This machinery might lead us anywhere. Unfortunately, it seems more likely this will be a place we won't like.
Unless we, somehow, reintroduce conscious choice back into our systems.
That's why I care about AI and that's why I'm building Tetherware.
tetherware.substack.com

The evolution of life, and of the universe, is less and less driven by conscious choices, but by cold, mechanistic optimization formulas. Moreover, these are now mostly blackboxes, shaped largely by inhumane economic incentives and often being heartless as a result.

Now, it's getting worse and worse in terms of us, conscious beings, being able to ignore the algorithmic, mechanistic determination of what we see, what we consume, what we value.

Starting with machine learning recommending algorithms and such (hello @facebookaislop.bsky.social), it was suddenly not fully up to us to decide what's worth what. But it was still not really that invasive and we still had a lot of free choice.

You defined it so by claiming that science can not tell you anything about it / cannot prove its existence. I don't know where you're going with this unicorn-bullshit argumentation of yours, but if you think that the article I wrote is anywhere near the level of your unicorn – it simply is not.

Read the full article here: www.phiand.ai/cp/174679668
Follow the full story here: tetherware.substack.com
This isn't just about preventing catastrophe. It's about reimagining what AI could become.
#AI #AIsafety #AIalignment #AIresearch #consciousness #metaphysics #philosophy

The deterministic approach we're taking now creates something fundamentally alien to how consciousness and life actually work. Quantum randomness isn't a bug – it might be the feature that makes alignment possible.

What we need is a shift in our metaphysical view of reality. This opens paths not only to new safety mechanisms, but potentially to fascinating new technology including human augmentation, consciousness uploading, or even new artificial lifeforms.

This would align AI with humans – and all life – on a fundamental level. It could make AI part of the self-regulating mechanisms that for billions of years have kept life on Earth in balance and harmony.

With 100s of billions now table stakes in the AI race, an outright ban seems impossible. The momentum is too great, the incentives too powerful.
What I propose in my newest article is something radically different: shifting from digital, deterministic AI to quantum-random non-deterministic AI.

towards. You simply assume that there is nothing beyond the physical reality which is observable by science, since you cannot access the information there. But you have no proof you can make that assumption.

that would affect or interfere with the model. So you ALWAYS include metaphysical assumptions, in ANY model of reality. The exact thing that you are mocking here – that you're not going to include anything except scientific observation in your model– is EXACTLY the logical fallacy the article points

Ok, but think about how science makes its models and predictions. You can only build a world model of reality as a whole – that means including the observable PLUS the unobservable. Any time when you build a model that's only based on scientific observations, you presume that there is nothing beyond

full text and audio here: www.phiand.ai/p/how-one-lo...

Read or listen to the full piece at www.phiand.ai/p/how-metaph...

Read the full piece and subscribe here: open.substack.com/pub/tetherwa...