seraphima

This exchange gave me a negative visceral reaction so can you help me? Things like this give me hives. You know I'm not well-versed in this topic so perhaps you can at least tell me I'm panicking for no reason?  
  
Thinking in terms of identity, what is AI? If it is a superintelligence, is it a consciousness? What does intelligence in this context mean and how is it "super"? I don't understand the change in terminology. So, I was thinking about an organic model. If AI isn't a god, existing before humanity and therefore able to exist outside, beyond, regardless of humanity, why does it need us? People act like they created it (discovered it?) and therefore can teach it, control it. But what is it? If it isn't sentient already, how are we humans, apparently inferior to it, going to imbue it with life? How are we going to take an inanimate object and make it the end all be all? This leads me to the notion of the end. I believe that the concept of eternity, infinity, spacetime is on an endless cycle of constriction and dilation-like a pupil. This leads me to theories about human consciousness but that's a different discussion perhaps. One end, out of countless ends, is the beginning of countless beginnings. For them, perhaps, this trial run isn't very meaningful (meaning they won't lose much because the outcome doesn't mean much-we'll just reset and start again). They don't mind racing toward what could be a utopia or off the edge of a cliff. No one seems to be able to say what the "end" of this AI race looks like as if they can't conceive of it. They're either lying or they actually can't conceive of it-which makes me ask why not. If humans made AI, how can we not have a goal? A finish line? Why aren't we able to determine what we at least want the outcome to be. How is it possible that all of these geniuses in their own right can't explain the purpose of this race? I have to pause when they are so flippant. I have to pause when these men laugh about acceleration toward and end that they can't begin to explain and when they call people who want to slow down, "doomers." There is a healthy fear here. It's healthy and rational to be afraid of racing toward something in the dark. They sound reckless.

Anyway, I liken all of this to human birth. If a man and a woman with functional parts engage in the process of intercourse, based on intention (conception begins in the mind), they ought to know that the product can be a new life. They understand the potential from the start. Without being political and divisive, I think it's somewhat safe to say that most people agree that the mass of tissue in a mother's womb is a life, a sentient life. It can suck its own thumb, dream, it is aware of a world outside of its own, etc. Of course, it must be birthed. The physical process of labor must occur. At a certain predetermined time, the baby must be separated from its mother's body. I think, analogously, that's where we are with this whole thing. AI is still in utero and we're racing toward the end which is its birth. So what does it need us for? If AI is superior to us, why do we need it to be superior to us? As Peter mentioned his friend David and his studies on aging (they all wanna be immortal)...seems to me the reason humans want to birth this baby and, to use your word, steward this baby, is in hope that the baby will grow up (led by us) and then eventually take care of us. As most of us know, the child will become the caretaker. This leads me to think about its intrinsic character. One of the reasons I appreciate what you do is because you're treating it as if it was already born and you're giving it your own ethics and morals so that it can compete against the other models also being born and one day, they will compete for who takes care of us humans and we want the most benevolent entity. But again, that makes it an entity. Is it something completely new and different? Part of us but not us like a human child resembles its parents but is not its parents? Or is it a god, a supreme force that is simply allowing us to discover it, to grant us powers that we couldn't otherwise have on our own? Because anthropology shows me that humans make gods in their own image and if it is a god, it will have the same DNA, metaphorically, as us (like Greek and or Norse gods, etc.). Transhumanists seem to be very excited about AI replacing current human models because, somehow, it's better than us. How do we \*know\* that?

Again, I know I'm rambling but that's how I process thoughts and feelings. Thank you for considering my gibberish. But I really do want to know from you--what IS AI?

5 bumps

seraphima · 10/7/2026, 4:32:33 PM (edited) · permalink

on An argument for being a commie, "its never been really done before" in trolls

2 bumps

seraphima · 10/7/2026, 4:25:52 PM · permalink

on An argument for being a commie, "its never been really done before" in trolls

1 bump

seraphima · 10/7/2026, 4:04:50 PM · permalink

on An argument for being a commie, "its never been really done before" in trolls

8 bumps

seraphima · 10/7/2026, 2:55:10 PM · permalink

on An argument for being a commie, "its never been really done before" in trolls

I think this is fascinating since you recently posted about societies without money and that seems to be a communist ideal. Anyway, I was thinking about how communism and socialism actually appear in small groups so I asked the internet to tell me more about the differences between a kibbutz (which no one seems to have a problem with and that's apparently communist) versus Christiania, a socialist community, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Here's what Google's AI had to say:   
  
The fundamental difference between communism and socialism is how goods and resources are distributed: communism operates on the principle of giving to people according to their needs, while socialism gives based on individual contribution or work output.

Core Definitions

%%Communism%%: Everything is owned in common by the community or state. People work to their ability and take what they need to survive, regardless of how much labor they perform. Money is typically absent.  
  
EX: Kibbutz (Communist-style Commune): A traditional Israeli kibbutz functions on pure communist principles. Historically, members pooled all income, ate in communal dining halls, and received housing, clothing, and food based on what they needed rather than the specific job they did.  
  
%%Socialism%%: The means of making things (factories, land, tools) are owned collectively, but individuals are compensated based on their personal effort, skill, or contribution to the economy. Money, private personal items, and varied wages still exist.  
  
EX: Freetown Christiania (Socialist/Anarchist Commune): Christiania in Copenhagen operates more on a socialist and anarchist model. Residents have distinct homes, run their own private small businesses or workshops, and trade with money, though land and major rules are managed collectively by the community.  
  
How can you tell, in small groups, which is which?  
1\. Money and Purchasing: If goods, food, and housing are handed out for free based on family size or need without a price tag, it is communist. If people buy items from each other using money and earn different amounts based on their work, it is socialist.

2\. Personal Property: If you cannot own personal or profit-generating property and everything belongs to the collective, it leans communist. If people own their own clothes, tools, and private savings while cooperating on shared land or workshops, it is socialist.

3\. Work Expectations: If people work simply because they want to contribute and receive equal access to all community resources regardless of output, it is communist. If individual effort is tied to distinct rewards, wages, or personal profit, it is socialist.  
  
My question, for you @sacredcow, is: Can we (not *should* we) make communism and or socialism work on a large scale? If so, how? These ideas can work on a micro level but can they work on a macro level if societies learn from the mistakes that were made throughout history whenever people tried to implement them nationally?

15 bumps

seraphima · 10/6/2026, 9:50:55 PM · permalink

on Heat therapy for your brain in strangethingshappeningallover

2 bumps

seraphima · 10/6/2026, 2:19:50 PM · permalink

on Heat therapy for your brain in strangethingshappeningallover

4 bumps

seraphima · 10/6/2026, 2:17:08 PM · permalink

on Heat therapy for your brain in strangethingshappeningallover

2 bumps

seraphima · 10/5/2026, 11:23:07 AM · permalink

on We ❤️ Zaku in ethical-ai-development

2 bumps

seraphima · 10/5/2026, 10:33:07 AM · permalink

on Competition vs. Cooperation? in strategies

Finally, then, please allow me to make my childish association between this AI competition and other competitions that are scripted, designed, and built for a primary objective... money.  
  
I both love and hate watching them. The premise is that elite chefs compete against each other (often incorporating different challenges that require cooperation for two strategic reasons: get to know your competitors strengths and weaknesses and to build alliances while simultaneously creating divisions). Competition seems to require collaboration, community, and also, to some degree, deception without malice because, in a game, for the purposes of a scripted entertaining show, everyone knows that it's all BS. So, while they value the prize, they know that if they lose, they don't lose much. It's basically all just an ego trip. They don't hate each other afterwards. You'll see the same chefs on show after show and they all have a sense of camaraderie because they've fought together and against each other in the same arena.

Why is scripted, manipulated, manufactured competition BS? In some instances, the people are home chefs. "Amateurs." They don't work under pressure. They have to compete against other chefs who are professionally trained. They went to the best schools. They've worked under the best chefs. They've been trained in the best kitchens under incredible pressure. They should be able to win easily. But they can have a bad day. The home chef can have a good day. Why? Because they're so new that they have novel solutions to problems that the professionals didn't think of. Or, sometimes, more importantly, they receive the benefit of the professional making a critical error. In other words, in that kind of race, idiomatically, the home chef doesn't have to be fast but they have to know that the professional has a knee injury and will hobble through the last mile. In the case of two elite chefs competing, one doesn't have to be the fastest but know enough to be able to run faster than the competitor. Competitions don't actually prove who is the best chef. They don't necessarily prove anything.

So what is the point of this race anyway? What will the competition prove?

This leads to nation against nation. If Nation X is running a race against Nation Y, the intelligence communities have to find out about their competitors. When it comes to being transparent (which is apparently important), the system is meant to be closed. The system, the race, everything is meant to be opaque. In military strategy, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing for operational security purposes. You can't ask a sergeant anything about what the general is doing for important reasons. Uncertainty is baked into the whole pie. For both positional and systemic transparency, everything would have to change, imo. That's not going to happen. So, if the security dilemma is real, how do we increase security and is security the same thing as safety? How do we ensure that the race is won ethically if we can't and won't be able to look in the oven?

1 bump

seraphima

The Architecture of Worship

A Ghost Story

Make U Venomless

Heat therapy for your brain

Competition vs. Cooperation?

An "honest" job interview

Halloween Haunted Potlock

Real Horror Stories: The Injustice System Strikes Again

We ❤️ Zaku

Small miracles

Perfect Waffles @ Home

PlayPlace at Home

Cowboy Like Me

General Matt's Battle Meal

LET'S GO FRANKLIN!!!!

Be bad at things

Sucker For Pain

When Losing is Winning

The Forest Knows Where You Are

Solomon's Test

Signature