SAFE vs the S.I. Arms Race

What is the true underlying policy environment that SAFE will operate in?

There is one technology that could be used to win a nuclear war outright. Put another way, is there for instance a way to outright defeat the US or any other nuclear power and even erase it from history? The answer even in practical if remote terms now appears to be yes.

Ideologically Nuclear weapons have become the new conventional weapons. Its why you can bet all of the nuclear states right now are in a race with their own Manhattan projects to build SI. It makes sense coming fron people like Corbyn wanting to cancel building more nuclear deterrance (a good idea regardless) and being able to confidently say no nuke use ever from him while refusing or at least deprioritizing his own access to British intel publically. It makes senses of why US and Brit intel systems are hell bent on domestic spying and keep writing new bills against embarrasing defeats. It sheds arms race light on Carly Fiorina’s idiotic assertion that a trillion a year on US defense isn’t enough. Or the earlier cryptic nonsense about cyber war being worse than nuclear war. Also the reference on this site to an ominous radical speed up in progress on crucial math problems recently.

You have to understand the pull of this stuff for these people. Even if its likely to be complete vaporware for 100 years or more even a slight chance that it emerges makes it into a complete religion for them.

Despite the first group to get it likely not being able to stop it from quickly putting an end to the world, they can’t let any group but them mess with the fate of the world. So while its basically pure con, there is a tiny chance that its pro beyond our wildest dreams.

One the one hand we’ve unified the forces and mapped the genome and there is some cool stuff like stem cell but really there is nothing on the horizon and we’re kind of clueless about what is next and kind of alone with our problems and looming existential threats from bombs and space rocks and super volcanos. Whereas SI is potentially a time machine that could advance technology a million years in one year, double global product weekly without end, maybe even give us a literal time machine(!) bend the physical laws and make the world into our own little live as long as we want lucid dream.

But we can’t even get along with each other how would we get along with this alien super will that might not be conscious or actually sentient or alive or have any thing like our notions of value and risk but will still make us comparatively seem like flat worms- it will be completely unintelligible to us almost instantly. We may face it in fledling form as it simultaneously evolves speed, collective, and qualitative superintelligence, but that’s even worse. Why would it ever be content to do human bidding if it had anything like a human will? Humans would be dead or irrelevant but run over in short order- likely with no gratitude.

But none of this matters, the Strangelove logic has already taken over, it doesn’t matter if its the likely the end of tech and man. This race to build something super like the former Nazi project of creating super men has taken over. Its a maniacal race to build a super machine and not in our image. They will cojur this alien. 10 crazed nuclear states and surely many smaller entites are in an arms race to be first.

That is the underlying environment SAFE and its principles face. The last thing in the world these people want is privacy for anyone but themselves. You can’t have privacy because you might be building an SI to enslave or annhilate us. Your IT is a bomb factory.

Watson, the supposed passing of the Turing test, the recent Brit clearing of Turing’s name after all this time are all kindling for this fire.

1 Like

SI can be used for good too…yes, unfortunately the defense industry probably wouldn’t use it for good though.

I think there’s still an issue with quantum gravity…isn’t there?.

aww…c’mon, we know loads about our Universe now…and it’s great to not know what’s coming next…exciting…

Probably not that… :smile:

Interesting…I suppose it depends on your understanding of the meaning of those descriptive words…

I suppose you could argue that to be “content” requires consciousness, or sentience - both being emergent properties of the brain I’d say. Interesting line of thought I think.
I reckon you are describing a “Dark side” Safe Network in essence. A Safe Network AI could indeed provide enough computing power to do good, such as simulate the ridiculously large dot matrix thingy, necessary to calculate the properties of empty space - possibly, as you mention, finally unifying the forces…maybe… :smile:It’s all about the virtual particles really…so they say…hmmmmm…
The Turing test is interesting, but I think “sentience” or “consciousness” is just how we describe our experience of being in exactly the same position as the AI really- we have inputs (knowledge/ideas) and outputs (emotions/behaviour etc). We are essentially the same I think and do not have the “free-will” in the way most think of it.
.Anyway, yes AI’s (and intelligence in general) can be put to good or bad use…it’s not a good reason to not develop AI (or intelligence in general I don’t think. :smile: .


@Al_Kafir We can’t help it it seems to try to develop it. Its just AI may rather rapidly go from AI to SI when it can self modify.

I know the physics community hasn’t formally announced q gravity but I think its been there now for maybe five years. I am guessing they don’t want a funding cut.

Nic Bostrum doesn’t touch qualia in his book “Super Intelligence” (my exposure to it led to the post) and he doesn’t get caught up in the singularity bit. I’ve done the book on audio but I’ve also done a completely inept job of trying to convey what comes through in it. I need to read it slowly word by word in print. His mind alone seems to be proof of super intelligence. Its one of the best books Ive ever come across and its already the scariests even if I’ve only taken away 10% of its insight and implication. Its not for his lack of clarity, he is extremelt clear. I think his book may be what scared Hawking, Tegmark and Musk.

I don’t like the word “intelligence” and I think we are probably all q mind non local etc., and I don’t think anything is “artificial,” but none of my type of reservations matter in the slightests to the points he lays out in the book as he is clear to point out earlt on. We know software is a loaded gun and we know we aren’t very mature.

1 Like

I’m struggling to see how this discussion fits into this topic. It’s heading for off-topic unless you are going to come back to cyber threats and how SAFEnetwork could address them.

1 Like

I’d like people who are familiar with the material to comment, especially if they’ve read the book.

There is so much that doesn’t make sense right now, stuff like MS going from we won’t spy on you and will fight this to the end and then suddenly Win 10 is free but it will be spying on you. And the MS leagal counsel who said fight like hell and then rolled over is promoted to President. Of course MS living room abitions were derailed over always on and always watching. Something is very wrong.

This is the environment SAFE will exist in. They will try to tell MaidSAFE its business while citing some security BS. I am suggesting every state will see SAFE quite wrongly as an existential threat. So stand by. They are not going to let SAFE be the way their brand of SI Manhattan project gets leaked or scuttled, nor are they going to allow it to obscure their spying on other SI projects. SAFE is terrorist this and that may well be coming soon. They think whoever gets SI first will rule the world. And lets say there is somehow a successful SI, there won’t be an internet anymore or a SAFE net there will just be the SI, this is their end game so they don’t care what they do to get there. They will be as illogical as the Pharoes were about building pyramids.



S.I. does that mean swarm intelligence? Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is potentially very dangerous. AGI needs to have ethics as a foundation. Not morals, which is more like external “laws”. That’s insufficient. It needs to be ethics in the form of an intrinsic operation principle for the AGI.

1 Like

Deep deep ethics beyond what we know of. It means “Super Intelligence” or the self modifying run away form of AGI.

1 Like

AI doesn’t give a shit about human fears and politics.

That’s narrow AI. AGI is different. “Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the intelligence of a (hypothetical) machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.” –

So AGI needs to be at least as capable as a human, including politics, arts, social skills and ethics etc.

Yeah but your looking at it from a narrow time line.

The above video shows that the thinking on the other object in hard science where rather absolute terms are thrown is under-going some pretty dramatic changes. @goingdeep (in response to your possibly deleted post on SIs not seeming to far off) premonitions of an SI may not be that far-fetched if there is any reality to their possibility and for reasons that go may go beyond what’s happening in tech.

Fair warning, if you 're an in box type mod or a linear thinker don’t bother reading any further because the language and ideas will likely just piss you off.

The video above has MIchio Kaku suggesting we may be living inside a black hole, that this may be what universes are. There is other work apparently inspired by Hawking suggesting that Black Holes may be the ultimate computing devices. And from Bostrom earlier in his career is the idea that we may already be living in what a singularity/SI fabricated. Our predicament could be a little gentler like the South Park episode where Cartman gets stuck the VR equivalent of Inception or something ugly like the picture presented in the Matrix. Bostrom was suggesting our universe might be digital universe and akin to a simulation. If that is the case all of our constructs including the natural laws and ideas about causality, awareness and info (basic notion of pattern/correspondence) could be a lot more malleable than we might expect and our experience might well have a made up as we go along character to it. It’s not a new idea, the logic loving ancient Greeks thought of the past as a dream.

But the point with regard to a premonition on a SI would be that our lenses including telescope, microscope and data lens would in a sense just be looking at stuff that was in a sense already encoded for. There might be nothing really gets computed or is all that creative when an SI comes into focus. After some corresponding math actual black holes came into focus and that same process seems to be playing out with SI. As above in the thread a SI, especially an infantile SI (if that makes sense) might be rather black hole like as both black holes and S.I. are compulsively talked about with absolute terms like “singularity.” But the estimates of the nature of both has shifted around quite a bit. Thinking on the core of black holes seems to have changed quite a bit recently as the video suggests. As before the approach to a black hole might turn matter into spaghetti and get super hot (but now there are questions about the approach as in the video) and estimates for the core temp now range from absolute zero to the average temp and density of our universe if the black hole were expanded to the size of our universe, which is now thought possible because now it appears that black holes double in size when combined.


[quote=“Warren, post:11, topic:5976”]The video above has MIchio Kaku suggesting we may be living inside a black hole, that this may be what universes are. …And from Bostrom earlier in his career is the idea that we may already be living in what a singularity/SI fabricated. … Bostrom was suggesting our universe might be digital universe and akin to a simulation.

Yes, I believe we are living in a “technology universe”. Not a simulation. Actual post-singularity technology. Our universe is a white hole of a black hole in a parent universe. And our parent universe is a white whole of a grandparent universe and so on in a tree of black holes.

So, are there black holes all the way down? No, there is a root universe where civilizations evolved through biological evolution alone. And at least one civilization within the root universe reached a technological singularity that formed the first technology black holes.

The probability of a universe able to produce biological evolution may be infinitesimally small, but that’s fine since it’s enough to have only one root (truly biological) universe and zillions of technology universes are generated from that root universe in an ever expanding tree of black holes within black holes. So then the probability that our universe is from a technology Big Bang is astronomically high and the probability that our universe is the root universe is infinitesimally small. This explains how our universe can be so very fine tuned.

The Transcension Hypothesis is different, but the idea of accelerating technology is similar:


Interesting, but seems to jump from reasonable scientific ideas to Bostrom’s highly speculative hypothesis involving a creator SI - no different to positing a creator God to my mind.
My ears prick up, when I see Science/Scientists used as “authority” in support of a pet “theory”.or to sell/promote the latest book. I get “Living inside a black hole” (fair enough), then there’s a slight adjustment to what Hawking actually said/meant…which then leads neatly (not) onto a theory about a Creator SI…eh?

Hawking suggested Black Holes could (theoretically and under ridiculously narrow conditions and technological advancement) be used as some kind of quantum computer (by Humans)- not that it is a giant computer in use by something “other” outside the Universe…
The same sort of arguments from authority appear here too:

Yes, he is…which is what this thread seems to be about really…Mr Bostrom’s book.
I just don’t get where these kind of ideas get us. I mean they don’t answer anything and just posit another layer of complexity when trying to uncover fundamental simplicities/equations; it’just creates an infinite Creator regress as with many God Hypotheses - "Who Created the Creator? We know that complexity evolves from simplicity and any creator would have to be massibely complex…you see the problem?

I get what you mean here…but again, I think it’s the “creator/God” argument again. Mathematical models predicted the existence of Black Holes - later confirmed by observation. An SI, outside the Universe is not observable or provable in any way, nor would any mathematical models predict such an SI - it is “God did it” and it gets us nowhere in the way of “explaining” anything.
I’m not getting the Universe being “digital” bit either: If you mean what I think you mean that that’s similar to asking “Why does mathematics work?” We use mathematics to model reality - that doesn’t mean the Universe is essentially “mathematical” - the same reasoning appears to be at work when concluding the Universe is "Digital"
Not watched second vid, or know anything about Bostrom - so there’s a slim chance of me eating my words…if so, I’ll eat my hat too though… :smiley:

My first attempt at a response to goingdeep had something nested like that. I was thinking of Thomas Campbell and Frank Tippler, but it was deleted or something like that. Yes a nested tree of black holes or black hole universes with organization going beyond or way beyond what we’d normally think of causality and with a wonderful integration of sorts or interconnectedness that would have been tossed as universe means universe and no interconnection and baugh humbug on non locality as many worlds won’t allow it… The new stuff is liberating, its a re-enchantment in a good way. And it provides some hope that a nasty SI fire could be put out by higher processes or mature SI or something like that as there might be a role or place for humanity after all. Many hard science people not so long ago would have wanted to toss this as teleological but its not so easy any more and it can’t just be dismissed as pseudo science, religion or the paranormal. Who would have believed SI, its got the ring of ghost in the machine, much worse really.

I toss this off as teleological…

It is…

It can…lol… :smiley:

Bostrom by the tone in the new book doesn’t like any of the singularity religion stuff. None of that comes up in the new book beyond just tossing it. The bit about a SI fabricated universe extrapolates from the newer take on the fermi paradox meets the stunning digital universe idea and again that is not in the new book at all. But its still not weak stuff, its been argued very persuasively elsewhere by heavyweights. There is a video from like 2004 or 2006 from BBC I think called "What We Still Don’t Know- Are We Real?"

It features Martin Rhees, Max Tegmark, Nick Bostrom, Leonard Suskind and David Malone.
For such an old video its way beyond where I thought we were even last year. Its really well argued and the points it brings up I think represent the consensus of the various experts in the fields its touches upon- but then I am obviously not up on this so it could have changed again but could it get less radical at this point? Its amazing to see what happened to the cosmic anthropropic principle and where the battle went over that. Its 3 videos but by the 3rd one its mind blowing.

Campbell’s My Big Toe (much more speculative) spends the first volume trying to make it ok to consider the speculative, but I think the above video can help get the most skeptical but still open minded people there.

Nooooooo…not Martin Rhees…stop watching that stuff!
OK…I’ll watch it…for a laugh, and edit my post. I think we might have veered off-topic a bit though…was this thread actually ever even on topic?.. :smiley:


OK, gave the video/you a fair chance to put your best arguments forward for your “beliefs”. Before 2 minutes was up, it gave itself away as Creationist reasoning, as demonstrated by the opening basic premises/sentences of the video:

“Of all the wonders of Creation….”
“Of all creatures….we are the most special”.

I need watch no further, it is the Creationist argument dishonestly using scientific figures as arguments from authority - pseudo-science. :smiley:

For a while it was on topic. But it boils down to crazy politicians have become convinced they can make a golem and they don’t want privacy getting in their way because they think they can rise to the top of heap if their monster works out and they will have no sympathy for anyone who get is the way. Its a new arms race and maybe a new cold war but one that could multipolar for a while. Look at the nonsense that just happened in Paris. Corbyn, Trudeux and now Sanders we have to be scared of anarchy so we will accept crack down again?

Science still evolves slowly, but yes many scientists are starting to look at the universe as actually being “made” of digital information. And my version solves the fine-tuning question about our universe while still having it a very common trait. And my version solves the biological vs technological universe question. And my version removes the idea of a simulation. Think about it: if the whole tree of black hole universes were simulations within simulations, then the probability of some simulation being switched off in the chain of zillions of simulations would be very high. Our universe has lasted billions of years. Unlikely a simulation depending on a simulation depending on a simulation… More likely an inevitable consequence of post-singularity technology forming black holes with white holes (Big Bangs) as new universes.

Now I’m finding it hard to see any connection with SAFE, it was hard from the start but now it’s entirely gone. Can you make points which relate to the SAFE network or could you please move it to the off-topic category.