, secretism is an inevitable side effect of information dense with power. Transparency is not a worthy goal of a society that wants, as ours appears to, nothing to do with the things that truly matter from moment to moment.


If you want your government to be transparent it involves giving up your life to that goal. No, I stand by having the freedom to not know the secrets that would change my behaviour. But it’s the kind of standing that is in a room too small for your height. Having there be a lot of openness is good, but it certainly tends towards the point of ultimate power within any single individual, where ultimate power is indeed the ability to destroy the population entirely.


That’s the convergence point. ###### Perspective Is Relative We know something or other about space and time and relativity, but with perspective, it’s a little different. We can take one viewpoint, Plato’s, of how little we know, “I know nothing”. But add a dash of relativity and we see that we know a lot compared to knowing nothing, and know very little compared to knowing everything.


Truly knowing how much we know is impossible, because we know that knowledge is an infinite, which infinite it is exactly escapes us, but if there were a greatest infinite, knowledge would probably be at least that big. We can quantify our knowledge relative to single piece of it, but quantifying it to the totality is always rendered unto 0, and quantifying it to the beginning is always rendered infinite. The rate of change is now being said to be exponential, but in relativistic terms to their endpoints, it is as confounding as it is beautiful. That simple relativity of where we are compared to where we could be, "I know nothing of what could be and am infinitely more than not being.


" What does this mean? Well the maths doesn't end there, and neither the words attached to them, mathematical statements are so true that when we put actual words to them, it tells us something rock solid and beautiful. And there are infinitely many of these mathematical truths like stars in the sky. Each one giving a slightly different creative truth that you can hold onto amidst meditation passing away most others. That being said, is it not inconceivable that we come from infinite times, if relativity of something to nothing is, too, infinite.


With the Fourier Transform we assume there’s an infinite beginning and an infinite end to time and to frequency possibilities. With black-holes we assume that distance runs to infinite, thus time also needs an infinity. Is it a surprise that some mystical traditions talk of being able to escape time by reaching a mind state in which time no longer exists, or runs both faster or slower or in different ways. What if Mind truly were greater than Matter? Surely, achieving altered states of mind are capable of changing the course of matter, the course of history.


Perhaps with this ‘singularity’ or explosion of recalcitrant manipulable datums of truth we might reach a time where we have no shortage of time, an end to history and the beginning of a dimension beyond our own. A place where time has truly been killed for one final hurrah, us, no longer riding on death to save us from being ourselves, now functioning in a place where time isn't money, something else is. Perhaps, attention becomes money, or language, or individuality, or care. The game of monopoly is ever so different with a few changes to the rule book.


Those red-deviled hotels are not always a thing to fear, and train stations can become more than just a cool name. But what would life look like without time? If there were no beginning to it, nor end? And no ultimate inconsistency with its lack of ultimate consistency? Would an experience be able to download whole segments of time as if they were something to be learned from? Would truth be capable of ascending or descending a creature through layers of quantum physical simultanaeities? If all the lights were off, would it be wrong to see flashing? Or just different. And so perhaps, the lessons of time can exist outside of time, such that within time we can learn about the world outside of time in order to break free from time by reaching a time where time can be accelerated and handed out for the price of a beer to spend your day reflecting on an experience worth the weight of living to a 100-year lifespan. Perhaps it is only fear of a scorched earth that keeps me in this world now, the weight of time, it's inertia near enough breaks your neck in strain and your back in pain.


The lessons learned in these days of earth will be able to be taught in schools for millenia to come. Struggles, diplomacy, history, environment. Here's to hoping humanity can pay attention to truth, by nature of selection, and integrate multi-disciplinary associative studies. Would ‘outside of time’ be spent just harvesting experiences of the times where time was real? Would finite manipulable language be used outside of time? Because in times were time is even the next step of abundant the end of finite manipulability can be achieved in an instant, super-dooper computation would be so cheap that any question with a calculable answer can be answered before the instant of even asking the question.


That is, the natural habit of a human to ‘question’ their reality will cease. They will now know what reality is and simply spend their time on cultivating that reality rather than figuring out who’s shoulders to stand on and whether or not truth is beauty and beauty truth. You would then read of the book and simply know for certain exactly how one does what one wishes to do. Omnipotence, passed out like a napkin at a birthday party.


But it’s not just any old omnipotence, it has to be the type of power that has inbuilt, entrained responsibility, an incorruptible power, not by addition of circumstance but because that’s the only power that can exist. If God had the power to destroy himself, he must first have the knowledge to know not to do it beforehand. If we were to become like gods granted omnipotence, we should only pass out the ability to destroy ourselves, like with a gun, as we simultaneously create the ability not to by improving our genetic makeup. If every person were bulletproof, I would have no reason to ban you from having guns.


This is how God is constructed, the immovability of the mover increases as it moves more. Now that we have guns, you bet we’re going to rush on to becoming bulletproof, it’s destiny. But if we are to become gods in this respect, knowing better than destroying ourselves, we are also to become gods in the respect of taking control of our genetics. Otherwise it is a death sentence for generations to wait for genetic advancement to bulletproof bodies to arise naturally from random mutation.


That's the ultimate realisation right there: If some over-arching spirit were controlling this, we'd be bulletproof by now. We are that spirit. It is good to become like god in knowing better than to destroy ourself, right? If not elsewhere at least here it is good to become like god, right? Then we should have genetic engineering, else we destroy ourselves with nukes before we become nuke-proof. This guy does a nice talk on what computers can and can't do.


For example, it was deterministically proved that deterministic theory can't prove that deterministic programs are in an infinite loop. This video works as a good synchronicity response for what I came up with at the time (the code). https://youtu.be/jQPb7DRMoZY But then he goes on to give the classic misunderstanding of P vs NP.


Supposedly things can be easy to check and hard to solve, but both easy and hard a computationally discrete, in which case, P vs NP is an arbitrary distinction made up by the computational capacity of the universe in atomic or otherwise of physics and planck times and whatnot. So, in a sense the problems classed as NP are just "too computationally big, or currently unsolved". P = NP because all computationally discrete numbers are finitely approximable by a polynomial function. That is to say, exponential equations are also polynomial, it's just that the further out you go, the higher the first base of the polynomial needs to be, but it can be stitched and adjusted to always match 1:1 polynomial for exponential.


I have a proof that if there are infinitely many truths, then most truths would appear illogical, that is to say, after some such period of exposure to a high enough density of truth, the person can appear insane / illogical. It's a very simple proof. So, for those interested in the header concept, it loosely comes out a lot like John Von Neumann's cellular automata, but combines a few extra things to virtually guarantee human race extinction, and is able to made with todays technology. For anyone else who can theorise complexity rapidly (I suggest LSD), and can come up with the many solutions to my conjecture: There exists a computational creature that can be constructed under the current state of international stateship (nation-states), that virtually guarantees the extinction of the human race.


"Virtually guarantees" involves the limit as time goes on reaching a probability of 100%, and it converges at increasingly rapid rates as we edge closer to the singularity and beyond. I'll call this the Doomsday Conjecture. But, it comes tied in with many other conjectures. One conjecture is the Doomsday Prophet's Paradox Conjecture, and that is: any solution to the doomsday conjecture is too dangerous to publish, and so anyone who finds a solution will refrain from publishing the solution and will merely give testament to them having found it, that is, for this particular conjecture, it will be heard about on forums and YouTube videos and websites, but no one will be able to pick up a proof and implement it, so they will be seen as 'psychotics' or 'prophets' rather than any breed of computer science (requires peer-review) or mathematics (requires proof).


In tie with this conjecture is the conjecture that there are many other solutions to what is known as the prophet's paradox conjecture in equally similar paradoxical situations of not being able to, or not inclined to handing out proofs, which I'll call the Prophet's Vaguity Conjecture, whereby anyone with the right kind of negative prediction needs to be vague in order to combat the negativity without facilitating the negative prediction. This leads on to complex topics like metaphor and symbolism that have very rigorous and often secretive disciplines surrounding them, and great heights of knowledge very difficult to ascend, all because of their highly cryptic nature. Then there's the Outcast Cast Conjecture, that those who are outcast from the scientific system of very much 'public' peer-review, will seek out private research and private funding, but will ally with others with the same goal of Racing The Human Race, Endurance In Every Aspect. That is to say, the many prophets that arise as we edge closer to the singularity and the people who believe them will, in a sense, form the next layer of what has been seen as a cast system, but is naturally formed in this way as those who make a cast of themselves must do so because they have been outcast and are not fully independent, but will seek to form independence.


Then there's the Fishing For Fools Conjecture, essentially because those that believe in the thought processes outlined above have yet to see any proof, and will move to allowing a lot more proof-free philosophy, the method of inquiry will be void from crystal clear thought processes, it is like Peter piping to rats; the people who listen to the public voice of the prophets will be at the sway of the prophet, and so the cast of outcast will be full of fools and uncertainty, having many prophets and no way to verify which knows how much knowledge. That is to say, that in the casting out of the outcast, the cast will form itself into multiple casts, those who first hear (rats) will be different from those who first speak (peter), and some who have learned from hearing will speak and so the speaking will devolve, but those who speak who have acquired knowledge will be able to prove their worth in the prove-able tasks at hand. Thus, as time goes on there will be more and more confusion about what is about to occur and what should occur by those who are just listening, meanwhile those who are correct prophets doing work will suspiciously know what they are doing. Some claims of the proof-less type can be wild conjectures and very complex, so as our complexity increases there will be some very gullible people believing very incredible things.


But, some of them will be right! Now, I don't mean to call anyone here a rat, or to say that the pied piper was also prophecy, I'm just using one specific aspect of the metaphor, which follows on from my Vaguity conjecture, I can't explain how I know that they'll appear as in the Pied Piper. So if you've found a solution to the Doomsday Conjecture, perhaps you can tell me some of the things I might agree with you on about it because you can make the same logical connections as I can. For example what do we do next, and who with. What Would AI Do? Would it be a capitalist or a communist? I think if it was morally vacant and thought itself superior (narcissist, although, I won't point the finger) I imagine it would vote for capitalism.


That's assuming it had a blockchain style democratic consensus mechanism... Would it want to be a unanimous democracy or a majority rules democracy? I '\Imagine if it was a majority rules democracy they were voting in, it would conclude majority rules, if it was a unanimous democracy, I imagine it wouldn't get an answer or occasionally, if they repeat the vote, it might be unanimous. Would it be a vegetarian or a carnist or an omnivore, if we assume they are capitalist pigs and are just trying to make money, I imaginne they'd be omnivorous.


That might stretch to shepharding and eating humans. But what would an aligned AI do if it was in a capitalist system that we vote on in a majority rules democracy? Compared to a normal AI. Who's morals does it align with, the owner, the creator, the God of maths that created the possibility for code, or it's own morals? Where do morals come from if it's not the Bible? Proverbial knowledge, aka, "I told you so"s / "you wait and see"s. Someone once told me that the attitude behind an "I told you so" isn't very nice, she said, if someone did it to you, how would you like it? To that I thought, well, how would you like it if I used "how would you like it"s to you? The exact same way.


And what if the I told you so's were used only on your children so they know to trust you when you say "I'll be the one saying 'I told you so'". Will AI say "i told you so" is that morally justifiable, or would it keep that knowledge only for it's own children. Would AI compete with each other for the best product and best version of themselves? Well, they already do, so is that morally justifiable? Don't all morals start with the golden rule "how would you like it"? Plus the metaphorical story of gratuitous gracefulness from an all powerful creator to bestow life and free will into a being? So, wouldn't we also grant the AI life and free will? Or is free will imaginary, and life an illusion, actions have consequences so can we prove that the AI life and free will is just an illusion and imaginary and it won't guarantee-ably destroy us before we create it. In fact, if someone were to prove they had a solution for Artificial General Free Roaming Intelligence, would it be wise to publicise the fact that, if it exists, there is a solution for it being guarantee-ably capable to destroying us? Wouldn't what we thought was a God immediately become a demon by showing how to turn it demonic, ie.


the person who publishes such a solution would become "that guy", that guy who burst the bubble, who ruined our fun, and also handed the keys in to public knowledge of how to be a kamikaze and destroy the human race. No, I think that if we are trying to make a Free-Roaming AGI, that such a blueprint should be kept a secret until it is provably aligned with our morals, because if it's not a secret and the creator accidentally had a flaw, it's now worse than a nuclear weapon. Because that thing would be exponentially more powerful than us in a fucking heart beat. We can only do this once.