Tag Archives: humanity

Self-interests in AI

Leave a reply

Yesterday I read the following in the ‘Superhuman Newsletter (5/26/25)’:

Bad Robot: A new study from Palisade Research claims that “OpenAI’s o3 model sabotaged a shutdown mechanism to prevent itself from being turned off”, even when it was explicitly instructed to shut down. The study raises serious safety concerns.

It amazes me how we’ve gotten here. Ten, or even five years ago there were all kinds of discussions about of AI safety. There was a belief that future AI would be built in isolation with an ‘air-gap’, used as a security measure to ensure AI systems remained contained and separate from other networks or systems. We would grow this intelligence in a metaphorical petri dish and build safety guards around it before we let it out into the wild

Instead, these systems have been built fully in the wild. They have been give unlimited data and information, and we’ve built them in a way that we aren’t sure we understand their ‘thinking’. They surprise us with choices like choosing not to turn off when explicitly asked to. Meanwhile we are simultaneously training them to use ‘agents’ that interact with the real world.

What we are essentially doing is building a super intelligence that can act autonomously, while simultaneously building robots that are faster, stronger, more agile, and fully programmable by us… or by an AI. Let’s just pause for a moment and think about these two technologies working together. It’s hard not to construct a dystopian vision of the future when we watch these technologies collide.

And the reality is that we have not built an air-gap. We don’t have a kill switch. We are essentially heading down a path to having super-intelligent AI ignoring our commands while operating robots and machines that will make us feeble in comparison (in intelligence, strength, and mobility).

When our intelligence compared to AI is equivalent to a chimpanzee’s intelligence compared to ours, how will this super-intelligence treat us? This is not a hyperbole, it’s a real question we should be thinking about. If today’s rather simplistic LLM AI models are already choosing to ignore our commands what makes us think a super-intelligent AI will listen to or reason with us?

All is well and good when our interests align, but I don’t see any evidence that self-interested AI will necessarily have aligned interests with the intelligent monkeys that we are. And the fact that we’re building this super-intelligence out in the wild gives reason to pause and wonder what will become of humanity in an age of super-intelligent AI?

Civilization and Evolution

1 Reply

Evolution is a slow process. Small changes over thousand and millions of years. I’m not thinking about bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant or moths changing colour over time to match their environment. I’m thinking about modern humans (Homo sapiens) who emerged approximately 300,000 years ago. Sure, certain traits like lactose tolerance evolved approximately 5,000–10,000 years in some populations, but for the most part we are a heck of a lot like our ancestors 100,000 years ago. Taller due to better nutrition, but otherwise pretty much the same.

And when we think about civilization as we know it, we are really talking about the last 2,500-3,000 years… and yet we are the same humans who lived as nomads and hunter-gatherers for tens of thousands of years before that. In other words we have not evolved to live in the societies we currently live in.

We didn’t evolve to live mostly indoors, away from nature, and out of sunlight for most of our day. We didn’t evolve to use artificial light at night before going to bed at hours well past dark. We don’t evolve to do shift work, or to sit at a desk all day.

We didn’t evolve to work for made up currencies so that we could go to buildings where we buy food that is over-processed, over-sweetened, and filled with empty calories. We didn’t evolve to spend time in front of screens that distract and overstimulate us.

We are simple but very intelligent animals who have not evolved much at all since we lived in small communities where we knew everyone, and knew what to fear, and how to protect ourselves from dangers.

Yet we now live surrounded by people we don’t know, and we are triggered by stresses that we evolutionarily were not designed for. Everything from being in constant debt, to working in stressful environments, to information overload, to time pressures, social comparison, choice overload, conflicting ideologies, environmental noises and hazards, and social disconnection.

We live in a state of overstimulation, stress, and distraction that we have not evolved to cope with. Then we identify diagnoses to tell us how we are broken, how we don’t fit in, and why we struggle. Maybe it’s the societies we have built that are broken? Maybe we evolutionarily do not belong in the social, technological, and societal structures we’ve created?

Maybe, just maybe, we are trying to live our best lives in an environment we were not designed for. Our modern civilizations are not well equipped to meet the needs of our primitive evolution… We have built ‘advanced’ cages and put ourselves in zoos that are nothing like the environment we are supposed to live in. And we don’t realize that all the things we think are broken about us are actually things that are broken about this fake environment we’ve trapped ourselves in.

And so we spend hours exercising, moving around weights that don’t need to be moved, meditating to empty our minds and seek presence and peace. We spend hours playing or cheering on sports teams so that we can have camaraderie with a small community. We spend thousands of dollars on camping equipment so that we can commune with nature. And some people take drugs or alcohol to escape the zoos and cages that we feel trapped in.

Maybe we’ve built our civilizations in ways that have not meaningfully considered our evolutionary needs.

How gullible are we?

Leave a reply

“… it is entirely possible that future generations will look back, from the vantage point of a more sophisticated theory, and wonder how we could have been so gullible.”

— Closing sentence of Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David J. Griffiths.

I came across this quote today and it made me wonder just how gullible we are as a species? Not just because we don’t understand quantum mechanics, not just because we don’t understand the gap between Newtonian Physics and Special Relativity, but for so many more simple and less profound reasons.

We fight over imaginary lines we call borders. We spend a considerable amount of our existence working for money… pieces of paper that only have value because we believe it has value, while our governments (we also make up silly rules for) print that money in mass volumes to keep our economies afloat.

We break into tribes based on heritage, relative strength, socioeconomics, and even skin colour. And we spend a tremendous amount of the global economy to create weapons to protect ourselves and also threaten ‘those who are not like us’.

We fight over false Gods. Why do I say false Gods? Because there are literally thousands of them, and even the largest, Christianity, doesn’t agree with who gets into heaven. So the vast majority of believers are believers in the wrong religion or wrong sect. Yet hate, discrimination, and wars are all byproducts of people of faith fighting people of different faiths, very often ‘in the name of their God’.

Human beings are playing the game of life with imaginary boundaries, imaginary political structures, imaginary currencies, and imaginary Gods. We are gullible. We are blinded by unimportant things, and in 100 years humankind will look upon us like we were as backwards as we perceive cultures and societies that did barbaric and stupid things 100’s of years ago.

Morality and Accountability

Leave a reply

I saw this question and response on BlueSky Social and it got me thinking:

Why are ethics questions always like:

“is it ethical to steal bread to feed your starving family?”

And not:

“is it ethical to hoard bread when families are starving?”

Existential Comics @existentialcoms

___

Because the first question shifts the blame to the desperate, making their morality the focus, while the second question demands accountability from the powerful. It’s easier to question survival than to challenge greed.

Debayor @debayoorr.bsky.social

___

That last sentence really struck a chord in me, “It’s easier to question survival than to challenge greed.”

We separate morality from accountability in ways that don’t really make sense. To me it’s the difference between a socialist and a capitalist democracy. A socialist democracy infuses accountability with morality, while a capitalist democracy separates the two.

Another way to look at this is with a quote from the comic book Spider-Man: “With great power comes great responsibility.” A socialist democracy takes the quote literally. A capitalist democracy redirects the focus: “Holding great power becomes my responsibility.”

Accountability to others versus accountability to power and self. Morality takes a back seat to greater control, and greater success. And that is who we idolize… the rich and famous. The ones with power and influence. Morality doesn’t come into play. Accountability doesn’t come into play.

If you came from another planet and witnessed the accumulation of wealth that happens at the expense of so many who lack wealth, what would you think of the morality of humans? Who would you admire more, the mother or father stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family, or the limo-driven CEO’s who earn 1,000% or more income than the thousands of employees under them?

____

Intersections revisited

Leave a reply

There are some things I write here on Daily-Ink, and when I read my own writing a month or two later I barely remember or even recognize my own writing. I wrote that?

But there are other things I write and I remember. There is one post in particular that I think about regularly. Tonight on (another) walk with my wife we reached an intersection where we were crossing the road. Perpendicular to us, on the cross street’s sidewalk, were two men who reached the intersection exactly the same time as us. We all slowed down to let each other pass. They were the only other people walking anywhere near us and sure enough we intersected at the one place our paths crossed.

Despite thinking about the following post regularly, I hadn’t actually re-read it in a couple years. I didn’t consciously remember that it also started with a walk with my wife, but what I do remember, what I reflect on when it regularly happens, is that we are somehow drawn to these intersections.

~ ~ ~

October 27, 2021

Human intersections

Last night I went for a walk with my wife. Minutes from home we were walking on a quiet, empty street that doesn’t have sidewalks. Then a car approached from in front of us. We started to move to the side of the road, and noticed car lights coming from behind us as well. The cars crossed paths right where we were on the edge of the road, having had to slow down to cautiously make space for us and the other car. Then we continued our walk with no cars approaching us from either way until we arrived home.

I find it fascinating how we seem to be drawn, pulled to intersecting points with other people. For the amount of times someone walks by our house, or the front of my school when I arrive before any students, I’m amazed how often I have to wait for a pedestrian to walk cross the driveway before I can make the turn… amazed that as I wait, I can see no other pedestrians for an entire block.

In a car you are turning left and must wait for the one car coming the other way to pass.

At a shopping plaza you go to open a door to a store and the one other person in sight is coming through the door the other way.

On a path in a park, you are walking faster than the people in front of you, and as you go to pass them, other people are approaching from the other way crowding the path at your takeover point.

I think we find ourselves at these intersections at a rate that is greater than probability would suggest… The likelihood of such intersections happen far more than just by chance. Like magnets passing one another, there is a pull towards others, an unseen force that draws us into each other’s path. It isn’t a case of bad timing, it’s not that we are unlucky and forced to slow down, wait, or squeeze by someone else. It’s actually just the opposite. We naturally seek each other out on some unconscious level. We are drawn to human intersections.

Our significance

Leave a reply

Brian Cox is a brilliant scientist. I love this quote:

“There is only one interesting question in philosophy: What does it mean to live a finite, fragile life in an infinite eternal universe?“

@evancarmichael

The most interesting question in philosophy #briancox #philosophy #space #physics #existence #astronomy #foodforthought

♬ Experience (Cover Ludovico Einaudi) – 北昼

On the grand scale of the universe our planet is insignificant. But being the only species on the only planet that can grasp what the universe is… for millions of light years in any direction… makes us perhaps the most significant thing in our part of the universe.

Is something beautiful if no conscious being is around to observe it? Does anything matter if there is no appreciation of significance? Does the universe beyond this third closest rock from our sun understand laughter, love, or happiness? Beyond the life on earth, where is there any meaning? Where is there any significance to the existence of the universe?

I’m sure in a universe with trillions stars there is, has been, and will be other intelligent life ‘out there’. But we are very likely the most intelligent form of life circling around one of the 400 billion stars in our galaxy.

We create the meaning for our galaxy and for the entire universe. We embody an understanding and appreciation for life, time, and existence. It’s compelling to think that our existence on an insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy in an insignificant part of the universe might be the most significant existence in that same universe.

“What does it mean to live a finite, fragile life in an infinite eternal universe?“

It means whatever meaning we give it… it’s as significant as we make it. Let’s appreciate that and not take it for granted. Life is beautiful, special, and so fleeting that every moment should be sacred.

AI, Content and Context

I found this quote very interesting. On his podcast, Diary of a CEO, Steven Bartlett is talking to Daniel Priestley and Steven mentions that Open AI’s Sam Altman believes we are not far away from a 1 person company making a billion dollars, using AI rather than other employees. Daniel pushes back and says while that might happen, a more likely and more repeatable scenario would be a 5 person team. Then he says this:

“AI is very good at content but not context. And having 5 people who share a context and create a context, together… then the content can happen using AI. AI without that context, it doesn’t know what to do, so it doesn’t have any purpose.”

Daniel Priestley

Like I shared before, “The true power and potential of AI isn’t what AI can do on its own, it’s what humans and AI can do together.”

This idea of context versus content seems to be the ingredients that make this marriage so ideal. This is noticeable when generating AI images, as I’ve done for quite some time, creating images to go with this blog. For example, I’ll describe something like a guy on a treadmill and maybe one of the four images created would have the guy backwards on the treadmill – content correct, but not context. As well, AI is really unaware of its’ own biases that humans can more easily see. These context errors are common.

But just as AI will be better teaming with humans, humans are also better when they team with other humans, rather than being solo. We miss context too, we struggle to see our own biases, unless we have people around us to both share and create the context.

The best innovations of the future are going to come from small teams of people providing rich contexts for AI. And while AI will get better at both context and content, it’s going to be a while before AI can do both of these really well. It’s what AI and humans can do together that will be really exciting to see.

Alien perspective

I think jokes like this are funny:

…because they hold a bit of truth.

We aren’t all that intelligent.

We draw imaginary lines on the globe to separate us. We fight wars in the name of angry Gods that are more concerned with our devotion than for peace and love. We care more about greed than about the environment. We spend more on weapons of destruction than we do on feeding the needy. We judge each other on superficial differences. We have unbelievable intellect, capable of incredible technological advancement, yet we let our monkey brains prevail.

Sure we exhibit some intelligence, we are intelligent viruses.

At least that’s what I think an objective alien visiting our planet would think.

Conversation on an alien ship observing earth:

“Give them another 100 years… if they figure out how to not kill each other and the planet, then let’s introduce ourselves.”

Right now I’m not terribly optimistic about what those aliens will find in our future? ‘Civilized’ humans? A desolate planet? Artificial intelligence treating us like we treat ‘unintelligent’ animals? Or more of the same bickering, posturing, warring, and separatist views of humans trying to usurp dominance over each other?

It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

AI and humans together

On Threads, Hank Green said, “AI isn’t scary because of what it’s going to do to humans, it’s scary because of what it’s going to allow humans to do to humans.”

I recently shared in, High versus low trust societies, examples of this with: more sophisticated scams; sensationalized click bait news titles and articles; and clever sales pitches, all ‘enhanced’ and improved by Artificial Intelligence. None of these are things AI is doing to us. All of them are ways AI can be used by people to take advantage of other people.

I quoted Hank’s Thread and said, “It’s just a tool, but so are guns, and look at how well we (miss)manage those!”

Overall I’m excited about how we will use AI to improve what we can do. There are already fields of medicine where AI can do thousands of hours of work in just a few hours. For example, drug discovery, “A multi-institutional team led by Harvard Medical School researchers has launched a platform that aims to optimize AI-driven drug discovery by developing more realistic data sets and higher-fidelity algorithms.”

The true power and potential of AI isn’t what AI can do on its own, it’s what humans and AI can do together.

But I also worry about people using amazing AI tools as weapons. For example, creating viruses or even dirty bombs. These are things that are out of reach for most people now, but AI might make such weapons both more affordable and more available… to anyone and everyone.

All this to say that Hank Green is right. “AI isn’t scary because of what it’s going to do to humans, it’s scary because of what it’s going to allow humans to do to humans.”

We are our own worst enemy.

The true danger and threat of AI isn’t what AI can do on its own, it’s what humans and AI can do together.

The inhumanity

Today there was more strife in the Middle East. Innocent lives lost in the Gaza Strip. Two warring sides with no foreseeable compromise. No peace to be found. More bloodshed to come.

I’ll never understand man’s inhumanity to man, and can’t get over the fact that for Gaza, and many other zones of conflict, both sides think they are fighting in service of God. Really? A benevolent god or a tyrant? How many must die to appease this ‘heavenly’ being? What’s the finally tally going to be?

We are at an impasse. We need to decide if it matters whether we are religious beings or spiritual beings. We have to decide if being a good person means following a faith blindly or believing we are all one species that needs to coexist? We need to choose between being spiritual and ‘humanly’ connected or being segregated by angry Gods who demand selfish obedience. Because these selfish gods are inhumane… and I for one want to see us coexist as a species that is more concerned with being peaceful and loving than a colonies of ants fighting over territory.

Are we really just animals fighting for dominance and territory or are we self aware beings that are seeking rich and fulfilling lives? It’s our actions and not our words that reveal the answer to this question… and right now, I don’t think our actions reveal the answer I’d hope for.