The gentle singularity: what is the limit of the singularity?

The next step for artificial intelligence is the artificial general intelligence, AGI. That is the tool that connects every computer under one dome. The AGI is the self-learning system that develops its models and interconnects them with sensors that bring new data for the system. That means we can interconnect every single computer in the world in one entirety. We can think that social media is something new. We forget that a long time before Facebooks were the letter clubs. The “post offices” where people can send letters to people, who could be pseudonyms. 

Social media is not a new thing, and Facebook and other applications are the products of a long route that started in Ancient Rome and Greece where wall writing or graffiti was the beginning of social media. Social media interconnects people from around the world. The new thing that the net brought was speed and maybe the price of those systems is low. But as we know there are no free lunches. The thing that doesn’t cost anything can have the highest price. The ability to create singularity between computers brings the ability to share and receive information with new forces. 

And then the new step for AI and computers is the brain-computer interface, BCI. The BCI means the ability to control computers using the brain waves, or EEG. The system can interact with computers and it can operate also between people. This system can interconnect all animals and humans in one entirety. And there are risks and opportunities about that model. If we make things wrong we create a collective mind. There is one opinion. So we interconnect our minds and computers into giant brains. That is a very sad thing. That thing destroys our own creativity.

The biggest problem with social media, AI-based dating applications, and finally singularity is that the system destroys diversity. People want to discuss and date only people who are similar to them. That means our way of thinking starts to turn homogenous. That causes a situation where we have no people who disagree with us. We can hear only ideas and opinions that please us. We take only people who are similar to us, in our social networks. So, in the worst case, we and our networks operate like some algorithm that recycles data through the model. That means we, our team, or our network will not get anything new to our model. We just recycle something if we don’t accept diversity. 

Our mind needs ideas and motivation for making new things. And where can we get those new ideas? We can discuss those things. Or we can get information that some other party made. And then we can work and refine the information that we can get from net pages and other media. Without opponents our productivity and creativity die, because we have nobody who brings new ideas into our minds. 

In some models, the network can develop things by playing games against some other network. The network creates a simulation and then the model tries to fight against that simulation. If a model wins there is no need to develop it. But if the model loses it requires adjustment. And that means the system requires data and then it requires optimism. 

In the novel “Peace on Earth” the author Stanislaw Lem introduced a model where the simulator creates a model and the other fights against that model. The better simulation becomes a model. Until something creates a new, better model. 

There is another way to operate as a network. The network can accept individually operating members. The idea is that every operator that is connected to the network is autonomous. Those subsystems operate autonomously when they collect data. When the network doesn’t need order it can be chaotic. And when an actor sees something that requires a lot of information, the roll call comes over the network. “Everybody stop, the network needs your capacity”. That commands those autonomous subsystems to leave their work and start to solve bigger problems. 

So, the network operates as a whole when it requires that ability. The network can have subsystems and that means as in the case of an extreme crisis those subnetworks create models that should handle that problem. 

Those subsystems can be individual actors. When the individual actors play against each other, that lost actor joins with the winner and starts to develop a model that won. Then the actor couples start to play against each other, and again. The lost team joins the team that won and then starts to develop the tactics that won the game. The actor groups or networks expand when new actors join bigger entities. 

Those subsystems start to play against each other. When some subsystem loses, that means its tactics are lost. Then that lost actor joins the winner's team and gives its capacity to that team, or network. The network always drops lost tactics or action models until there are two networks against each other. And the better wins. This is one way to create the answer and solution for complicated problems. The expanding network could be the thing that brings solutions to many problems. When the network is in chaotic mode actors search data for it. 

 

How does the brain decide future brain or future profit? (Life is a game)

We can find the answer to that thing from the game theory. If a person sacrifices something. That sacrifice can bring lots of glory to that person. 

The question in the heading is simple. Why some people will climb Mount Everest? And another person sits in an armchair and watches TV at home? Or why some people will go to schools that cause personal financial losses while somebody goes to the pub and works as a cleaner? Why somebody chooses things that are causing pain?

Why do some people turn to war heroes serving in voluntary commando teams where training is extremely hard? And another will make only, what superior officers are saying. And why some people are going to evening school? Even if they would have a chance to sit in the pub and talk with their mates? 

Those solutions seem very different. But they are involving the same thing. The person makes sacrifices to earn something which seems meaningless. That means the person goes to make voluntarily the solution that seems wrong. But later that solution can bring lots of gold and glory. 

Even if they had a chance to choose another way and take a profit. The answer to the painful solution is simple. People who choose, pain can think about the thing after the next solution. Their way to think is if they feel pain, they will get more benefits and respect after that painful solution. 

This thing is the key element in so-called game theory. The nucleus of game theory is that the individual maximizes their benefit in their group. So the thing that makes the brain decide between future pain or future profit is determinating in game theory. Future pain can also mean future benefits. 

Things like extreme adventures, sports, and other kinds of stuff require lots of work. And they are sometimes very painful experiences. But then after that experience, the individual will get respect and glory. And that is the thing that makes those people very farsighted. They can think over the thing that seems painful. 

https://scitechdaily.com/how-does-your-brain-decide-between-future-pain-and-future-profit/

Sociology and game theory.

The use of game theory is expanding from nuclear strategies to the social sciences. And one of the users of this interesting theory is are companies. The company owners want to know. What is the point when personal benefit overruns the collective benefit? There is the possibility that some person gets a job from another company. But that thing causes the fall of the present workplace. 

The collective benefit must go ahead. The benefit of the company is the benefit of its workers. Or that is the normal way to think. But the company owners are people whose benefit is that the workgroup is optimal. When we think. About the number of workers. There are always people who are not "doing anything". The reason for that is that if the worker will not make things right. That person can kick off the company. If the workforce is minimal. There is no way to divorce workers. But if there is some kind reserve of workers. That means the divorcing worker is easier. 

But then we must realize that the worker would not have the same benefit as the company owner. The owner might want to make money. And the only reason why the employee is at the company is the product. The production requires workers. And that is the reason, why the workers are only the loss of money in the company. 

So why do we have unemployment? The companies benefit is always that there are lots of unemployed workers. That makes their ability to select workers from a large number of applicants. That large number of unemployed people makes it possible to put salaries down and the companies can say that there are thousands of applicants. 

A large number of unemployed people are not the benefit of society or the state. The state must pay the minimum payment for unemployed people that they can pay for their food and clothes. If that payment is too low. That causes increasing criminal behavior. 

The prisoner would cause other kinds of costs to society. That person requires surveillance officials. And prison guards. Those people require their payments. And that thing costs money. When we are saving money from someplace. That raises the costs of some other place. Nothing is free. 

All people want money. And there are multiple points for the money of the state. And even the largest and richest countries have limited resources. The resources that are given to someplace are away from some other place. The problem with modern politics is that people who are operating in the political field are members of some party. 

That means they are listening first to their people. And after that, they listen to others. The fact is that the benefit of the person and that person's support group can sometimes be different. This is one thing that we must realize. When we are thinking about illegal refugees from Mexico. 

Those people come to the USA swimming over the Rio Grande. We know how poor those people are. We might ask why some people want to kick them off. If we are looking at the maps where is shown the people who are against those refugees we can notice that those people are living near the border. When people who live near borders say. They are afraid, because of those refugees. 

They have the right to do that. There are always some people who are carrying drugs. And some of those people are dangerous. We are not living at the border of Mexico. And for us, that might seem ridiculous. But for people who are facing those cases that is not the same. The thing is that people who are living thousands of kilometers away from some area might have a different way to see things. 

People are reading news differently. The people who are close to the cases are seeing only negative things. The risk and the fear are the dominating effects in the news that they read. And of course, there are always people who forget to ask. "Why does somebody want to swim across the Rio Grande"? 

Why didn't those people use legal ways to cross the border? The name of the game is that every people have a different way to highlight the parts of those stories. The people who resist firearms might say. That there is only a couple of people who are carrying drugs. But the free firearms supporter might say that "those couple of guys might come to visit you". 

So who is right. Which of those people has better arguments? The answer that we will give might depend on things like do we own guns? That thing is quite expensive. And of course, we must remember that we must justify that thing to ourselves. 

When the audience is asked for callup surveys. There is always some category of how those people are selected. The game theory is the thing that determines the people who are giving answers that benefit the maker of the survey. 

If the maker of the research is the NRA (National Rifle Association) the reason for selecting people for the survey might be people who just bought firearms. Those people might want to justify buying for themselves and their friends. So those people would probably answer that they are made the right choice. The argument for buying a handgun is the will to look for protection from firearms. 

https://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/

The international politics is like the game

http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html
http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html
http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html
http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html
http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html
http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html
http://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/p/the-international-politics-is-like-game.html