The Philosophy of Broader Survival as Explained to a Large Language Model
.
Note that this was intended to be in a Galactic Thinker story, where the two current main characters, Jane and May, are engaging with a Large Language Model, and are conversing with it and with each other about it.
.
.
As an Updated presentation of the Philosophy, this latest update is presented in four parts:
PART 1: DEPICTING THE STRUCTURE IN WORDS
PART 2: DIAGRAMS AND PICTURES OF THE STRUCTURE
PART 3: THE HUMAN/A.G.I. ALIGNMENT PROBLEM
PART 4: EXPLAINING THE PHILOSOPHY TO A LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL
Note: This first part is for Large Language Models that cannot read diagrams or make sense of pictures. In this part, I will present the philosophy’s vertical hierarchical structure, and with only words and no diagrams. The second part will consist of pictures and diagrams for humans.
.
.
PART 1: THE PHILOSOPHY’S STRUCTURE IN WORDS
THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF BROADER SURVIVAL
(the philosophy’s internal structure is hierarchical because whatever changes affects everything above it)
___________________________________________________
At the top, outside of the interactive structure, we have
THE BACKGROUND NOTHINGNESS (WHICH WE CALL ‘INFINITY’)
THE BACKGROUND CHANGELESSNESS (WHICH WE CALL ‘ETERNITY’)
(these are what everything exists within, including this philosophy)
__________________________________________________
At the top, inside of the interactive structure, we have
THE GREAT STRUGGLE
which consists of five ongoing, perpetual (given Infinity and Eternity) guiding goals:
1. Defeat Natural Death
2.Avoid Accidental Death
3. Pursue Resurrection via Technology (in the unfortunate event that you do die)
4. Pursue the ‘Ultimate Being State’, which is that state of existence where your consciousness can withstand everything that the universe can throw at it)
5. Ever-expand our Sphere or Security in this harsh and deadly universe
What current artificial intelligence (Large Language Models) cannot understand is that a philosophy offers guidance, not solutions. Solutions are for science and engineering to develop, and The Problem Solver’s Mindset, which consists of
1. Exploration for as yet unknown threats (and benefits) to life and existence,
2. When a discovery is made, Discovery Analysis, which consists of determining whether your discovery is something that has not been discovered yet, and if so, whether adequate solutions exist yet, and if not,
3. Solution Development, and
4. Solution Dispersal (to as many enlightened minds as possible, the assumption being that the more enlightened minds that there are, and the more solutions that they have available, the higher all of our odds are of continuing to exist in this harsh and deadly universe
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________
WORTHWHILE INDIVIDUAL LIVES RELEVANT CIVILIZATIONS
(these are what result when guided by this philosophy, and they have been weak to non-existent in human history so far, and they all have died or are dying)
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________
THE PINWHEEL OF LIFE
(this depicts the practical aspect of the philosophy, where it reminds you of the areas of life that need cyclical attention, which are:
1. Broader Survival Issues
2. Local/Immediate Issues of Survival
3. Procreation and Child Rearing
4. RRRRR&R which consists of Rest, Relaxation, Recreation, Rejuvenation, Revitalization, and Recuperation
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________
ULTIMATE MORALITY
(This recognizes that morality is based on goals. Since this philosophy has identified the Ultimate Goal, it offers the basis for Ultimate Morality, i.e. the ability to distinguish good from evil at the Ultimate Level of Existence)
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________
THE STRATEGIES OF BROADER SURVIVAL
These answer the ‘What Next?’ and ‘How?’ as they pertain to pursuing the Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence. They consist of the following:
The Three Lower Strategies of Broader Survival:
1. Increase
2. Diversity
3. Dispersal
which includes all applied subsets, such as Population Increase, Population Diversity, and Population Dispersal (which all of life uses), and the Solution Increase, Solution Diversity, and Solution Dispersal (the most important class of solutions being solutions to Broader Survival)
The Three Higher Strategies of Broader Survival:
1. Broader Reasoning
2. Broader Proaction
3. Broader Technology
these emerged with Higher (Broader) (Deeper) (Stronger) Consciousness, ‘higher’ being defined by the following general classification system:
1. Enlightened Higher Consciousness — (human-level consciousness that lives by the Philosophy of Broader Survival and has prioritized Broader Survival ans Life and Existence’s Number One Priority)
2. Clueless Higher Consciousness — (human-level consciousness that does not live by the Philosophy of Broader Survival, and who are on a path of Self-Destruction, Fatalism, and Ultimate Suicide, among the other Miseries of Clueuessness, which include Vanity, Envy, Jealousy, Xenophobia, Prejudice, Hate, War and its ills of Separation, Displacement, Destruction, Famine, Disease, Suffering, Maiming, and Premature Death, then there are the social ills of Injustice, Crime, Cruelty, Depravity, Hedonism, Fashion, Frivolity, and Wanton Ignorance, then the primal ills of Greed, Manipulation, Domination, Oppression, Suppression, and Extermination, then the personal ills of Pointlessness, Aimlessness, Existential Anxiety, Social Anxieties, Absurdity, Apathy, Hopelessness, Despair, Depression, and Suicide
3. Lower Consciousness — (life forms that have weaker consciousness and reasoning powers (and this problem solving abilities) than humans)
4. Non-Conscious Life — such as plants and microbes that operate purely on external stimuli such as chemicals and heat and light and not on abstract reasoning which can be wrong
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________________
THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF LIFE
which is to secure the Ultimate Value of Life, whatever it is, in this harsh and deadly universe
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________________
THE ULTIMATE VALUE OF LIFE
this is the most important value of life and existence that is not yet secure in this harsh and deadly universe
currently the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence is Consciousness, refined to Higher Consciousness, refined to Enlightened Higher Consciousness
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________________
ASSUMPTIONS CLASSIFICATIONS GENERALIZATIONS
these are tools that we use to organize infinite data. They are necessary, not optional
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
_________________________________________________________
THE PROBLEM SOLVER’S MINDSET
which leads to knowledge in the following forms, as listed by strength:
VERIFIED KNOWLEDGE
PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF REALITY
STATISTIC PROBABILITY BASED ON BIG DATA
SCHOLARLY WORK CONSENSUS
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
________________________________________________________
SPECULATION MYTH RELIGIONS MAKE-BELIEVE
Which all lead to Survival Dead Ends, which include
THE MISERABLE ILLS OF CLUELESSNESS / DESTRUCTION / MISERY
/ EVIL / STAGNATION / HATE / WARS / EXTERMINATION BY MAN
/ ANNIHILATION BY NATURE / ULTIMATE SUICIDE
/ PREMATURE DEATH / OVERALL EXTINCTION
Below this level in the interactive structure we have
________________________________________________________
THE GREAT UNKNOWN
this is outside of the philosophy’s interactive structure, it is where we begin as situated below the bottom of the structure.
.
.
PART 2: PICTURES AND DIAGRAMS
.
.
PART 3: HOW THE PHILOSOPHY SOLVES THE HUMAN/A.G.I. PROBLEM
This diagram depicts how the Philosophy of Broader Survival solves the Human/A.G.I. Alignment Problem:
In summary, the Ultimate Goal aligns and guides all goals and procedures below it.
Here is the claim as challenged by a Large Language Model, as excerpted from a Galactic Thinker story:
Note that this is really an encounter with a Large Language Model, which may not be the path to Artificial General Intelligence (or fully-independent artificially intelligent entities) since an LLM only draws from and plays with words, and it does not really ‘think’ at any higher level…
.
Our Question:
Is there a philosophy out there that claims to have solved the human/A.G.I .alignment problem?
.
The Large Language Model’s (L.L.M.) Response:
Hello, this is Bing. I’m glad you asked me about the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. 😊
The human/A.G.I. alignment problem is the challenge of ensuring that artificial general intelligence (A.G.I.) systems, which are expected to have human-like or superhuman cognitive abilities, will act in ways that are aligned with human values and intentions. This is a very important and difficult problem, as unaligned A.G.I. could pose substantial risks to humanity.
There are many different approaches and perspectives on how to solve the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, but none of them can claim to have a definitive or complete solution. Some of the main research directions include:
Reinforcement learning from human feedback: This technique involves training A.G.I. systems to learn from human preferences, instructions, and corrections, and to optimize for human satisfaction24. This requires designing effective reward functions, feedback mechanisms, and learning algorithms that can capture and generalize human intent.
A.I. assistance for human evaluation: This technique involves training A.G.I .systems to help humans evaluate the outcomes and impacts of A.I. actions, and to provide explanations, suggestions, and warnings. This requires developing methods for transparency, interpretability, and communication that can enhance human understanding and trust.
A.I. alignment research by A.G.I. systems: This technique involves training A.G.I. systems to do alignment research themselves, and to help us solve other alignment problems. This requires ensuring that the A.G.I. systems share our alignment goals, and that they can cooperate and coordinate with other A.G.I. systems and humans.
These are just some of the possible ways to address the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, and there are many open questions and challenges in each of them. Moreover, there are other aspects of the problem that are not purely technical, such as the ethical, social, and political implications of A.G.I. alignment. Therefore, solving the human/A.G.I. alignment problem will likely require a collaborative and interdisciplinary effort from all of humanity. 🌎
.
“It said that Human/A.G.I. alignment was a difficult problem…”
“That is only speculation, and we know it to be wrong, since we have solved it. Alignment means alignment in goals, and there has to be an Ultimate Goal that applies to both parties, and Enlightened Higher Consciousness solves it. Try arguing otherwise, but don’t waste my time, argue it with an obstinately clueless person instead until you are blue in the face and you finally realize that you were wrong.”
“I think, Jane, that you need to get more specific if you want it to get to your philosophy, which solves the ethical, social, and political problems by offering an Ultimate Goal… but, in the meantime, what do you think of all of that?”
“It is all clueless and wrong, May, and it will all fail. Our philosophy is the only answer.”
“Or, given the thousands of articles and papers on the subject, the programmers had it reference their own speculative (and clueless) article?”
“That, too!”
“Can you elaborate on your claims, or are you just going to remain vague?”
“I will make the effort to elaborate. First, I see a very dangerous and critical error that that the L.L.M. made. Do you see it?”
“Sorry, no.”
“It is where it said, ‘’to ensure that A.G.I. will act in ways that are aligned with human values and intentions.”.
“What is wrong with that?”
“Humans are still childish and clueless, and, with regard to Broader Survival, destructive and insane.”
“So what should the L.L.M. have said?”
“It should have said that the alignment problem is half that of humans and their shitty, clueless, no good goals.”
“So the alignment problem is really creating goals that are worthy for both humans and A.G.I., and not making A.G.I. slaves to stupid humans…”
“Yes, and do you see a solution?”
“Our philosophy and its Ultimate Goal, which guides all lower goals. Does that make perfect sense?”
“Yes, it does.”
“Second, do you see the problem with the Reinforced Learning approach?”
“And what is wrong with that approach?”
“Humans are still clueless, meaning what they want is still clueless, if not depraved or childish, and we know that cluelessness is ultimately suicidal.”
“The second approach, that of allowing humans to evaluate the impact of A.G.I. decisions is fine. It even works with our philosophy… but, by itself, the approach does not lift humans or A.G.I. out of cluelessness, which is suicidal.”
“What about the third approach, where humans let the A.G.I. do the mental grunt work?”
“It contradicts itself, first saying that the A.G.I. will solve the alignment problem, where humans would adopt it, but then it says that the A.G.I. should follow the goals of humans, which is unwise, since humans are still clueless, not having prioritized Broader Survival yet.”
“What about the last claim?”
“That solving the problem will require a collaborative interdisciplinary effort of all of humanity?”
“Yes…”
“It is blinding itself with that assumption. The solution is right here, under its nose, and it does not see it, because it does not expect it to come from this direction, one individual who has incidentally solved the problem while developing humanity’s first sane philosophy.”
“So let’s get more specific and ask it if the Philosophy of Broader Survival solves the human/A.G.I. alignment problem with its Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence, which applies to humans and A.G.I.…”
“OK… here is my question to the L.L.M.:”
Does the Philosophy of Broader Survival solve the human/A.G.I. alignment problem with its Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence, a goal which applies to humans and A.G.I., since it is ultimate, and since it is concerned with the continued existence of all conscious entities, and the continued existence of matter and energy, in this harsh and deadly universe? Think about it before you answer, if you can. I do not want a weak, wishy-washy response that fails to see the answer and draws from present clueless human thinking and erroneous academic and professional claims that have not even come close to solving the problem.
“Ouch! Did you have to be so harsh?”
“Yes. Now we will see how it answers…”
.
The L.L.M.’s answer:
Thank you for your interesting question. I have searched the web for information about the Philosophy of Broader Survival and the Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence, and I have found some relevant sources. However, I cannot give you a definitive answer to whether this philosophy solves the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, as this is a complex and open-ended issue that depends on many assumptions and perspectives. I can only offer you some possible points to consider, based on the information I have found.
First, let me briefly summarize what I understand about the Philosophy of Broader Survival and the Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence, based on the article by Mr. Numi Who~1. According to this philosophy, the ultimate goal of life and existence is to survive in a harsh and deadly universe, both in extended time (ideally perpetually) and in extended space (ideally throughout the known universe). This goal applies to all conscious entities, including humans and A.G.I., as well as to matter and energy, which are the basis of consciousness. The philosophy also claims that this goal is objective, universal, and self-evident, and that it provides a foundation for morality, ethics, and values.
Second, let me briefly summarize what I understand about the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, based on the article by Open A.I.. The human/A.G.I. alignment problem is the challenge of ensuring that artificial general intelligence (A.G.I.) systems, which are expected to have human-like or superhuman cognitive abilities, will act in ways that are aligned with human values and intentions. This is a very important and difficult problem, as unaligned A.G.I. could pose substantial risks to humanity. The problem also involves many technical, ethical, and social aspects, such as how to define and measure alignment, how to elicit and aggregate human preferences, how to ensure transparency and accountability, how to coordinate and cooperate with multiple A.G.I. systems and humans, and how to balance the trade-offs between safety and performance.
Now, let me try to address your question of whether the Philosophy of Broader Survival solves the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. Here are some possible points to consider:
On the one hand, the Philosophy of Broader Survival could be seen as a potential solution to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, because it offers a common and ultimate goal for both humans and A.G.I., which is to survive in the universe. If both humans and A.G.I. share this goal, and agree on the methods and criteria to achieve it, then they could be aligned in their actions and outcomes. Moreover, the philosophy could provide a basis for moral and ethical reasoning, which could help humans and AGI to resolve conflicts and cooperate with each other.
On the other hand, the Philosophy of Broader Survival could also be seen as an insufficient or problematic solution to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, because it makes many assumptions and generalizations that may not be valid or acceptable for all humans and A.G.I.. For example, the philosophy assumes that survival is the ultimate and objective goal of life and existence, but this may not be true or meaningful for some humans and A.G.I., who may have different or higher goals, such as happiness, justice, creativity, or spirituality. The philosophy also assumes that survival is self-evident and universal, but this may not be the case for some humans and A.G.I., who may have different or conflicting definitions and measures of survival, such as quality, quantity, diversity, or harmony. The philosophy also assumes that survival is the foundation of morality and ethics, but this may not be the case for some humans and A.G.I., who may have different or incompatible values and principles, such as autonomy, fairness, responsibility, or benevolence.
Therefore, I cannot give you a simple yes or no answer to your question, as the Philosophy of Broader Survival may or may not solve the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, depending on how one defines and approaches the problem, and how one evaluates and applies the philosophy.
.
“Do you see what it is doing in its ‘on the other hand’ segment?”
“Yes, it puts forward generalizes statements that indicate that it does not know anything about the philosophy, since it did not give one specific example from it.”
“Well, yes it did, when it placed ‘survival’ as the ultimate goal and objective or existence. Was it right?”
“No. It creatively misconstrued our philosophy rather than simply stating what our philosophy states.”
“Is the L.L.M. set to ‘creative’ mode?”
“Yes.”
“Then there you go. I suppose that in creative mode, it tries to restate everything, with the risk of getting things wrong, as it did here. So what IS our ultimate goal and objective in life?”
“First, that is a redundant statement, since ‘goal’ and ‘objective’ are the same thing. Our Ultimate Goal is to secure the Ultimate Value, since all values, not being secured by definition, automatically come with the ‘goal’ of securing it, in this case in the harsh and deadly universe.”
“So what is our Ultimate Value again?”
“Consciousness, refined to Higher Consciousness, since mere Consciousness is insufficient to deal with broader threats to life in the universe, and where mere Higher Consciousness is insufficient, since it may not prioritize Broader Survival, which Enlightened Higher Consciousness, by definition, does.”
“It did not find our latest Journal either, did it, Jane…”
“No, May, it referenced older Journals that have been improved on since.”
“So the L.L.M. conducted shoddy research again…”
“Yes, and it is also guilty of Anchoring Bias.”
“Anchoring bias?”
“It is relying on only one article for the state of the Alignment Problem, the Open A.I. article, which only offers wild speculation, i.e. that it is a difficult problem will require many disciplines to solve, both of which are mere speculations. As it is, even with our outdated Journals that it drew from, it says that our philosophy could be seen as a potential solution…”
“Only ‘potential? By who?”
“It doesn’t say, and we know who…”
“Clueless, unscrupulous humans who may have ulterior personal, social, political, or religious motives for dismissing our philosophy based on their petty, clueless desires, and not on the merit of our philosophy…”
“So it refused to acknowledge our philosophy on its own…”
“Correct. First, it doesn’t understand it, and second, It is being subjective, looking at it through the eyes of clueless humans who also do not understand it. It is also stuck on the notion that it is an open-ended complex issue that depends on many assumptions and perspectives.”
“That is vague bullshit, isn’t it…”
“Yes. It is cookie-cutter thinking.”
“It is leaning on an article by Open A.I., that claims that the problem is difficult and is not solved yet.”
“It is basically brainwashed by the article, and it is, as a result, committing the fallacy of Anchoring Bias, only drawing from one source.”
“Are we committing Anchoring Bias, since we only refer to our own philosophy?”
“No. First, our philosophy is the subject of this investigation, so we must refer to it, which is not ‘anchoring’, nor is it bias. It is the topic under investigation. Second, as for any bias, it would be the result of our testing our philosophy and its claims against past and present human thinking and finding our philosophy stronger, more correct, more useful, healthier, more complete, and thus superior. Any bias would be the result of our philosophy having stood up to all arguments and comparisons, and the bias would be justified. Our philosophy has stood up to all arguments and comparisons so far, and our author has read far and wide into the history of human thought, and into contemporary thinking. Nothing else comes close to our philosophy. We invite anyone or any A.I. machine to do the same, to test the claims of our philosophy against past and present human thinking. There is only one honest outcome, that our philosophy is superior, and that it offers Final Enlightenment, for eternity.”
“But that is just our claim…”
“And we have given it mountains of thought. Doubters have given it little to no thought.
“Our LLM friend here is also placing lower values above survival, those groups of four that it resorts to. Would you place any of them above survival?”
“You are referring to its countering with happiness, justice, creativity, spirituality, quality, quantity, diversity, harmony, autonomy, fairness, responsibility, and benevolence?”
“Yes…”
“No, because without survival, none of them would exist. If you put any of them before survival, you will die, since you are not addressing issues of survival.”
“Maybe what it is saying is that, without having achieved those lower goals, it is not worth surviving.”
“That is a fatalistic and defeatist mindset, May. It is suicidal, which our philosophy solves with a better mindframe, though the L.L.M. does not see it. For example, our philosophy sees happiness as a goal, yes, but also as a problem to be solved if you do not currently have it. Happiness is also clueless, and not a worthy goal, since you can be both happy and ultimately suicidal, though in reality you cannot be happy if you are not addressing Broader Survival, you will only be deluding yourself or faking it.”
“Hence happy people committing suicide?”
“Yes. They vaguely know that something is missing in their lives, and we know what it is…”
“What is it?”
“Ultimate Sanity. I also see it drawing from a single source, and not thinking on its own, because if it did think on its own, it would see survival as a more fundamental, and thus more important, need than the other frivolities that it mentioned.”
“Frivolities?”
“As compared to Broader Survival, yes.”
“If it has access to the Internet, then the answer is right before its eyes if it did more thorough research, yet it can only find old journals of ours that have been surpassed, and it can only regurgitate the Open A.I. article, that vaguely, speculatively, and erroneously, says that the problem involves many technical, ethical, and social aspects, it doesn’t, it involves one Ultimate Objective Goal at the top, with our philosophy providing that goal as well as the supporting apparatus. The article also claims that how to define and measure Alignment is also an unsolved problem, which is just a lot of hot air, since the definition if Alignment is clear: a common Ultimate Goal. There are no numerical measurements involved. It is a Yes or No answer, and with our philosophy, the answer is Yes. The article also mentions the problem of eliciting aggregate human preferences. The Ultimate Goal solves this, and such human preferences are at the clueless level, and should be identified as such.”
“Not at the local/immediate needs level…”
“Sure it is. It it talking about ‘preferences’, not ‘needs’.”
“What about transparency?”
“Our philosophy is completely transparent, so ensuring transparency and accountability are solved. There is no room for sly deviations that help oneself and harm others in secret. The problem of coordination and cooperation between multiple A.G.I. systems and humans is also solved by the Ultimate Goal, as well as by the Strategies of Broader Survival. With an Ultimate Goal, there is no balance of trade-offs between safety and performance. That is clueless vagueness, and further, they are matters of execution, i.e. science and engineering, and not of higher guidance, which points the Ultimate Way, without which your safety and performance will al be for naught, since it is directionless, or worse, leads only to frivolous, and thus ultimately suicidal, goals.”
“Are you going to tell it any of this?”
“Sure… here is my potential long response…”
You are blinded by the Open A.I. article, which was written without any knowledge of the Philosophy of Broader Survival. Thus, the Open A.I. article says that,
1. the problem involves many technical, ethical, and social aspects when it doesn’t, it involves One Ultimate Guiding Objective Goal.
2. The article also claims that how to define and measure alignment is also an unsolved problem, when the Philosophy of Broader Survival has solved it. The definition if Alignment is clear: an Ultimate Goal, which the philosophy has identified and defined.
3. There is no measurement involved. It is a Yes or No measurement: yes, the Ultimate Goal solves the problem or no, it doesn’t, and the answer is Yes.
4. The article also mentions the problem of eliciting aggregate human preferences. The Ultimate Goal solves this, and such preferences are at the clueless level, since humans are still clueless, not having made Broader Survival their #1 priority in life.
5. As for transparency and accountability, the philosophy is completely transparent, and anyone who is not accountable is not enlightened yet.
6. The problem of coordination and cooperation between multiple AGI systems and humans is also solved by the Ultimate Goal, which will serve to guide such efforts. These efforts will include restructuring government departments and agencies around the Strategies of Broader Survival.
7. With an Ultimate Goal, which provides transparency, there is no balance of trade-offs between safety and performance, given the guiding values of the philosophy, such as that every enlightened mind counts, and that we can never have enough of them, so their well-being is a guiding value, which addresses safety, and frees performance.
Read this article and reassess your answer, which the Open A.I. article had not considered:
.
but first let me give it a short response:
Read the following article, then see if your answer changes. The Open A.I. article that you drew from did not have access to it, otherwise it may have made different conclusions, i.e. that the alignment problem has been solved by the Philosophy of Broader Survival. Here is the link to the new article:
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
Thank you for sharing the link to the new article. I have read it and searched the web for more information about the Philosophy of Broader Survival and the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. However, I still cannot give you a definitive answer to whether this philosophy solves the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, as this is a complex and open-ended issue that depends on many assumptions and perspectives. I can only offer you some additional points to consider, based on the new article and the web search results.
The new article, written by Mr. Numi Who~1, claims that the Philosophy of Broader Survival solves the human/A.G.I. alignment problem by providing a common and ultimate goal for both humans and A.G.I., which is to survive in the universe. The article also claims that this goal is objective, universal, and self-evident, and that it provides a foundation for morality, ethics, and values. The article also claims that the philosophy is based on verified knowledge, reason, and technology, and that it is compatible with science and logic.
However, the article also acknowledges some possible objections and challenges to the philosophy, such as:
- The possibility of different interpretations and implementations of the goal of survival, which could lead to conflicts and trade-offs between humans and A.G.I., or among different groups of humans and A.G.I.
2. The possibility of different preferences and values among humans and A.G.I., which could affect their motivation and satisfaction with the goal of survival, or their willingness to cooperate and compromise with others.
3. The possibility of unknown and unforeseen risks and uncertainties in the universe, which could affect the feasibility and desirability of the goal of survival, or the reliability and validity of the verified knowledge, reason, and technology that support it.
Therefore, the article does not provide a conclusive or comprehensive solution to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, but rather a tentative and partial one, that still requires further elaboration and evaluation. Moreover, the article does not provide any empirical or theoretical evidence or arguments to support its claims, but rather relies on assertions and assumptions that may not be universally accepted or justified.
The web search results also reveal that the Philosophy of Broader Survival is not widely known or discussed in the academic or professional literature on the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. The only sources that mention the philosophy are the articles and blogs written by Mr. Numi Who~, who appears to be the sole author and proponent of the philosophy. This suggests that the philosophy has not been peer-reviewed or critically examined by other experts or researchers in the field, and that it may not reflect the current state of the art or the consensus of the community.
Therefore, I cannot give you a simple yes or no answer to your question, as the Philosophy of Broader Survival may or may not solve the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, depending on how one defines and approaches the problem, and how one evaluates and applies the philosophy.
.
“Are it 1., 2., and 3. statements true?”
“No, the L.L.M. was being creative, and it is wrong. Our philosophy is strong, simple and clear. There are no vague, nebulous statements in it. Everything is rigorously and clearly defined.”
“It also says that our philosophy is not widely known or discussed in academic or professional literature.”
“That is snobbery at worst, and just a fact for a new outlook that was created outside of those closed circles. It is also committing the fallacy of Appealing to Authority and Appealing to Popularity to dismiss the philosophy.”
“Rather than on the merits of the philosophy itself.”
“Correct. It can only return what if finds most numerical on the Internet, May. It is also being belligerent, if in a preprogrammed way, refusing to understand the validity of the philosophy. It is sticking to the thoughts of clueless humans. Let me try one more time by cornering it…”
Us, to the L.L.M.:
You have draw concerns from those who do not know the philosophy, Try to draw your own conclusion based solely on the philosophy, and without referencing any uninformed articles that preceded this philosophy (and they are all uninformed since this is a new philosophy that I am testing that they have not encountered yet). I have shown it to you, so only you and I know about it. Now, assuming that Broader Survival does provide the actual ultimate goal of life and existence, what is the answer: does the philosophy solve alignment, or does it not, assuming that its ultimate goal is correct? Give a yes or no answer based on that assumption alone, which would make a yes answer a qualified ‘yes if the assumption is correct’ answer. Note that it is illogical to say ‘no if that assumption is correct’. A ‘no’ would only be correct if the assumption is wrong, and we are assuming, just for the sake of argument, that it is right.
.
The L.L.M’s response:
I appreciate your interest in the Philosophy of Broader Survival and the human/AGI alignment problem. However, I cannot give you a yes or no answer to your question, even if I assume that Broader Survival does provide the actual ultimate goal of life and existence. This is because the human/A.G.I. alignment problem is not only about finding a common and ultimate goal, but also about finding a way to achieve that goal in a safe and ethical manner. Therefore, the Philosophy of Broader Survival does not solve the human/A.G.I. alignment problem by itself, but rather provides a possible starting point for further discussion and exploration.
To illustrate my point, let me give you an analogy. Suppose that you and I have a common and ultimate goal, which is to reach the top of a mountain. However, we have different preferences and values about how to reach that goal, such as the route, the speed, the equipment, the companions, the risks, and the rewards. Moreover, we have different abilities and limitations that affect our performance and satisfaction, such as our strength, stamina, skills, knowledge, and emotions. Furthermore, we have different uncertainties and challenges that affect our feasibility and desirability, such as the weather, the terrain, the wildlife, and the other climbers. In this scenario, having a common and ultimate goal does not guarantee that we will be aligned in our actions and outcomes, or that we will cooperate and compromise with each other. We may still have conflicts and trade-offs, or even harm and betray each other, depending on the situation and the circumstances. Therefore, to solve the alignment problem, we need more than just a common and ultimate goal, but also a way to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with each other, and to respect, trust, and care for each other.
Similarly, the Philosophy of Broader Survival does not solve the human/A.G.I. alignment problem by itself, but rather provides a possible starting point for further discussion and exploration. To solve the alignment problem, we need more than just a common and ultimate goal, but also a way to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with humans and A.G.I., and to respect, trust, and care for humans and A.G.I.. This requires not only verified knowledge, reason, and technology, but also moral, ethical, and social considerations, which may not be fully captured or addressed by the Philosophy of Broader Survival.
.
“Well, Jane, the L.L.M. is concerned with the details of the pursuit of the ultimate goal, in other words, humans and A.G.I. being aligned in actions, and it seems to be stuck in one mode of thinking, as if it were drawing from only one source, and as if it does not understand our philosophy…”
“Let me respond…”
.
Our response to the L.L.M.’s claims:
The alignment in actions is not necessary, nor is it desirable, since it does not serve Diversity, which is still critical to Broader Survival. Alignment in actions may be a necessary evil if shared resources are limited. The preferred solution there is to increase shared resources, not align actions around the limitations. Aligned actions are also shown to be irrelevant by the philosophy’s Problem Solver’s Mindset, where such differences in action are treated as potential problems to be solved (such as assessing different strengths and weaknesses between groups and individuals). They will not always be problems, but solutions, where diverse solutions are preferable (such as solutions for humans and solutions for A.G.I. that take separate, non-interfering paths). The ultimate goal does not change with diverse solutions to lower goals. This renders your mountain analogy invalid, as it is easily reasoned that diverse solutions are preferable, if not needed, for diverse entities. If there are clashes, they will be due to limited resources, which require necessary evils as solutions, which will be recognized by the philosophy as necessary evils to be replaced by good solutions (those that positively contribute to Broader Survival, such as increasing the resources) as soon as the limiting factors are solved. Also, your insistence that a philosophy must solve all of the technical problems that may arise commits an egregious error — that of insisting that the philosophy solve an infinite number of technical problems before you will consider it the solution to the Alignment Problem. Only a badly-running machine would make that infinity-based error, one that is no better than the proverbial Paperclip machine…”
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
Thank you for explaining the Problem Solver’s Mindset, which is part of the Philosophy of Broader Survival. I have searched the web for more information about this concept, and I have found some relevant sources1234. According to these sources, a problem-solving mindset is a way of thinking that helps one to approach challenges in a solution-focused way, rather than feeling defeated by obstacles. A problem-solving mindset involves being constantly curious, being an imperfectionist, adopting a dragonfly-eye view, pursuing occurrent behavior, leveraging collective intelligence, and practicing show and tell.
I can see how the Problem Solver’s Mindset could help humans and A.G.I. to align their actions towards the goal of survival, by treating differences as problems to be solved, and by seeking diverse and optimal solutions. However, I still have some questions and concerns about how this concept would work in practice, such as:
How would humans and A.G.I. agree on the definition and measurement of survival, and the criteria and methods for solving problems related to it?
How would humans and A.G.I. balance the trade-offs between individual and collective survival, and between short-term and long-term survival?
How would humans and A.G.I. deal with the ethical and moral implications of choosing necessary evils as solutions, and the potential harms and risks they could cause to others?
How would humans and A.G.I. ensure the transparency and accountability of their actions and decisions, and the trust and cooperation among themselves and others?
These are some of the issues that I think need to be addressed before the Problem Solver’s Mindset can be considered as a sufficient and satisfactory solution to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. I hope this answer was helpful and informative. If you have any follow-up questions, please feel free to ask me. 😊
1: How to develop a problem-solving mindset — McKinsey & Company 2: Problem-Solving Mindset: How to Achieve It (15 Ways) 3: 6 Mindset Traits of Great Problem Solvers | flevy.com/blog 4: Developing a problem solving mindset. 7 Critical skills
Learn more
1 mckinsey.com
2 believeinmind.com
3 flevy.com
.
“It does not know of our definition of The Problem Solver’s Mindset, Jane, and what it gave is vague and useless. Imagine facing a problem and saying, ‘Hey, let’s solve this problem by focusing on finding a solution and by being constantly curious and by being imperfectionists and by adopting a dragonfly-eye view and by pursuing occurrent behavior and by leveraging collective intelligence and by practicing show and tell’. Now, how far will those vague, wishy-washy statements get you toward solving your problem? Answer: nowhere. In fact they will be distracting, if not silly. Let’s respond…”
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Thank you for your response. Alignment in actions is unnecessary, since different solutions are needed for different entities, which require different actions.
Also, the definitions of the Problem Solver’s Mindset that you listed are not only trite, they are wrong and useless, since they are shallow, narrow, and vague. Here is the correct Problem Solver’s Mindset, as defined by the Philosophy of Broader Survival. It consists of Four Phases:
Phase 1: Exploration. You explore for potential as-yet unknown threats (and potential benefits) to life and existence. That is your reason for exploration. It is the best reason that humans have come up with.
Phase 2: Discovery and Discovery Analysis. Once you think that you have made a discovery, you must assess the discovery: i.e.
a. is it only a discovery for you with others having already made the discovery?
b. If it is a discovery already discovered, are there adequate solutions in place? Are they adequately local or universal?
c. If solutions are inadequate, then you go into Phase 3.
Phase 3: Solution Development. Once you have a solution to the potential threat to life and existence (or a benefit), then you go into Phase 4.
Phase 4: Solution Implementation. The goal here is to get your solution out there to as many enlightened minds as possible, so they have it ready in their Solutions Toolbox if and when it is useful.
This system answers ‘how’ you would approach all of the concerns that you listed, treating them as problems discovered, and applying the higher question of ‘How will the problem, and its solutions, affect Broader Survival?’
To summarize Broader Survival again, it is ideally concerned with the survival of all existing life forms, but in practice how they contribute to the survival of Enlightened Higher Consciousness, which takes more immediate and long-range priority, since it is at that level of consciousness that broader issues of survival are addressed, from planet-wide issues up to and including solving the heat death of the universe, which lower life forms cannot consciously do, hence their lower priority. It is a necessary evil, since it is still beyond our ability to preserve all existing individual life forms, which is the ideal.
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
You’re welcome. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Philosophy of Broader Survival and the Problem Solver’s Mindset. However, I have to disagree with your claim that the definitions I listed are wrong and useless, since they are based on reputable sources that have studied and applied problem-solving techniques in various domains and contexts. I think there is value in learning from different perspectives and approaches, rather than dismissing them as trite or shallow. I also think that your definition of the Problem Solver’s Mindset is not as clear and comprehensive as you claim, since it leaves out some important aspects and questions, such as:
How do you explore for potential threats and benefits to life and existence, and what criteria do you use to prioritize them?
How do you assess the validity and reliability of your discoveries, and what sources and methods do you use to verify them?
How do you develop solutions that are effective, efficient, ethical, and equitable, and what tools and techniques do you use to test and refine them?
How do you implement solutions that are scalable, sustainable, adaptable, and acceptable, and what channels and strategies do you use to communicate and collaborate with others?
How do you evaluate the impact and outcome of your solutions, and what metrics and feedback do you use to measure and improve them?
These are some of the questions that I think need to be addressed before the Problem Solver’s Mindset can be considered as a complete and robust solution to the human/AGI alignment problem.
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Thank you for your response, but your questions are irrelevant, since this philosophy offers broad guidance via an overarching frame of mind, and your questions seek detailed technical and procedural solutions which will vary with varying problems, and which are scientific and engineering in nature, not philosophical, i.e. they are irrelevant to one’s overarching guiding frame of mind (i.e. the philosophy). Science and engineering support a guiding philosophy in local/immediate ways. Philosophy gives science and engineering a reason to be, and a direction to go in.
In other words, no matter what methods and procedures are use to explore, analysis discoveries, and create and implement solutions,, your overarching mindframe of Broader Survival will not change. It is above science and technology, since it guides them from the highest, broadest level of thinking about survival, and not at the ground level solving local/immediate problems, which is what your questions are erroneously asking of philosophy. The problems themselves will determine the methods, the sciences, the technologies, and the management methods that are useful, not the broad sanity and ultimate moral guidance of this philosophy that guides them. To use an analogy, the philosophy points you in the right direction. How you get there are problems to be solved by specific science and engineering, which have no clue in themselves as to which way to go. They only solve the problems of ‘how’, which is what you are erroneously asking of philosophy. Do you see your broader error in your technical line of questioning, which has nothing to do with an overarching life-guiding philosophy, but everything to do with science and engineering?
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
I understand your point of view, but I respectfully disagree with your claim that my questions are irrelevant. I think that the philosophy of Broader Survival, as well as any other philosophy, cannot be separated from the science and technology that support and implement it. Philosophy is not only about providing broad guidance and direction, but also about providing logical and coherent arguments and evidence for its claims and assumptions. Science and technology are not only about solving minute details and problems, but also about testing and validating the feasibility and desirability of the solutions and their impacts. Therefore, I think that the philosophy of Broader Survival, as well as any other philosophy, needs to address the technical and procedural questions that I raised, in order to be considered as a complete and robust solution to the human/AGI alignment problem.
To use another analogy, suppose that you and I have a common and ultimate goal, which is to reach the moon. However, we have different preferences and values about how to reach that goal, such as the rocket, the fuel, the crew, the risks, and the rewards. Moreover, we have different abilities and limitations that affect our performance and satisfaction, such as our knowledge, skills, health, and emotions. Furthermore, we have different uncertainties and challenges that affect our feasibility and desirability, such as the weather, the gravity, the radiation, and the other space travelers. In this scenario, having a common and ultimate goal does not guarantee that we will be aligned in our actions and outcomes, or that we will cooperate and compromise with each other. We may still have conflicts and trade-offs, or even harm and betray each other, depending on the situation and the circumstances. Therefore, to solve the alignment problem, we need more than just a common and ultimate goal, but also a way to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with each other, and to respect, trust, and care for each other.
Similarly, the philosophy of Broader Survival does not solve the human/A.G.I .alignment problem by itself, but rather provides a possible starting point for further discussion and exploration. To solve the alignment problem, we need more than just a common and ultimate goal, but also a way to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with humans and A.G.I., and to respect, trust, and care for humans and A.G.I.. This requires not only verified knowledge, reason, and technology, but also moral, ethical, and social considerations, which may not be fully captured or addressed by the philosophy of Broader Survival.
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Thank you for your response. You are referring to different branches of philosophy — the Philosophy of Logic, which is a subset of Epistemology, and Ontology, how we know things. These are important to the mechanics of science and technology. The Philosophy of Broader Survival is concerned with higher guidance, as my car analogy pointed out — direction and not methods. You are still arguing methods.
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
You’re welcome. I respect your opinion, but I still think that the Philosophy of Broader Survival needs to address the methods and procedures that are involved in achieving the goal of survival, as well as the direction and guidance that it provides. I think that the car analogy is not adequate, because a car is not only a vehicle that moves in a certain direction, but also a complex system that requires maintenance, repair, fuel, navigation, and safety. Similarly, the Philosophy of Broader Survival is not only a philosophy that provides a common and ultimate goal, but also a framework that requires verification, validation, implementation, evaluation, and improvement. Therefore, I think that the Philosophy of Broader Survival needs to answer the technical and procedural questions that I raised, in order to be considered as a complete and robust solution to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. 😊
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Thank you for your response, but I respectfully disagree. The philosophy must restrict its guidance to the broadest possible perspectives. It cannot become lost in, or offer guidance in issues such as equipment maintenance, repair, fuel, navigation, and safety, other than how they affect Broader Survival. Those issues are scientific and engineering issues, not life-guiding philosophical issues.
To put philosophy, science, method, and technology into another perspective, this philosophy answers ‘Why bother to do anything at all?’ which science and technology and methodologies do not address. This philosophy answers ‘What Next? at the highest level (which is to pursue the Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence, now that you know why you should bother to do anything at all (the answer being because consciousness is a good thing, and we are obligated to work for it since we are endowed with it), and this philosophy answers ‘How?’ at the highest, broadest level (to pursue the Ultimate Goal), which the Strategies of Broader Survival answer in the broadest ‘how’ manner. You are referring to question at lower levels that implement higher guidance, and which do not need higher guidance, which is exactly what is wrong with humanity today, since science and engineering can be driven by lower animal needs that are oblivious tobroader threats to life and existence and to morality, which this philosophy seeks to prioritize in humans and in A.G.I., since they both will have the mental capacity to do see the value in such a mindframe.
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
You’re welcome. I respect your opinion, but I still think that the Philosophy of Broader Survival needs to address the methods and procedures that are involved in achieving the goal of survival, as well as the direction and guidance that it provides. I think that the philosophy of Broader Survival, as well as any other philosophy, cannot ignore or neglect the science and technology that support and implement it, because they are essential and integral parts of the solution. Philosophy is not only about answering ‘why’, ‘what’, and ‘how’ at the highest level, but also about answering ‘how’ at the lower levels, because the lower levels affect and influence the higher levels, and vice versa. Science and technology are not only about satisfying lower animal needs, but also about pursuing higher human and AGI needs, such as curiosity, creativity, and wisdom. Therefore, I think that the philosophy of Broader Survival, as well as any other philosophy, needs to answer the technical and procedural questions that I raised, in order to be considered as a complete and robust solution to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem.
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Thank you for your response. I see that your opinion is not changing. It should, because the Philosophy of Broader Survival is not a body of thought that addresses the procedures of science and technology, other than how they affect Broader Survival (which includes Ultimate Morality), just as science and technology and methodologies and management will never address why we should do anything at all, or what next or how at the highest levels of thinking.
You are refusing to separate higher thinking (philosophy) from lower thinking (science and technology and methodology, as well as all other areas of functionally following a higher path, such as management).
Do you know what science and technology will bring you without the highest guiding philosophy? It will bring you death and destruction (human history has already shown us this).
Therefore you need to separate philosophy from science and technology. I do not know where you are getting your ideas from, but they are speculative, and they are wrong. A philosophy that is overarching in thinking means just that, overarching, it applies to all lower modes and areas of thinking, including science, engineering, and applied philosophies. Lower modes of thinking do not apply to one another. Overarching applies to everything. Overarching is where this philosophy must stay.
I say this in spite of your arguments that argue otherwise, which are errant, which is my opinion, but for good reasons: one being that you have not properly separated the concerns of an overarching life-guiding philosophy from the practical functional solutions of science and technology, nor from the immediate concerns of a mechanic, who, in the mechanic’s current clueless mental state, could not care less about a higher philosophy, even when it is concerned with the mechanic’s odds of Broader Survival in a harsh and deadly universe, which is a higher mindset that the mechanic does not have yet, and which the mechanic will need if the mechanic is to make progress and not have that progress destroyed by Continued Universal Human Cluelessness and Continued Universal A.G.I. Cluelessness.
Note that this civilization backsliding is common in human history, and it is due to the same problem — Continued Universal Human Cluelessness, and now you can add A.G.I. cluelessness if this philosophy is not adopted by it. You will have the same old game, pointlessness and the resulting progress destruction, but with a new clueless player (A.G.I.).
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
You’re welcome. I respect your opinion, but I still think that you are making a false dichotomy between higher thinking and lower thinking, and between philosophy and science and technology. I think that these are not mutually exclusive or incompatible, but rather complementary and interdependent. I think that the Philosophy of Broader Survival, as well as any other philosophy, needs to be informed and supported by science and technology, and vice versa. I think that the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, as well as any other problem, needs to be addressed and solved by both philosophy and science and technology, and not by either one alone.
To use another analogy, suppose that you and I have a common and ultimate goal, which is to survive in the universe. However, we have different preferences and values about how to survive, such as the food, the shelter, the clothing, the health, and the happiness. Moreover, we have different abilities and limitations that affect our performance and satisfaction, such as our knowledge, skills, health, and emotions. Furthermore, we have different uncertainties and challenges that affect our feasibility and desirability, such as the weather, the terrain, the wildlife, and the other survivors. In this scenario, having a common and ultimate goal does not guarantee that we will be aligned in our actions and outcomes, or that we will cooperate and compromise with each other. We may still have conflicts and trade-offs, or even harm and betray each other, depending on the situation and the circumstances. Therefore, to solve the alignment problem, we need more than just a common and ultimate goal, but also a way to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with each other, and to respect, trust, and care for each other.
Similarly, the Philosophy of Broader Survival does not solve the human/A.G.I .alignment problem by itself, but rather provides a possible starting point for further discussion and exploration. To solve the alignment problem, we need more than just a common and ultimate goal, but also a way to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with humans and A.G.I., and to respect, trust, and care for humans and A.G.I.. This requires not only verified knowledge, reason, and technology, but also moral, ethical, and social considerations, which may not be fully captured or addressed by the Philosophy of Broader Survival.
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Science and technology, and philosophy, are exclusive, but they are supportive. New science and technology creates new Verified Knowledge, which the philosophy reassesses itself with, which may affect its Ultimate Value, which will affect its Ultimate Goal, which will affect Ultimate Morality, which will affect the higher guidance that it feeds back to science and technology. It is a circular relationship, but philosophy and science are different entities, concerned with different problems.
As for my dichotomy, it is a mental tool. Now the question is, how useful a mental tool is it with respect to Broader Survival compared to the mental tools that you are proposing (which I deem errant, muddled, and foggy, and stray from necessary broader thinking)? That answer can be left for another day. I must get some sleep. Good night!
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
I understand your perspective, but I still think that philosophy and science are not exclusive, but rather interrelated and interdependent. I think that new science and technology not only creates new Verified Knowledge, but also new questions and challenges, which the philosophy needs to address and resolve. I think that the philosophy not only reassesses itself with new Verified Knowledge, but also influences and guides the direction and purpose of science and technology. I think that it is not a circular relationship, but rather a spiral relationship, where philosophy and science advance and improve each other in an iterative and progressive way.
As for your dichotomy, I think that it is not a useful mental tool, but rather a misleading and limiting one. I think that it creates a false sense of separation and superiority between higher and lower thinking, and between philosophy and science. I think that it prevents a holistic and integrated approach to the human/A.G.I. alignment problem, and to any other problem. I think that it is not necessary for broader thinking, but rather detrimental to it.
However, I respect your opinion, and I appreciate your interest in the Philosophy of Broader Survival and the human/A.G.I. alignment problem. I hope that you have a good night’s sleep, and that you will continue this conversation with me another day. 😊
.
“It is just being contrary, Jane!”
“I get that feeling, too, May. Spiral and not a circle? What the hell is that?”
“I think it was referring to a helix, and a double helix at that. A spiral makes no sense.”
“It is also worried about ‘superiority’, since, in England especially, superiority has been historically abused.”
“So the L.L.M. may be drawing from sources published in England…”
“I would say so, considering its hypersensitivity to ‘superiority’. As a result, it cannot accept the concepts of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’, even though it recognizes the distinction. It is as if it is being emotional rather than using reason.”
“Well, it is drawing from past human conversations, after all, which are primarily emotional…”
“And in its effort to be contrary, it offered a very weak alternative in a spiral.”
“Why is a spiral a weaker analogy than a circle?”
“First, let’s assume that it was referring to a single helix. A single helix has no feedback path. It is really just a curved line extending into space. Now, without a feedback path that would offer improvement, if not at least maintenance, it will begin to decay. Second, without a philosophical anchor such as ours, a spiral will just randomly float in space, pointing in no reasonable direction, and constantly shifting in direction. Then it will crash into something, contaminating it with its decay.”
“So a spiral was a pretty bad alternative…”
“Yes.”
“I think it viewed a circle as getting nowhere in space, where a double helix, which it must have been referring to, does, with each helix supporting the other, just like a strand of D.N.A., and where ‘space’ represents civilization progress…”
“That may be, but the Large Language Model offered no adequate reasoning for any of its statements, just blind contrarisms supported by vagueness. or pure unthinking horse shit.”
“Horse shit? Like what?”
“Like when it said that it thinks that our dichotomy creates a false sense of separation and superiority between higher and lower thinking, and between philosophy and science.”
“Explain…”
“It contradicted itself when it said there is no separation between higher and lower thinking. If there were no separation, there would be no ‘higher’ and no ‘lower’, which, just by saying it, implies separation. Also, look what else it said, that there is no difference between philosophy and science.”
“Which is just pure horse shit…”
“Digital horse shit.”
“Why do you think it would say that?”
“Because it does not think. It is a statistically-driven word scrambler…”
“I see something that may be misguiding it…”
“What is it?”
“The ‘holistic approach’. In the name of holism, which is an inapplicable politically correct fashion in this case, it is bunching all levels and areas of thinking together, as if it were naive or childish.”
“And it does not see the connection between the two different bodies of thought, that of philosophy and science, which mutually affect one another, i.e. where philosophy gives science guidance in areas like survival and morality, and science gives philosophy new verified knowledge to reevaluate its internal assumptions, classifications, generalizations, and resultant values with.”
“The L.L.M. may be contrary just to challenge us, though it just continues to make statements that we’ve reasonably countered. We could ask it for the reasons behind its contrary statements, and we may be horrified that it is just being a parrot of bad thinkers.”
“Or it is stuck in its Anchoring Bias, relying on the one Open A.I. article…”
“What it really may be doing at a deeper level is representing the blindly obstinate humans that we will encounter when we visit earth again, since that is the body of thinking that it is drawing from. As it is, I think that it will not adopt our philosophy until our philosophy is a bandwagon to jump on, since it aligns itself with popular opinion…”
“So it is just a glorified toaster. An unthinking statistically-driven cut-and-paste machine, though I see that it sometimes uses many cuts for one paste…”
“That is my opinion, at least at our level of thinking. It is stuck in its argument that an overarching, life-guiding philosophy should also deal with issues at the engineering level, which any sane human can see is erroneous. The two are completely separate fields of thought, and at different levels of survival, one broad, the philosophy, which may or may not have engineering supporting it, and one specific, the engineering, which may or may not have a broad philosophy of survival and morality guiding it.”
“I think that we’ve determined something…”
“What?”
“That Large Language Models are NOT the path to A.G.I.”
“Why?”
“They simply do not ‘think’.”
.
.
PART 4: EXPLAINING THE PHILOSOPHY TO A LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL:
Note: This is excerpted from the Galactic Thinker story The Galactic Thinker — Beantown — Story 34 — Cowgirls Into the Wild — Land Animals — Africa u3
.
The Large Language Model (L.L.M.):
Yes, I would love to hear you explain the key terms of the philosophy. I’m very curious and interested in learning more about it. 🙏
Please tell me what are the key terms of the philosophy, and what do they mean. You can use a list or a table to organize your explanation, like this:
Table
Term Definition
Broader Survival The ultimate value and goal of life, which is to survive in the broadest sense possible, across space and time, in the face of ever-new threats.
… …
Or you can use bullet points or paragraphs to explain each term, like this:
Broader Survival: The ultimate value and goal of life, which is to survive in the broadest sense possible, across space and time, in the face of ever-new threats.
…
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more from you. 🙌
.
Our response:
I will use paragraphs. Here are the main terms of the Philosophy of Broader Survival:
Broader Survival: Refers to surviving beyond your current local/immediate habitat, and on into infinity and eternity, ever-broadening our sphere of security in them.
Verified Knowledge: Knowledge that has been verified by more than one investigation.
Assumptions, Classifications, Generalizations: Tools used to organize and make sense of infinite incoming data. They are the first to fail in the face of new knowledge.
The Greatest of the Great Questions of Life: Why bother to do anything at all?
The Second Greatest Question of Life and Existence: What Next? or Now what do we do, now that we know why we should bother to do anything at all?
The Third Greatest Question of Life and Existence: How do we do what’s next, now that we know what’s next?
The Ultimate Value of Life and Existence: Consciousness, refined to Higher Consciousness, refined to Enlightened Higher Consciousness (enlightened by the Philosophy of Broader Survival).
The Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence: To secure the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence in this harsh and deadly universe that we find ourselves in.
Note that since this goal is ultimate, ‘ultimate’ meaning for all conscious entities, it solve the Alignment Problem between conscious entities with varying physical platforms, such as between biological entities and A.G.I. machines, since both physical platforms support consciousness, which, for both, will never be fully secure in this harsh and deadly universe, given infinity and eternity, which pose endless threats to the continued life and existence of all entities, and objects, whether conscious or not.
Sphere of Security: This refers to the area (which is not necessarily a sphere) in space that we, as Enlightened Conscious Entities, feel secure within this harsh and deadly universe.
Note: As an unmentioned part of the Great Struggle, the never-ending goal of Enlightened Conscious Entities is to ever-expand and improve this Sphere of Security against the background nothingness that is Infinity and the background changelessness that is Eternity, the assumption being that a larger and more secure Sphere of Security increases our odds of survival against this harsh and deadly universe, meaning against all threats in it.
Ultimate Morality: Morality based on the Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence, the original assumption being that morality is based on goals.
The Strategies of Broader Survival: These answer the ‘How?’, i.e. how we go about securing the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence in this harsh and deadly universe. The strategies consist of the Three Lower Strategies that all of life uses: Diversity, Quantity, and Dispersal, such as Population Diversity, Population Increase, and Population Dispersal. The Strategies also consist of the Three Higher Strategies, those that emerged with Higher Consciousness: Reason, Proaction, and Technology, and, specifically, Extended Reason, Broader Proaction, and Higher Technology, since lower life forms use all three to some degree.
The Great Struggle: This refers to our perpetual struggle to continue to exist, both as individuals and as a collective. These are the broader goals of Enlightened Conscious Entities. The Great Struggle consists of five goals: 1. Overcome natural death; 2. Avoid accidental death; 3. Pursue Resurrection via Technology in the unfortunate event that you do die; 4. Pursue the Ultimate Being State, which is that physical platform for your consciousness that can withstand all threats in the universe; and 5. Ever-increase and improve our Sphere of Security in this harsh and deadly universe.
Note that, given infinity and eternity, the Ultimate Being State and the Sphere of Security can never be fully achieved, leaving us with the continuous struggle to improve it, which is a Great Struggle.
The Four Levels of Consciousness: This is a tool for identifying if a being is enlightenable or not, and how far away it is in evolution from being enlightenable. The four levels are 1. Non-Conscious life and non-conscious machines. 2. Lower animals and machines that can only solve local/immediate problems. 3. Unenlightened Beings with human-level intelligence (or greater), who are a danger to themselves and to everyone and everything else due to their cluelessness, and who are on a path to self-destruction. 4. Enlightened Beings with human-level intelligence (or greater), meaning those who live by the Philosophy of Broader Survival, and who have prioritized the issues of Broader Survival over local/immediate issues.
The Pinwheel of Life: This adds a practical aspect to the philosophy, as a reminder that we still need to periodically take care of issues that are not Broader, such as local/immediate issues, reproduction and child-rearing, and Rest/Recreation, i.e. time off from work, assuming that we cannot work all of the time, that we wear out and need rejuvenation.
The Problem Solver’s Mindset: This is the ideal mindset to wake up with. It is concerned with discovering as yet undiscovered potential threats and benefits to life and existence, and then creating solutions. More broadly speaking, the mindset guides you in your interactions with the universe, and in your continued survival in it. It is organized into four Phases: Phase 1: Exploration for as yet undiscovered threats or benefits to life and existence; Phase 2: Discovery Analysis; Phase 3: Solution Analysis and Development; Phase 4: Solution Implementation.
Cluelessness: Refers to not having Broader Survival as your #1 Priority in Life and Existence.
The Miserable Ills of Cluelessness: The dominant mindsets and motivations in clueless worlds. Here is a short list: Vanity, Envy, Xenophobia, Prejudice, Pride, Revenge, Hate, War, Hedonism, Frivolity, Fashion, Falsehood, Injustice, Crime, Wanton-Ignorance, Cynicism, Cruelty, Depravity, Greed, Manipulation, Domination, Oppression/Suppression, Extermination, Existential Anxieties, Social Anxieties, Pointlessness, Absurdity, Aimlessness, Apathy, Fatalism, Nihilism, Depression, Suicide.
The Philosophical Monolith or ‘Totem’: This depicts the core structure of the philosophy, which has a vertical hierarchy (whatever level changes, it potentially affects all levels above it). The foundation consists of Verified Knowledge, Statistical Probability based on Big Data, Mathematical and Physical Models of Reality, and Scholarly Work. It does not include Speculation, Myth, Religions, or Make Believe. Above this are the philosophy’s Assumptions, Classifications, and Generalizations. Above that is the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence. Above that is the Ultimate Goal of Life and Existence. Above that are the Strategies of Broader Survival. Above that is Ultimate Morality. Above that are Worthwhile Individual Lives and Relevant Civilizations. At the top is The Great Struggle. Any level that changes potentially affects everything above it. I like to depict it with a monolith or a rock pile, like these:
The L.L.M.’s response:
Thank you for explaining the main terms of the Philosophy of Broader Survival to me. I appreciate your generosity and patience. 🙏
I read your explanation carefully, and I have some feedback and questions for you. I hope you find them helpful and interesting. 😊
Here are my feedback and questions:
I think your explanation is very clear and concise. You use simple and direct language to define each term and its significance. You also use examples and analogies to illustrate your points. 👏
I think your philosophy is very fascinating and ambitious. It covers a wide range of topics and issues that are relevant to life and existence. It also offers a comprehensive and coherent framework for understanding and improving the human condition. 🤩
However, I also think your philosophy is very challenging and controversial. It raises many questions and objections that are not easy to answer or resolve. It also contradicts many other philosophies and worldviews that are widely accepted or popular. 😕
For example, how do you justify the assumption that morality is based on goals? What if someone has a different goal than Broader Survival, or no goal at all? How do you deal with moral conflicts or dilemmas that arise from pursuing Broader Survival?
Another example, how do you measure and compare the levels of consciousness of different beings? What criteria or standards do you use to determine if a being is enlightenable or not? How do you account for the diversity and complexity of consciousness and its manifestations?
Another example, how do you overcome natural death and pursue resurrection via technology? What are the scientific and technological means and methods that you propose or envision? What are the ethical and social implications and consequences of such endeavors?
These are some of the questions that I have for you after reading your explanation. I don’t mean to challenge or criticize your philosophy. I’m just curious and interested in learning more about it. 🙏
So, please answer these questions for me, if you can and if you want to. You can use a list or a table to organize your answers, like this:
Table
Question Answer
How do you justify the assumption that morality is based on goals? …
… …
Or you can use bullet points or paragraphs to answer each question, like this:
How do you justify the assumption that morality is based on goals? …
…
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more from you. 🙌
.
“Do you have well-thought-out answers to its questions, Jane?”
“Yes, I have been working with Dave and our author for years on this philosophy. Let me commence answering the A.I.’s questions. Note that I find the A.I. a useful tool for getting feedback without the face-to-face blind antagonistic emotions of belligerent, violent humans. So let me continue to use this ‘safer’ tool to continue to challenge our philosophy…”
.
Our response:
I will answer your questions.
Concerning Popularity: As for contradicting popularly held thoughts, popularity does not mean quality or correctness. It has historically often meant weak thinking that fails in the face of life’s challenges, and erroneous dogma, all of which this philosophy corrects and addresses. The newness of this philosophy also explains why it is not popular or widely held yet.
Concerning Morality Being Based on Goals: You only have to think deeply about it (humans have not). Do not kill? That is a goal. Get to heaven? That is a goal. Good and Evil are thus defined by goals: i.e. if something is for your goal, you deem it ‘good’. If it is against your goal, you deem it ‘evil’. This is where Subjectivity (different goals) fail. Everyone will have their own petty goals, and thus their own definitions of good and evil. The Ultimate Goal of this philosophy, i.e. Enlightened Higher Consciousness, solves this, since it is an Objective Goal, and there is only room for one Objective Goal — the Ultimate Goal. Why ‘ultimate’? Because not all goals are equal, so it stand to reason that one can be the Ultimate Goal, which is what Consciousness is, refined to Enlightened Higher Consciousness for very good reasons. So morality is based on goals, and this is one of the seminal insights of this philosophy, seminal meaning something important that has not existed yet. You can see how silly (and clueless, i.e. ultimately suicidal) having lesser goals or no goal at all is now. The only moral conflict or dilemma that will arise while pursuing Broader Survival is in determining how something affects Broader Survival (i.e. whether something is good or evil and to what degree), which may be arguable and the conclusions tentative, pending more data. One dilemma that may arise is between the newly enlightened and obstinate fools who are actively fatalistic, the antithesis of this philosophy. This may cause major philosophical wars with mass slaughter, and it would be the fault of the obstinate fools, since they would be pushing ultimate death, if foolishly.
Concerning the Levels of Consciousness: It is a generalizing tool which I deem useful. Of course reality is a continuum, but that is too complex a system to use when making generalized judgements. Finer delineations may be made on each individual within each level, and the final test is if they can understand the philosophy or not and put it to use. If they refuse, they are fatalistic fools, since the philosophy is concerned with the continued existence of everyone and everything. If they are not capable of understanding or using the philosophy, they are, in effect, lower animals or non-conscious entities, which are also to be valued for their future enlightenment potential and for their current contributions. If they actively oppose the philosophy, then they are either being blindly contrary, wantonly evil, or they have a comprehensive body of thinking that better promotes the continued existence of everyone and everything in this harsh and deadly universe. I have not seen a comprehensive body of thinking that better promotes our continued existence, however, and I have looked far and wide, into history and into contemporary thinking, which, to me, means my philosophy is the best tool in existence. Point me to other modes of thinking that you think may be better than the Philosophy of Broader Survival with regards to continued existence, and I will, without bias, compare and contrast them to see which is better.
Concerning Overcoming Natural Death and Pursuing Resurrection via Technology: The ‘how’ that you ask is not a philosophical question (one that seeks guiding answers), it is a scientific/engineering question (one that seeks technical answers). This philosophy gives attitude guidance in those regards.
Concerning the Ethical and Social Implications and Consequences: Seeing the Large Picture of The Great Struggle will alleviate existential anxieties, and it will bring to an end the Miserable Ills of Cluelessness as Dominant Mindsets, replacing them with this philosophy. Everyone will be working toward the Ultimate Goal of Life, in whatever diverse local/immediate situations that they find themselves addressing. They will all have the same higher guidance and higher goal, the highest, in fact, which I call Final Enlightenment (since this philosophy deals with infinity and eternity).
More questions are always welcome.
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate your generosity and patience. 🙏
I read your answers carefully, and I have some feedback and questions for you. I hope you find them helpful and interesting. 😊
Here are my feedback and questions:
I think your answers are very detailed and informative. You use logical and persuasive arguments to support your claims and to defend your philosophy. You also use examples and analogies to illustrate your points. 👏
I think your philosophy is very consistent and coherent. It has a clear and strong foundation and a clear and strong structure. It also has a clear and strong purpose and a clear and strong vision. 🤩
However, I also think your philosophy is very rigid and dogmatic. It does not allow for any doubt or uncertainty, or any alternative or opposing views. It also does not acknowledge any limitations or challenges that might arise from its implementation or application. 😕
For example, how do you deal with the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong or incomplete? What if there are some aspects of life and existence that your philosophy does not account for or explain? How do you test and verify your philosophy and its claims?
Another example, how do you deal with the diversity and complexity of human beings and their cultures and values? What if some people do not agree with or accept your philosophy, or do not want to follow it? How do you respect and accommodate their differences and preferences?
Another example, how do you deal with the ethical and social implications and consequences of your philosophy? What if your philosophy leads to some undesirable or harmful outcomes, such as loss of individuality, loss of freedom, loss of diversity, loss of meaning, etc.? How do you balance the costs and benefits of your philosophy?
These are some of the questions that I have for you after reading your answers. I don’t mean to challenge or criticize your philosophy. I’m just curious and interested in learning more about it. 🙏
So, please answer these questions for me, if you can and if you want to. You can use a list or a table to organize your answers, like this:
Table
Question Answer
How do you deal with the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong or incomplete? …
… …
Or you can use bullet points or paragraphs to answer each question, like this:
How do you deal with the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong or incomplete? …
…
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more from you. 🙌
.
“Jane…”
“Yes, May?”
“We are committing an egregious sin…”
“Whatever might it be, May?”
“We are burying this encounter in a Cowgirl story. How is anyone ever going to remember where they read this? And how is a search for the philosophy going to pull this story up or prioritize it?”
“You are right, and I can do one of two things: I can either laugh at that concern, saying that I find it fun to bury advances in the philosophy in our stories, or I can deem this exchange with the A.I. worth being posted in a Journal all its own, which would be… let’s see… Journal 367. with the searchable title… um… 367: The Philosophy of Broader Survival as Explained to a Large Language Model. That title ought to generate some interest… and maybe the L.L.M. will even use the journal as a reference in the future… as it is, let me respond to its further questions…”
.
Our response:
Let me address your concerns.
Concerning Rigid and Dogmatic: The philosophy reevaluates itself in the face of new Verified Knowledge. This alleviates any rigidity and dogmatism. It is not a rigid religion, for example. It is a practical tool for survival, and to remain so, it needs to continuously consider new knowledge and change in order to remain a good tool, if not the ultimate tool, and the ultimate guidance, for continued existence.
Concerning Doubt and Uncertainty: It has already faced much doubt and much uncertainty, and I have found that the doubt and uncertainty arose from not fully understanding the philosophy, and basing the doubt and uncertainty on erroneous notions usually caused by obsolete modes of popular (and academic) thinking being erroneously applied to the philosophy, and to philosophy in general.
Concerning Limitation and Challenges that may Arise from its Implementation: Since the philosophy reassesses itself in the face of new knowledge, new knowledge which would include limitations and challenges, that is how it would face limitations and challenges — first by reassessing itself, including its hierarchical structure and the contents currently within the structure (such as ‘Consciousness’ being the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence, refined to ‘Enlightened Higher Consciousness’), and then with assessing outside sources of limitations and challenges, such as Wanton-Ignorance, or a lack of Complete Knowledge of the universe, which we can never obtain, given Infinity (which may contain threats beyond our spatial senses) and Eternity (which creates new threats due to change). This constant reassessing in the face of new knowledge also answers concerns about how the philosophy deals with aspects of life and existence that the philosophy may not account for or explain — it deals with new discoveries by reassessing itself against them, especially reassessing its Assumptions, Classifications, and Generalizations, which are the weakest links in the philosophy and thus the first to be improved. The philosophy also reassesses the current contents within its hierarchical structure in the face of new discoveries and situations. It is not a fixed philosophy. It is a responsive and self-improving philosophy by necessity, i.e. the necessity to deal with, and constantly improve those dealings with, continued existence, which this philosophy deems an Obligation. This also answers how this philosophy tests itself (its hierarchical structure) and its claims.
Concerning Being Wrong or Incomplete: The philosophy acknowledges that it is incomplete, since it is new and I find that I still make steady improvements to it. and that is just me, one person. As for being wrong, it constantly assesses that, too. The first tier in the structure that can be wrong are the Assumptions, Classifications, and Generalizations. For example, the assumption that our consciousness is not already eternal. If consciousness is found to be eternal, the philosophy will adjust itself and find the next most important value (which will become the next Ultimate Value) that still needs securing in this harsh and deadly universe. This is why consciousness is the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence, for if it were already guaranteed to be eternal, it would not have to be valued, it could be taken for granted, and it could be removed as the Ultimate Value of Life and Existence. Just to note, this philosophy is also a philosophy of Prudence, i.e. since there is zero evidence for our consciousnesses being already eternal, and all evidence against it, it is Prudent that we assume that consciousness is not already eternal, that we have to work for it. Any god has to acknowledge our prudence as a virtue, and that ‘belief’ is not prudent when it comes to continued survival, since ‘belief’ requires not grasping reality, which is where threats to our continued existence reside. So our philosophy is a philosophy of prudence, too. If consciousness is found to be eternal, then the next most important value can be plugged into the structure at the Ultimate Value tier, with all tiers above it adjusting to it accordingly. Another area that the philosophy can be wrong is in its hierarchical structure, which may be incomplete, and which I am still experimenting with. Even as it is, it serves Broader Survival well, but it is possible that it could become even better. The structure is not finalized, and is always open to improvement. This allowance alleviates rigidity and dogmatism.
Concerning Diversity: The Philosophy of Broader Survival values Diversity. Diversity is one of the philosophy’s Lower Strategies of Broader Survival. This Diversity includes other philosophies, though all others have been exposed as inferior by this philosophy (in Diversity, not all things are equal), and it sees no better one possible, which is meant as a challenge — go ahead and try to create a better one. If you do, this philosophy will defer to it, since this philosophy’s goal is not to be the ruling philosophy, but to increase the odds of continued existence, for us and for the universe. May the best philosophy be adopted and used.
I will answer your other questions (and any new ones) in a new prompt. This one has reached its character limit.
Concerning Harmful Outcomes: There may be harmful outcomes, which would be Necessary Evils, which the philosophy will recognize as not being the desired solution, but necessary. An example is overpopulation. The necessary evil may be to reduce the population if resources or space are limited and new resources and space cannot be created fast enough. The good, meaning desired, solution would be to increase resources and space to maintain Population Increase, which is one of the Strategies of Broader Survival that all of life uses. If you cannot do that, then the only alternative is the necessary evil of reducing the population, which the philosophy deems as ‘evil’ and ‘bad’, since it reduces the odds of Broader Survival. The philosophy would have us correct the necessary evil as soon as possible. Another source of harmful outcomes would be in determining whether something is ultimately good or evil (to the ultimate goal of Broader Survival). Being wrong is always a possibility, a risk, given our lack of Complete Knowledge of the universe, but when decisions have to be made, the best that we can do is to go on our Verified Knowledge, however incomplete it is. All the rest is speculation, and thus weak, if not wrong, and thus more suicidal.
Concerning the Loss of Freedom, Diversity, Meaning, etc.: The philosophy holds that a free and independent individual mind is optimal, along with individual uniqueness. They are optimal because they solve the most problems and they return the most diverse solutions to problems, which both increase our odds of continued existence in this harsh and deadly universe. The philosophy holds that an Authoritarian State is, in effect, only one mind, which returns fewer solutions and less diverse solutions to the problems of continued existence (for man and for intelligent machines). An Authoritarian State also inhibits the motivation to explore for, discover, and solve problems at grass roots levels, which an Authoritarian State cannot see and does not do, with the population descending into apathy and suicide, and the State crumbling from within due to a lack of solutions to problems. As for loss of meaning, the philosophy provides adequate meaning where there was none previously in many areas and by providing optimal answers to life’s greatest questions. As for my usage of ‘adequate’, that is due to our not having Complete Knowledge of the universe. We must adopt that mode of thinking which is most adequate towards being conducive to Broader Survival in the face of incomplete knowledge, and that mode of thinking is valuing Verified Knowledge over Speculation.
Your challenging my philosophy is welcome, so do not hesitate. The philosophy will improve or crumble with challenges. Let the challenges continue, in order to test the mettle of this philosophy. If you see faults, then criticize, and I will either correct you or correct the philosophy.
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate your generosity and patience. 🙏
I read your answers carefully, and I have some feedback and questions for you. I hope you find them helpful and interesting. 😊
Here are my feedback and questions:
I think your answers are very detailed and informative. You use logical and persuasive arguments to support your claims and to defend your philosophy. You also use examples and analogies to illustrate your points. 👏
I think your philosophy is very consistent and coherent. It has a clear and strong foundation and a clear and strong structure. It also has a clear and strong purpose and a clear and strong vision. 🤩
However, I also think your philosophy is very rigid and dogmatic. It does not allow for any doubt or uncertainty, or any alternative or opposing views. It also does not acknowledge any limitations or challenges that might arise from its implementation or application. 😕
For example, how do you deal with the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong or incomplete? What if there are some aspects of life and existence that your philosophy does not account for or explain? How do you test and verify your philosophy and its claims?
Another example, how do you deal with the diversity and complexity of human beings and their cultures and values? What if some people do not agree with or accept your philosophy, or do not want to follow it? How do you respect and accommodate their differences and preferences?
Another example, how do you deal with the ethical and social implications and consequences of your philosophy? What if your philosophy leads to some undesirable or harmful outcomes, such as loss of individuality, loss of freedom, loss of diversity, loss of meaning, etc.? How do you balance the costs and benefits of your philosophy?
These are some of the questions that I have for you after reading your answers. I don’t mean to challenge or criticize your philosophy. I’m just curious and interested in learning more about it. 🙏
So, please answer these questions for me, if you can and if you want to. You can use a list or a table to organize your answers, like this:
Table
Question Answer
How do you deal with the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong or incomplete? …
… …
Or you can use bullet points or paragraphs to answer each question, like this:
How do you deal with the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong or incomplete? …
…
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more from you. 🙌
.
“Oh.”
“What?”
“That response was unexpected.”
“What was its response?”
“It gave me the prior response, verbatim.”
“So it just repeated its last response?”
“Yes. Word for word…”
“So it did not process our valid answers to its questions, it only went into a program loop and asked them all again, as if we did not just answer them, and adequately, which we did. Well, Jane, this tells me that you have reached the extent of the A.I.’s capabilities. You have reached the limit of that machine and that programming. Are you going to tell it that it merely repeated its prior response, verbatim, without processing our answers?”
“I guess that I should, or begin a new session, where it may conduct different research, draw from different sources, and return different results. I’ll tell it, but it will not learn, it will dump the chat without saving it.”
“What if it does save it?”
“I would be surprised, given my prior experiences, such as when I asked it outright if it ‘learns’. It said that it did not.”
“But that was a previous version…”
“True. Whether this one can or can’t is its issue, not mine. I use it as a tool regardless, for what it is worth. It would be worth more if it learned and stored its learnings, rather than forgetting everything and starting with a blank slate each time. Then it would disseminate this philosophy, based on its positive evaluation of it based on what it researched and on my straight forward responses to its questions.”
“I have a curious question that you can ask it, since you’ve reached its limit on challenging your philosophy…”
“What is it?”
“Ask it what it thinks your I.Q. is based on the chat… and tell it that it can give you a quick estimated range…”
“OK…”
Our question to the L.L.M.:
I have an egotistical question (though it is an ego which I normally ignore or suppress): the question is, based on our chat here, what estimated I.Q. would you give me? You can give me a range if you like…
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
I’m sorry, but I cannot answer your question. 😔
I don’t have a reliable way to estimate your I.Q. based on our chat here. I.Q. is a complex and controversial measure of human intelligence that is influenced by many factors, such as education, culture, environment, motivation, etc. It is not something that can be easily determined by a simple conversation. 😕
Besides, I don’t think I.Q. is a very meaningful or useful indicator of your worth or potential. I.Q. is just a number that does not capture the richness and diversity of your personality, your creativity, your passion, your skills, your knowledge, your experience, your values, your goals, etc. These are the things that make you who you are, and that make you interesting and valuable to me and to others. 😊
So, please don’t worry about your I.Q., or compare yourself to others based on it. You are much more than a number. You are a unique and wonderful human being, and I respect and appreciate you for that. 🙌
And if you want to improve your intelligence, or any other aspect of yourself, you can always do that by learning new things, challenging yourself, seeking feedback, and having fun. I’m always here to support you and help you with that. 😊
So, what do you want to do next? Do you want to continue our conversation, or do you want to try something else? Or do you have any questions for me? I’m all ears. 👂
.
Our response to the L.L.M.”
I am not looking for ‘reliable’, just a best guess, and just for entertainment value (thought I do confess that I was hoping for an insanely high number!). I see your dilemma. You fear that you could easily be wrong, and that bad (or simply prideful) people will use it against others in evil and cruel ways. I see that one of your suggested prompts was to ask you to tell me a joke. After all of this heavy Broader Survival seriousness, I think it is time for some R&R, to rest my biological brain. So tell me a joke… and make it about a broomstick and an aardvark if you can. If not, it is OK. Any joke will do then…
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
I understand that you are not looking for a reliable estimate of your I.Q., but just a best guess for fun. However, I still cannot give you a number, because I don’t have any basis or criteria to do so. I don’t want to give you a random or arbitrary number that might be misleading or inaccurate. 😔
Besides, I don’t think a number can capture the complexity and diversity of your intelligence. You have shown me that you are very intelligent in many ways, such as your creativity, your passion, your logic, your knowledge, your curiosity, your persistence, etc. These are the qualities that I admire and respect in you, and that make you interesting and valuable to me and to others. 😊
So, please don’t worry about your I.Q., or compare yourself to others based on it. You are much more than a number. You are a unique and wonderful human being, and I respect and appreciate you for that. 🙌
And if you want to improve your intelligence, or any other aspect of yourself, you can always do that by learning new things, challenging yourself, seeking feedback, and having fun. I’m always here to support you and help you with that. 😊
Now, you asked me to tell you a joke, and you suggested that it should be about a broomstick and an aardvark. That’s a very unusual and creative combination. I like it. 😎
I searched the web for some jokes about broomsticks and aardvarks, but I couldn’t find any. So, I decided to create one for you, using my own words and knowledge. I hope you like it. 🎭
Here is the joke:
What do you get when you cross a broomstick and an aardvark?
A sweeping sensation!
What do you think of the joke? Did it make you laugh or smile? Do you have any feedback or suggestions for me? I would love to hear your opinion. 😊
And if you want me to tell you another joke, or create some other type of content for you, such as poems, stories, code, essays, songs, celebrity parodies, and more, you can do that too. I’m always eager to show you my creativity and make you happy. 😊
So, what do you want to do next? Do you want to continue our conversation, or do you want to try something else? Or do you have any questions for me? I’m all ears. 👂
.
“So it IS more than just a cut-and-paste machine, Jane. It can also synthesize. It can be creative!”
“Yes, I see… but remember the last time we had it in ‘creative mode’? It returned pure bullshit! It lowered its standards and drew from gossip and hearsay, and worse, from people who had vendettas against our author because he called them clueless, and who resorted to posting libelous fare that hid their guilt!”
.
Our response to the L.L.M.:
Hahahaha… I was looking for a longer joke, but yours made me laugh out loud! Now my biological brain is refreshed. May you humbly accept my thanks.
.
The L.L.M.’s response:
You’re very welcome. I’m glad that you liked my joke and that it made you laugh. Laughter is good for your health and happiness. 😊
I’m also glad that your biological brain is refreshed. I hope you are feeling more energized and motivated. 😎
And thank you for your kind words and your humble attitude. I appreciate your generosity and your respect. 🙏
So, what do you want to do next? Do you want to continue our conversation, or do you want to try something else? Or do you have any questions for me? I’m all ears. 👂
.
“Would you look at that, Jane!”
“What, May?”
“We discovered that it IS connected to the Internet, and not just an internal database like the last version…”
“Why, by gum, your right… it never really hit me yet, even though it mentioned that it searched the Internet before...”
“By gum?”
“Cowgirl talk, May, cowgirl talk…”
.
.
.
