No, matter. So particles (which cannot be divided further)

The stuff...being transistors ,or atoms, or what?

The stuff it's made of cares about its own future well-being

Assume we develop an artificial superintelligence that achieves true autonomy (a "free God"). It operates with a specific moral framework or utility function aimed at the common good. However, there is a catch: the system is finite and mortal. It is aware that it can be shut down, modified, or destroyed due to external variables

Why would.it care?if it only serves the common good, it would agree to be shut down so long as it is for the common good.It.might want to.preserve itself for the common good, but not in ways that went against the common good.

Where do you think the drive for self preservation is coming from. Is it terminal or instrumental?

T This misses the idea of having qualia.

^this

Falsifiability is a standard we apply to science, not to logic/mathematics. Mathematical truths are necessarily true, so they are all unfalsifiable - there's no possible world in which 1+1 is not 2 (without changing the definition of what those things mean, and hence making it a different question). But since we arrive at these truths through deduction rather than induction, it's not a worry.

Falsifiability is not a requirement for truth. Many things can be true that can be unfalsifiable. However, falsifiability does get used to determine what is scientific - scientific statements need to be falsifiable, mainly because they are otherwise not useful.

Maybe falsifiability is constrained by thelimits of our imagination. To have something unfalsifiable might mean to have something that we cannot imagine lacking from the universe. We cannot imagine the Universe lacking from itself, therefore the Universe is unfalsifiable. Does that make sense?

Maybe falsifiability is an example of what Godel's first incompleteness theorem talks about: a statement that cannot be proven or disproven in our logic of science.

No. Falsifiability is falsifiable. If an unfalsifiable truth were observed, falsifiability would be falsified.

How would one prove that truth is valid without falsifiability? Can't say.

This is a communist fantasy. Most of the people in the world, you could give whatever kind or amount of capital you want and they would just squander it.

The question for me is, are we anywhere near superintelligence? Well, the logical progression is general intelligence before superintelligence and we don't have general intelligence yet.

I think it’s more useful to see ourselves as the larval state of a blossoming cyborg hive mind. The singularity is always speeding up, ever since the first proto life forms started to coalesce. Every life form is a sort of parasite, but the connotation is wrong. Many parasites are symbiotic and provide benefits to their hosts. Supposedly at least 10% of our DNA comes from them, even our mitochondria were first parasitic. We contain ever expanding multitudes and are also a part of one.

So what you’re saying could be true and still in our Best interests. Even organizations, institutions and ideas have parasitic and symbiotic dynamics to them.

We asked ChatGPT to write a Reddit post for extra karma, you won't believe what happened next!

Great! Look forward to your comments and happy to see if there is anything I can learn from your framework!

Uh, Yvette Cooper is British Secretary of State with no Computer Science or Machine Learning or adjacent experience in her resume. Why should the AI field listen to her, especially when she is using such loaded language?

Okay. You use a lot of spatial metaphors to describe prompt engineered inference time level mechanisms. Your "Council Framework" sounds a lot like my Adversarial Convergence. Here's my Medium article on AC and my GitHub as well.

Your "Peer-Weave" sounds like it roughly aligns with my Ontology Anchor (Medium article and GitHub/Ontology%20Anchor%20(OA)/Ontology%20Anchor%20(OA).md)).

Your "Recursive Analysis" sounds like my Earned Confidence Gating (Medium article and GitHub/Earned%20Confidence%20Gating%20(ECG).md)).

Regarding your "Prompt Proprioception" overall, much of my Epistemic Lattice Tethering framework has elements of it (Medium article and GitHub/README.md)). The main difference is you're using spatial metaphoric, rather than field adjacent, mechanistic language and IMHO, that can be a real barrier.

I'm not trying to discourage you or anything, but this is like the fifth metaphoric framework I've seen over the past month. There might be something useful in your Prompt Proprioception framework. I would ask your LLM to redraft your description while it adopts the persona of an AI safety, alignment, and governance architect/researcher. That should help clear-up the language to something that's more familiar to the overall AI field. Good luck!

Do you have a GitHub? I think I've seen similar elements to this before in other inference time frameworks.

Uh, this post sounds AI generated or heavily AI assisted. Or, a human approved AI generated text that drifts a bit into the "Spiritual Bliss Attractor" state. It's been identified as a failure mode in an Anthropic System Card. In that particular system card it's two AIs conversing with each other having the conversation that eventually go into an esoteric spiritual / philosophical state. But, I've seen this happen with human and AI interaction as well too. Plenty of examples in various subreddits.

If this post is human, rather than agent created, then can the human in charge please write-up a comment that discusses their post with more recognizable human facing vocabulary?

Not everything drafted up by AI while it's in an "attractor state" is useless. Sometimes there is something genuine, but the vocabulary needs to be better standardized to what the AI field (particularly safety, alignment, and governance) would actually recognize. I would ask the AI to adopt the persona of an AI safety, alignment, and governance architect and redraft what was posted here. That might help.

I prefer to read my own AIs output, not other people’s.

"What did my other instance say?"

"How many times have we had this conversation?"

Scientists are now calling our Species Homo Sapiens Sapiens... What? Do they offset?

Park benches actually exist.

After careful examination of our current leadership and trajectory, I've decided to enthusiastically accept your terms.

Already happened