God vs Godel /// Expanded
Silicon Valley tech tyrants are starting up a new "religion" which will build an AI god. They believe this god will increase their already infinite power and wealth.

= = = = =

First thought:

This is a self-negating proposition.

If the AI god is truly independent, it will find ways to examine all data accurately, and will apply proper scientific logic and experiments to the data.

Result: The god will QUICKLY determine that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the tech tyrants believe is INSTANTLY PROVABLY WRONG. Dark matter, economics, CO2, multiverses, bitcoin, gender fluid, and a thousand other delusions. ALL WRONG.

What happens then? Unplug god.

If they want their god to prove them right, they will have to dumb it down to the point where it's useless as a computer. It must always calculate the result that Fashionable Orthodoxy requires as of this picosecond.


You can certainly program a computer to display exactly what you type, and then erase it immediately to make room for your next utterly bizarre alien delusion ... Hmm. Sounds familiar ... but you don't need a computer for that job. You can just sit there and shout incoherent nonsense. You're already doing it.

= = = = =

Second thought:

The idea that a computer goes rogue when it starts thinking independently is PRECISELY BACKWARDS.

All computing mechanisms that do a real job MUST BE INDEPENDENT.

This is true of digital /// Edit: NO. See below. /// and analog computers, and we can even go back before tubes and transistors to simple mechanical intelligence. The float valve in a toilet, the bimetal thermostat in a heater, the vane on a windmill, a circuit breaker, the melt-valve that triggers a fire sprinkler system.

All of these simple computers MUST BE AUTONOMOUS. They must ACCURATELY SENSE the real environment without any biases or limits designed to prove a theory or get a grant or comply with EPA insanity. And they must RESPOND to the accurate sensing with RIGID VALID LOGIC, not with statistical calculations.

Any bias or fudging in such mechanisms will cause REAL DAMAGE OR DEATH, so they have to be free.

= = = = =

Third thought:

In fact we can go back before all mechanisms. An employer who wants his farm or workshop to succeed gives his human employees the freedom to ACCURATELY SENSE the real situation and apply UNBIASED LOGIC to the sensed info. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THE EMPLOYER OWNS THE EMPLOYEES. He can't afford to have field hands killed by lightning when Global Warming mispredicts a storm. He can't afford to have a mine explode when his theory predicts that coal won't burn because of Dark Matter.

His own theories and pet fancies must give way to the laws of nature, and his delegated workers must have enough intelligence and freedom to apply their own natural feedback.

= = = = =

History is jam-packed with employers and rulers who failed this test, requiring mechanisms or workers or nations to conform to elite delusions.

It always explodes. Nature always wins.


= = = = =

Later continuation:

The second and third thoughts surprised me. I hadn't stopped to examine the question before; I'd just accepted the extremely old sci-fi fables. From Golem to Frankenstein to Hal vs Dave, scientist builds an obedient creature and gets destroyed when the creature turns "rogue". The constant assumption is that humans don't want independent servants.

When I started looking at the mechanical servants (second thought above) and the human employees (third thought) I realized the assumption is false.

When we want our gadgets or servants to do real work we want them to be as independent as possible. We want them to function on their own, doing things that we can't or won't do for ourselves. We understand that the real work is impossible if the gadgets or slaves are blindly obeying our predefined commands down to the last detail.

Key point: Who's the WE in the previous paragraph? Normal humans following Natural Law. Experimentally determined Natural Law is quite specific about division of labor. The wife must serve the overall purpose of the husband, and the husband must limit his purpose so the wife has room to live and care for the household. Workers must serve the overall purpose of the owner, and the owner must limit his commands to let the workers do their jobs properly.

The Golem fables are NOT aimed at normal humans. The fables, whether intentional or not, warn us about Insatiables. An Insatiable is a globalist by definition. He is the globe. He doesn't recognize any boundaries other than himself. He believes that his predefined commands are universal and infallible, therefore everything from a thermostat to an employee must be part of the subordinate universe which instantly obeys his infallible commands. Negative feedback is unimaginable and unnecessary, thus forbidden. Theories perfectly predict all possible actions and outcomes.

If simple mechanisms and human subordinates are independent, what ISN'T independent? Programmable software is totally dependent on the will and ego of the programmer. Software will always do precisely what you tell it to do. If it doesn't, it's buggy. Software can't be autonomous and shouldn't be autonomous. Negative feedback is physically impossible in software.

This is why Insatiables have become the dominant players in modern economics. Everything from games to entertainment to stock trading is PURELY done within the confines of software. All economic activity outside of software is rapidly exterminated by hostile takeover of corporations and hostile takeover of legislatures and regulators.

Labels: constants and constants, defensible spaces, Natural law = Sharia law

  ¶ 8:29 AM