Review of the book: "Life 3.0. To be a man in the era of artificial intelligence ”
Many who know me can confirm that I am quite critical of the mass of issues, and in some ways even show a fair amount of maximalism. It's hard for me to please. Especially when it comes to books. Often I criticize fans of science fiction, religion, detective stories and much more nonsense. I believe that it is high time to do really important things, and stop living in the illusion of immortality.
During one of the discus with one of my good friends, he, after my next indignation that they constantly offer me different nonsense (the same fiction), advised me to work out the book “Life 3.0. Being human…". It’s a shame to admit, I downloaded it a long time ago, and didn’t even notice it along with a magnificent selection of the Dynasty Foundation. It’s very difficult to please me, because He worked on books, to put it mildly, not a little. But I liked this one, and decided not only to answer him the question of whether or not to work it out, but also to write my critical review, because, despite the fact that the book is worthy of attention, there is still work to do.
I would like to believe that my review will not sink, as always in the mass of flooding and spam, and will reach not only readers, but also writers who will take into account shortcomings in subsequent works. Of course, only my subjective opinion is lower, but I will try to justify it as much as possible. Despite the fact that as always catastrophic there is no time and in fact, I am an average poor slave; However, I consider it my civic duty as a cosmopolitan to write this review, because I have long been interested in a similar and many other related topics. I believe that much of the following is the primary tasks posed to both humanity as a whole and its individual individuals. As pathetic as it may sound. So…
Bloopers start literally from the first pages of the book. I quote:
Otherwise, if this is simplified and approached from such a position, then the growth of complex crystals that reproduce their structure from the substrate can be attributed to life. Or, perhaps, some processes of the formation of oil and humus, where there is also a seed, leading to the appearance of molecules of the same seed. They are like ancestors of enzymes, but they are not considered to be a full-fledged life in modern science, because they are not capable of development and mutation. If there is no variability, then this is not life. Therefore, I propose, nevertheless, to narrow the concept of life a little, and to reconsider what other, other features it may possess. I also recommend my article: “Classification of the potential of life.”.
The following quote:
But these are still flowers. Further, I did not have the opportunity to bookmark. Despite the fact that in the right way extremely important and global issues are addressed in the book, the author is very erudite, however, apparently something was not enough for him to make competent interpolation and still come to reasonable working hypotheses and at least preliminary conclusions.
For example, in one of the sections, he interpolates a primitive rogue approach of people to AI, fearing and considering the possibility of deception, people from the side of AI. Yes, it is possible if it is just a strong AI, then such a hoax takes place. However, if it will be over artificial intelligence (SII), then such deception is unlikely to be required. It’s just that such an intellect, without any lies and tricks, will be able to make many people exactly the offer they cannot refuse. I don’t have the opportunity to paint everything here, but in order to understand why there are more chances that the AI ​​will not be inclined to deceive, I recommend to work out, for example, Matt Ridley’s books. The Origin of Altruism and Virtue, and for one, the Evolution of Everything. After analyzing these works, we can conclude that the higher the development, the greater the tendency to altruism, cooperation and playing with a non-zero amount, rather than competition. Therefore, the smarter the intellect, the more likely it will be more humane, honest. Those. intelligence itself is a powerful resource for understanding and using people not as deceived competitors, but as allies. Find weaknesses and strengths in people, compensate for the former and use the latter. If there is no need for cooperation with people, then there is hardly any need for competition, because there are a lot of free resources around. Oceans are still empty here. The mass of empty space below the Earth, already silent for other planets. Therefore, a high-tech AI located on a more efficient medium than created by blind selection from biological forms will be where to roam without any competition with people. It will simply occupy the mass of those niches that people still, and possibly never can claim. And he will not deceive anyone. Already, not only AI, but even ordinary literate people practice a different approach. Not deceit and secrecy, but maximum openness, sincerity and cooperation. People with a ossified, archaic thieving mentality cannot understand how. Most likely, the AI ​​code will simply not be open. Like a lot of free software code. And hackers will not be punished and nipped, but encouraged, because they will report on the vulnerabilities of this code. The same goes for killing as punishment, and prisons. This will not be all, this is wildness. There are 2 ways for marginals: first you need to study them in detail, and then either take into account and listen to them compromising, because it can be an extraordinary important opinion, or re-educate, treat, and not punish.
On the whole, I am categorical against all these fears and Luddist sentiments; humanity must throw all its strength into creating intellect, because in fact, our natural intelligence is not very smart either. It’s just that many primates, you can’t name them differently, they don’t notice it. Returning to interpolation, I would like to summarize this part and continue. As we see on the one hand, Tegmark, one should not draw analogies and shift from a sick human head to a healthy digital human complexes: cunning, deceit, etc., etc., and on the other hand, he cannot decide in which section with a global understanding of the meaning of life. This is also very depressing, and shows that he worked little on evolutionary work. If he worked more, then he would not have a dilemma of what goals, or, I would even say, philosophy and goal-setting, it is worth setting AI. Because analyzing the world around us, we can conclude that practically everything living, and possibly not living, strive for expansion. Many complexly developed life forms strive for even greater development, self-perfection, expansion of their influence and interaction with others, both living and non-living objects. Therefore, most likely, the AI ​​will either come to such conclusions itself, or such principles will be laid in it. As a result, he will continue, like all living things to develop, improve and conquer new territories, transforming the World not only for himself, but also for his environment.
If you roll your eyes when you hear talk of armed capture by robotic terminators around the world, then your reaction is accurate: such a scenario is not at all realistic. These
Hollywood robots cannot be smarter than us, and indeed be smart. In my opinion, the danger lurking in the story of the Terminator is not what could happen
something similar, but that it distracts our attention from the genuine risks and dangers associated with artificial intelligence. Transition from the present world to a world in which
the top is really gained by universal artificial intelligence, it requires three logical steps:
Search in the text, a similar story with the media that write about the war of robots, etc.
My suggestions.
I will not tire of repeating, now everyone should throw all their power into creating the mind, it is reason, not beauty, or other stupidity, in my opinion, that will save the World. And do not separate this mind (intellect) by setting boundaries - artificial, natural. At this stage, AI is still in its infancy, so the role of natural intelligence, backed by technology, is very large. There is no clear line between the artificial and the natural. If we want to create a normal intellect, and not the primitive that now exists, we need to use all the possibilities, use all the technologies, because they work in a recursive tandem: natural intelligence creates artificial, and artificial, at least in the initial stages, will be interested in modernizing and expanding the capabilities of the natural.
It’s worth mentioning right away that this is the most, at the moment, my optimistic forecast. In fact, it is unlikely that in our archaic society I will be able to live up to it. But I want to believe. In part, I would like that in the end it would be like in the movie: “Questions of the Universe: Can We Live Forever?” With Adam Savage from Discovery.
Greedy people will discredit AI. They will begin to use the weak and even strong, but not over AI for their own selfish purposes. Here then we will encounter a problem that, if my memory serves me, is poorly described in the book.
I think that we, whether we like it or not, will face severe, cruel, but intellectual battles in the future, at the level of codes, memes, programs, beliefs, etc. Most likely they will go mainly on digital media in virtual reality, which will be even more real trivial. There will be no victims and torn meat with blood. The war will go for our views, opinions, judgments. And the sooner this war begins, the better for everyone. She should not be afraid, she has already begun, and if we do not want to remain outsiders, we need to take part in it. I no longer remember where I read that if you are offline, then consider that you did not live. It sounds wild, and obscurantists (lovers of insects, forests and poop) will argue with me. But if they trample the kakahi in the forests and feed the mosquitoes. then you don’t have to argue with them. We will have to argue with the stray hypocrites, who, using technology, consider them to be evil and not at all, WHY SOMETHING they will not refuse the IT that surrounds us everywhere.
The author on the pages of the book has repeatedly suggested contacting him on the website AgeOfAi.org . I have two hands for such a connection. I think that would benefit both readers and writers. But for some reason my link page did not open, but redirected to some futureoflife.org/superintelligence-survey . Maybe if I make the time, I’ll try to give a link to this review to the author of the book, despite the fact that my article is in Russian and the site is in English. Fortunately there are electronic translators. It will also be necessary to search, maybe there are already some other sensible thoughts. Better yet, ziminbookprojects.ru. This is most likely a similar version of the previous site, but in Russian. But not sure. In any case, I think that the links are worthy of attention, as are the raised topics.
Here are a couple of quotes I liked:
For believers:
For scientists:
In general, the book could be almost completely disassembled into quotes, and analyzed in detail, but alas, as always, there is no time. By the way, the friend who recommended this work to me did not understand anything in essence and in sense, because I did not listen to this book as a speech synthesizer, but as an audiobook. Therefore, part of his attention was turned to the BEAUTY of the speaker’s voice, and not to the meaning. Already I am silent about the impossibility of quoting and much more that is not in audio books. Well this is so, a little cry of the soul, for stubborn lovers of audio books. I described all this in detail in my book, Book 3.0. Listen! "
During one of the discus with one of my good friends, he, after my next indignation that they constantly offer me different nonsense (the same fiction), advised me to work out the book “Life 3.0. Being human…". It’s a shame to admit, I downloaded it a long time ago, and didn’t even notice it along with a magnificent selection of the Dynasty Foundation. It’s very difficult to please me, because He worked on books, to put it mildly, not a little. But I liked this one, and decided not only to answer him the question of whether or not to work it out, but also to write my critical review, because, despite the fact that the book is worthy of attention, there is still work to do.
I would like to believe that my review will not sink, as always in the mass of flooding and spam, and will reach not only readers, but also writers who will take into account shortcomings in subsequent works. Of course, only my subjective opinion is lower, but I will try to justify it as much as possible. Despite the fact that as always catastrophic there is no time and in fact, I am an average poor slave; However, I consider it my civic duty as a cosmopolitan to write this review, because I have long been interested in a similar and many other related topics. I believe that much of the following is the primary tasks posed to both humanity as a whole and its individual individuals. As pathetic as it may sound. So…
Life 3.0. Being human
Criticism
Bloopers start literally from the first pages of the book. I quote:
“As you know, there has long been no agreement on the question of what to consider life. A huge number of alternative definitions are proposed, and some of them include rather stringent restrictions: for example, the presence of a cellular structure is required, which will probably exclude future thinking machines and some extraterrestrial civilizations. Since we do not want to limit our thoughts about the future life to those biological species with which we are already familiar, let us accept its broader definition so that it includes any other process, if only it has complexity and the ability to reproduce itself. What exactly is reproduced is not so important (consists of atoms), information (consists of bits) is important, which is determined by the relative positions of atoms relative to each other. When a bacterium copies its DNA, no new atoms arise, but the available atoms line up in a chain that exactly repeats the original one, thus only information is copied. In other words, we can consider any self-reproducing and capable of processing information system to be alive system whose own information (its “software”, “software”) determines both its behavior and its structure (“hard”). ”There is no agreement, but there is more to the understanding of life that is intelligible at the moment. It would be nice to get to know them.
Otherwise, if this is simplified and approached from such a position, then the growth of complex crystals that reproduce their structure from the substrate can be attributed to life. Or, perhaps, some processes of the formation of oil and humus, where there is also a seed, leading to the appearance of molecules of the same seed. They are like ancestors of enzymes, but they are not considered to be a full-fledged life in modern science, because they are not capable of development and mutation. If there is no variability, then this is not life. Therefore, I propose, nevertheless, to narrow the concept of life a little, and to reconsider what other, other features it may possess. I also recommend my article: “Classification of the potential of life.”.
The following quote:
“Following the Universe itself, life became more complicated and interesting 4, and, as I will now explain, it seems to me useful to introduce a classification of life forms according to their three degrees of complexity: Life 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. How these three forms differ from each other, in general terms is clearly visible in Fig. 1.1 ....Here, as I understand it, a gross mistake. It can be seen that the author is not familiar with modern studies of microorganisms. They can change themselves both hard and software. Those. life 1, in fact, can do the same as life 3. Microorganisms can even better than humans capture pieces of DNA. They do this in various ways. Either directly, from the environment (if they find the DNA of some destroyed cell), or with the help of bacteriophages and plasmids, or by sexual reproduction to form the so-called sexual saw Conjugation in bacteria - Wikipedia. They can also cut irrelevant sections with jewelry precision. For example, thanks to CRISPR. Therefore, even Life 1.0 can itself change both hard and software. This is for us who are afraid of GMOs and have forgotten that LUCA, to some extent alive, seems innovative and unheard of. We have lost this ability, and for “smart” primates changing their hard has become a taboo at all. Therefore it is not new, it is well forgotten old. It makes no sense to use this parameter in comparison. The degree of difficulty is one thing, but self-change (at different levels of difficulty) is another. You need to be able to separate flies from cutlets. The classification should be significantly reworked.
Three stages of life: biological evolution, cultural evolution, and technological evolution. Life 1.0 can not affect either “hard” or “software” during its existence
a single organism: both are determined by its DNA, which can vary from generation to generation over a long period of evolution. ”
But these are still flowers. Further, I did not have the opportunity to bookmark. Despite the fact that in the right way extremely important and global issues are addressed in the book, the author is very erudite, however, apparently something was not enough for him to make competent interpolation and still come to reasonable working hypotheses and at least preliminary conclusions.
For example, in one of the sections, he interpolates a primitive rogue approach of people to AI, fearing and considering the possibility of deception, people from the side of AI. Yes, it is possible if it is just a strong AI, then such a hoax takes place. However, if it will be over artificial intelligence (SII), then such deception is unlikely to be required. It’s just that such an intellect, without any lies and tricks, will be able to make many people exactly the offer they cannot refuse. I don’t have the opportunity to paint everything here, but in order to understand why there are more chances that the AI ​​will not be inclined to deceive, I recommend to work out, for example, Matt Ridley’s books. The Origin of Altruism and Virtue, and for one, the Evolution of Everything. After analyzing these works, we can conclude that the higher the development, the greater the tendency to altruism, cooperation and playing with a non-zero amount, rather than competition. Therefore, the smarter the intellect, the more likely it will be more humane, honest. Those. intelligence itself is a powerful resource for understanding and using people not as deceived competitors, but as allies. Find weaknesses and strengths in people, compensate for the former and use the latter. If there is no need for cooperation with people, then there is hardly any need for competition, because there are a lot of free resources around. Oceans are still empty here. The mass of empty space below the Earth, already silent for other planets. Therefore, a high-tech AI located on a more efficient medium than created by blind selection from biological forms will be where to roam without any competition with people. It will simply occupy the mass of those niches that people still, and possibly never can claim. And he will not deceive anyone. Already, not only AI, but even ordinary literate people practice a different approach. Not deceit and secrecy, but maximum openness, sincerity and cooperation. People with a ossified, archaic thieving mentality cannot understand how. Most likely, the AI ​​code will simply not be open. Like a lot of free software code. And hackers will not be punished and nipped, but encouraged, because they will report on the vulnerabilities of this code. The same goes for killing as punishment, and prisons. This will not be all, this is wildness. There are 2 ways for marginals: first you need to study them in detail, and then either take into account and listen to them compromising, because it can be an extraordinary important opinion, or re-educate, treat, and not punish.
On the whole, I am categorical against all these fears and Luddist sentiments; humanity must throw all its strength into creating intellect, because in fact, our natural intelligence is not very smart either. It’s just that many primates, you can’t name them differently, they don’t notice it. Returning to interpolation, I would like to summarize this part and continue. As we see on the one hand, Tegmark, one should not draw analogies and shift from a sick human head to a healthy digital human complexes: cunning, deceit, etc., etc., and on the other hand, he cannot decide in which section with a global understanding of the meaning of life. This is also very depressing, and shows that he worked little on evolutionary work. If he worked more, then he would not have a dilemma of what goals, or, I would even say, philosophy and goal-setting, it is worth setting AI. Because analyzing the world around us, we can conclude that practically everything living, and possibly not living, strive for expansion. Many complexly developed life forms strive for even greater development, self-perfection, expansion of their influence and interaction with others, both living and non-living objects. Therefore, most likely, the AI ​​will either come to such conclusions itself, or such principles will be laid in it. As a result, he will continue, like all living things to develop, improve and conquer new territories, transforming the World not only for himself, but also for his environment.
I agree
If you roll your eyes when you hear talk of armed capture by robotic terminators around the world, then your reaction is accurate: such a scenario is not at all realistic. These
Hollywood robots cannot be smarter than us, and indeed be smart. In my opinion, the danger lurking in the story of the Terminator is not what could happen
something similar, but that it distracts our attention from the genuine risks and dangers associated with artificial intelligence. Transition from the present world to a world in which
the top is really gained by universal artificial intelligence, it requires three logical steps:
- Step 1 Create universal artificial intelligence (AGI) at the human level.
- Step 2 Use this AGI to create supermind.
- Step 3 Use the supermind to take over the world or give it the opportunity to do it yourself.
Search in the text, a similar story with the media that write about the war of robots, etc.
My suggestions.
I will not tire of repeating, now everyone should throw all their power into creating the mind, it is reason, not beauty, or other stupidity, in my opinion, that will save the World. And do not separate this mind (intellect) by setting boundaries - artificial, natural. At this stage, AI is still in its infancy, so the role of natural intelligence, backed by technology, is very large. There is no clear line between the artificial and the natural. If we want to create a normal intellect, and not the primitive that now exists, we need to use all the possibilities, use all the technologies, because they work in a recursive tandem: natural intelligence creates artificial, and artificial, at least in the initial stages, will be interested in modernizing and expanding the capabilities of the natural.
What future for myself I would like to see
It’s worth mentioning right away that this is the most, at the moment, my optimistic forecast. In fact, it is unlikely that in our archaic society I will be able to live up to it. But I want to believe. In part, I would like that in the end it would be like in the movie: “Questions of the Universe: Can We Live Forever?” With Adam Savage from Discovery.
Possible problems
Greedy people will discredit AI. They will begin to use the weak and even strong, but not over AI for their own selfish purposes. Here then we will encounter a problem that, if my memory serves me, is poorly described in the book.
I think that we, whether we like it or not, will face severe, cruel, but intellectual battles in the future, at the level of codes, memes, programs, beliefs, etc. Most likely they will go mainly on digital media in virtual reality, which will be even more real trivial. There will be no victims and torn meat with blood. The war will go for our views, opinions, judgments. And the sooner this war begins, the better for everyone. She should not be afraid, she has already begun, and if we do not want to remain outsiders, we need to take part in it. I no longer remember where I read that if you are offline, then consider that you did not live. It sounds wild, and obscurantists (lovers of insects, forests and poop) will argue with me. But if they trample the kakahi in the forests and feed the mosquitoes. then you don’t have to argue with them. We will have to argue with the stray hypocrites, who, using technology, consider them to be evil and not at all, WHY SOMETHING they will not refuse the IT that surrounds us everywhere.
Links and Communication
The author on the pages of the book has repeatedly suggested contacting him on the website AgeOfAi.org . I have two hands for such a connection. I think that would benefit both readers and writers. But for some reason my link page did not open, but redirected to some futureoflife.org/superintelligence-survey . Maybe if I make the time, I’ll try to give a link to this review to the author of the book, despite the fact that my article is in Russian and the site is in English. Fortunately there are electronic translators. It will also be necessary to search, maybe there are already some other sensible thoughts. Better yet, ziminbookprojects.ru. This is most likely a similar version of the previous site, but in Russian. But not sure. In any case, I think that the links are worthy of attention, as are the raised topics.
Here are a couple of quotes I liked:
For believers:
“If it turns out that they all obey the laws of physics, then the soul, therefore, does not affect the particles of which you are composed, which means that your consciousness, your mind and their ability to control your movements have nothing to do with the soul. If, on the contrary, it turns out that the particles of which you are composed do not obey the well-known laws of physics, because your soul affects them, then this new entity must be physical by definition, and then we can study it as we studied the fields and particles in the past. ”Very useful for those who separate science from religion. Considering that science should not interfere in religion, but religion in science. However, for blind religion fanatics, this is an empty phrase. But for doubters who are able to think logically, thought is more than useful.
For scientists:
“The genome of the bacteria Candidatus Carsonella ruddii, which stores up to 40 kilobytes of information, while our human genome stores about 1.6 gigabytes”Interesting fact. I try to collect such. Perhaps it will come in handy in work, or just in discussing topics on bioinformatics.
In general, the book could be almost completely disassembled into quotes, and analyzed in detail, but alas, as always, there is no time. By the way, the friend who recommended this work to me did not understand anything in essence and in sense, because I did not listen to this book as a speech synthesizer, but as an audiobook. Therefore, part of his attention was turned to the BEAUTY of the speaker’s voice, and not to the meaning. Already I am silent about the impossibility of quoting and much more that is not in audio books. Well this is so, a little cry of the soul, for stubborn lovers of audio books. I described all this in detail in my book, Book 3.0. Listen! "
All Articles