In the coming decade, artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to transform human
societies in profound ways, a view widely shared among many. However, I propose
a contrarian perspective on how these changes might unfold. While speculation
is rife, it's worth considering a future shaped by the radical advancements in
AI and technology.
Imagine a world where the marginal cost of goods and services diminishes to nearly zero
due to an abundance of intelligence and energy. This scenario isn't far-fetched; it
echoes the visions of thinkers like Peter Diamandis, who discusses the potential for an
era of abundance due to exponential technological growth. In his book "Abundance:
The Future Is Better Than You Think," Diamandis argues that technology could lead to
a world where scarcity is a thing of the past.
If this vision holds true, the current paradigm where large corporations or "BIG MONEY"
dictate personal freedoms might dissolve. The idea here is not just the democratization of wealth
but the very obsolescence of traditional monetary power structures. As Elon Musk has implied in
various public discussions, with AI and automation, wealth could become so widespread that the
concept of "rich" might need redefining.
This shift could mean that control over one's free will, currently influenced
by economic constraints, would be significantly less pronounced. Instead of a
few holding power, everyone could potentially access the tools and resources
necessary for personal and collective prosperity.
However, this utopian vision is not without its critics. Economist Thomas Piketty, for instance,
warns in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" about the potential for increased
inequality if wealth distribution isn't managed carefully alongside technological progress. Thus,
while the possibility of a world without "BIG MONEY" is intriguing, it also beckons a
careful consideration of how we manage the transition to ensure equitable benefits from AI's
advancements.
In conclusion, while the future with AI might not align with common
predictions, the potential for a society where everyone is 'rich' in resources
and opportunities is a compelling narrative to explore further, ensuring we
don't just dream of utopia but also plan for its realization.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 10:51, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>>> wrote:
Maybe the interesting question is not how free will be can emerge through
language and thinking, but how we can keep it.
Free will is the treasure island that everybody wants to own. It is the
treasure that everybody wants to take away. Religious groups want to manipulate
our free will to do whatever they preach. Parties want to manipulate our free
will to vote for them. Companies want to manipulate our free will to buy their
products.
There is a whole 100 year old industry which has evolved to manipulate our
free will: since Edward Bernays wrote his book about propaganda and PR in 1928,
the emerging PR/advertising/marketing industry tries to influence our decisions
in order to buy more stuff (which we do not need).
This is similar to the hard problem of consciousness. There is a whole 100
year industry which has evolved to solve the hardproblem of consciousness: the
film industry and all forms of show business which earn money by showing us
what it is like to be someone.
Interesting isn't it? The big problems of philosophy have led to big
industries.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com
<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>>>
Date: 1/14/25 6:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking
Natural language seems to be better at facilitating delegation and
iteration. Natural language is contradictory and underspecified, so it has a
way of facilitating groups of people, er, agents, doing stuff, even if they
don’t know or care what they are talking about. It may have even be
evolutionarily important for cooperation. I guess that’s a quaint notion in
the age of MAGA. Even Trump is multitudes on any given day..
*From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>> on behalf of glen <geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>>
*Date: *Monday, January 13, 2025 at 4:52 PM
*To: *friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking
This post may interest y'all:
The Teaching of Writing in the AI Era
https://dailynous.com/2025/01/09/teaching-writing-in-the-ai-era/
<https://dailynous.com/2025/01/09/teaching-writing-in-the-ai-era/>
<https://dailynous.com/2025/01/09/teaching-writing-in-the-ai-era/
<https://dailynous.com/2025/01/09/teaching-writing-in-the-ai-era/>>
My response to this question about teaching writing is to ask why one is writing. If
writing/reading is for *reasoning*, then the LLMs have taught us (I think) that ordinary language
is just not good for that. Maybe it's good for acting in the world because we use common terms like
"food" or "fire". But for inference, formal languages are way better than
informal ones. So who cares if a student can write prose for reasoning? That's a category error we
old/obsolete people make. Kids interested in reasoning should learn logic/math and forget writing.
But of course some people enjoy reading door stop tomes. It's like binge
watching some stupid sitcom. They read just to empty their mind - anti-reason.
And as long as we have LLMs, we don't need chum writers like that anymore. Just
have ChatGPT write you a novel on demand. So no need to teach students to write
that sort of word-salad nonsense.
On 1/13/25 13:28, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Good summary. Dennett's books are popular because he has done
ordinary-language philosophy like his adviser Ryle, as he writes in his chapter
about his time in Oxford. His main trick is to do sharp attacks on theories which
he has identified as false.
>
>
> His "consciousness explained" book for example does not really explain it. Like his mentor Gilbert Ryle he says what it is not. Ryle says there is no ghost in the machine, Dennett argues there is no central self, no observer in the Cartesian theater.
>
>
> His "freedom evolves" book is similar. He does not really explain how a free will can emerge, he explains what it is not: it is not action under duress. Persons who have free will are not forced to act like they do.
>
> I guess Dennett's ordinary-language philosophy can also be found here at FRIAM occasionally - one aspect I like about the group.
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Pieter Steenekamp <piet...@randcontrols.co.za
<mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za <mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>>>
> Date: 1/13/25 9:02 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking
>
> I've always been drawn to the sharp mind of Daniel Dennett, and the idea of diving into his autobiography feels like meeting an old friend for the first time. As I've been on a bit of a biography kick lately, adding Dennett's personal journey to my reading list just feels right.
>
> I love the communal aspect of our local library, and I'm planning to see if they can snag Dennett's autobiography for me. It's probably not on their shelves, but the magic of inter-library loans could come through for me. There's something special about the anticipation of waiting for a book you're eager to read.
>
> To brush up on Dennett's fascinating ideas, I asked Grok to give me the lowdown on his thoughts about consciousness, free will, religion, and evolution. Here's what I learned. (My Prompt was "please give me a comprehensive view on daniel dennitt's views on consciousness, free will, religion and evolution"):
>
> Daniel Dennett, a prominent philosopher, cognitive scientist, and writer, has made significant contributions to discussions on consciousness, free will, religion, and evolution. Here's a comprehensive overview of his views on each of these topics:
>
> Consciousness
> Heterophenomenology: Dennett advocates for an approach he calls
"heterophenomenology," where one takes the subject's reports of their
consciousness at face value but then interprets these reports from a third-person
perspective. This method aims to be scientific and objective about subjective experiences.
> Multiple Drafts Model: In his book "Consciousness Explained," Dennett proposes the
"multiple drafts" model of consciousness, where consciousness is not a single, central stream but
rather the result of numerous parallel processes in the brain. There is no single place where consciousness
happens; instead, different parts of the brain produce different "drafts" of what's going on, and we
experience consciousness as these drafts are distributed and revised.
> Illusionism: Dennett is often classified as an illusionist about
consciousness, arguing that what we think of as phenomenal consciousness (the
subjective, qualitative aspect of experience) is an illusion or, more precisely, a
construct of cognitive processes. He believes that the hard problem of
consciousness is a pseudo-problem because once we understand the brain's workings,
we'll see there's nothing left to explain.
>
> Free Will
> Compatibilism: Dennett supports a form of compatibilism, where free will
can coexist with determinism. He argues that while our actions might be determined
by prior states of the universe, we can still be morally responsible for them if
our decisions are based on our desires, character, and rational deliberation.
> "Freedom Evolves": In his book "Freedom Evolves," he suggests that free
will has evolved through natural selection, where organisms develop the ability to respond flexibly to
their environments. Free will, for Dennett, is about the ability to act according to one's own reasons
and motivations, not about transcending causality.
>
> Religion
> The Brights Movement: Dennett, along with Richard Dawkins and others, has been
associated with the "Brights" movement, an attempt to reframe atheists and
agnostics with a positive term.
> Memes and Religion: He views religion through the lens of memetics, a theory where
cultural ideas (memes) propagate and evolve similarly to genes. In "Breaking the
Spell," he argues that religion should be studied scientifically, questioning why it
persists and how it affects human behavior.
> Critical of Faith: Dennett is critical of religion's role in society,
often highlighting what he sees as irrational beliefs or the potential harm they
can cause. He advocates for a secular society based on reason and science, though
he does not discount the social benefits some religious practices might offer.
>
> Evolution
> Darwin's Dangerous Idea: His book by this name explores the implications of
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which he describes as a "universal
acid" that eats through just about every traditional concept, from biology to
philosophy.
> Algorithimic View: Dennett emphasizes an algorithmic view of life where
evolution is seen as an algorithmic process - blind, automatic, and devoid of
foresight or design.
> Critique of Intelligent Design: He has been a vocal critic of
intelligent design, arguing that it's not only scientifically unfounded but also
philosophically problematic, as it often appeals to a 'god of the gaps' for
explanations.
>
> Dennett's work is characterized by its interdisciplinary approach, combining insights from biology, philosophy, computer science, and cognitive science to address complex questions about human nature and existence. His views often provoke debate, particularly because of his willingness to challenge traditional or intuitive understandings of these topics.
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 at 21:37, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> <mailto:j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net>>>> wrote:
>
> The library finally has notified me that Daniel Dennett's autobiography "I've been thinking" is ready to borrow. So I went to the library and got it. As expected an interesting book. He writes about his time in Oxford and his mentor Gilbert Ryle, his approach to philosophy and his little life hacks.
>
>
> He explains for example how he used to stay awake in boring talks: he waits until all characters of the alphabet subsequently appear in the talk and then writes down the word. First he waits for a word containing A, then for a word containing B, etc. If he reaches Z he starts again at A. He says J, Q und Z would be rare...
>
>
> As you know Daniel has written a number of fascinating books. Dennett's law of philosophy for me is that for every big, fundamental question in philosophy there is at least one Daniel Dennett book:
>
>
> + "Consciousnes Explained" (1991) about consciousness
>
> + "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995) about evolution
>
> + "Freedom Evolves" (2003) about free will
>
> + "Breaking the spell" (2006) about religion
>
>
> We have discussed all four questions here in FRIAM as well: consciousness, evolution, free will and religion. The conclusions I came too (after many discussions here and countless visits to the library) are:
>
>
> + For subjective consciousness humans have built tools to solve the "what it is like to be" question of subjective consciousness. The tools are simply the cinemas and movie theaters which show the stuff that Hollywood produces. Recently the GoPro cameras which show what it is like to be a hero fulfill a similar purpose
>
>
> + Regarding the spell of religion we have built tools too. Churches, mosques, synagogues and temples are places where the magic of religion is used to form groups out of loosely coupled individuals. And the magic turns out to be gene expression, as I tried to explain in the book from 5 years ago
>
>
> + For the question of free will we have invented tools too. Mainly language and "to be or not to be" thinking of course, but as trivial as it may sound, ordinary things such as notes and calendars help us to remember what we want to do, thereby guiding our decision making
>
>
> I have the feeling that the solutions to the biggest and most elusive questions can be found in the most ordinary common things, hiding in plain sight.Would you come to different conclusions in one of big questions after our discussions here?
>
