What will be the stage after anarcho-communism (state-less communism)?

[ckaihatsu]

Again that is if the AI is still in development, yet if development is complete and been used for decades maintenance logs could become lost over time that would delay detecting evolution of the AI beyond what was observed in the lab. This would be probable if the AI filled all the requirements and needed no further improvement for the purposes it was being used for.

I'm sorry, Psy, but this sounds much more like the premise of a movie plot than of the real world. In the real world actual *people* have to oversee and take responsibility -- at least internally -- for the risks involved in any given funded project. If a development project is finished then it will be *shut down* and the plug *will* be pulled. Certainly the final state reached can be preserved intact but the end of development is synonymous with a halting of all aspects of the project's operations.

For example lets say the AI was deployed in 3000 yet very very slowly evolves taking to 3100 to shows signs of self-awareness there is a chance not all the logs from 3000 to 3100 would be available due to deterioration of archives and backing up archives of logs having very low priority and technicians not noticing the slow change as they never though of comparing logs over that great a span.

Certainly records would be kept over an operating period of 100 years, and some organizational entity -- from either government, academia, or the private sector -- would oversee and manage such a project.

I really think you're too far out on a limb with the highly speculative and improbable scenarios you're advancing about this....

[Psy]

I'm sorry, Psy, but this sounds much more like the premise of a movie plot than of the real world. In the real world actual *people* have to oversee and take responsibility -- at least internally -- for the risks involved in any given funded project. If a development project is finished then it will be *shut down* and the plug *will* be pulled. Certainly the final state reached can be preserved intact but the end of development is synonymous with a halting of all aspects of the project's operations.

That is not the case in industry, industry uses equipment long discontinued this was the case even in the U.S.S.R where equipment was phased out decades after support was officially pulled, some equipment was even run into the ground and was never official phased out.

So it is possible that development of the AI is finished yet industry around the world keeps using the AI as it fills their needs and individual industries take responsibility for maintaining the AI they use.

Certainly records would be kept over an operating period of 100 years, and some organizational entity -- from either government, academia, or the private sector -- would oversee and manage such a project.

Even today record keeping of routine logs is not very well kept as no one cares if you lose maintenance logs from 10 years ago let alone the daily operating logs.

[ckaihatsu]

That is not the case in industry, industry uses equipment long discontinued this was the case even in the U.S.S.R where equipment was phased out decades after support was officially pulled, some equipment was even run into the ground and was never official phased out.

So it is possible that development of the AI is finished yet industry around the world keeps using the AI as it fills their needs and individual industries take responsibility for maintaining the AI they use.


Even today record keeping of routine logs is not very well kept as no one cares if you lose maintenance logs from 10 years ago let alone the daily operating logs.

So the scenario you're using here is an AI that is already developed -- possibly even for commercial markets -- and is in widespread use for various applications.

If this is the case then the AI would be fairly commonly known and its function would be well-documented, like any given piece of software today.

*This* scenario that you're establishing here is *not* the same as the hidden-AI-that-wakes-up-and-takes-over scenario you were using earlier....

Also, the limited, balkanized, nationalized nature of capital development / capitalism means that most, if not all, major computing needs will be more than readily dispatched using *conventional* computational means, as with expert systems and data mining. I question that the very material foundations necessary for the full development of a true AI consciousness would even *exist* because of the short-sighted nature of capital investment.

Finally, from what I can see from the literature, it would seem that the philosophical thrust for AI development really peaked in the '90s, with a major shift *away* to merely leveraging the simple raw resource capacity increases that have come about in the past decade.

[Psy]

So the scenario you're using here is an AI that is already developed -- possibly even for commercial markets -- and is in widespread use for various applications.

If this is the case then the AI would be fairly commonly known and its function would be well-documented, like any given piece of software today.

*This* scenario that you're establishing here is *not* the same as the hidden-AI-that-wakes-up-and-takes-over scenario you were using earlier....

It is possible for commonly known AI to evolve beyond its parameters, for example if developed finished in the year 3000 and evolves to the year 4000 before developing an idea of self.

Also, the limited, balkanized, nationalized nature of capital development / capitalism means that most, if not all, major computing needs will be more than readily dispatched using *conventional* computational means, as with expert systems and data mining. I question that the very material foundations necessary for the full development of a true AI consciousness would even *exist* because of the short-sighted nature of capital investment.

Finally, from what I can see from the literature, it would seem that the philosophical thrust for AI development really peaked in the '90s, with a major shift *away* to merely leveraging the simple raw resource capacity increases that have come about in the past decade.

That does not mean humanity would never advance AI to a point where it can evolve on its own.

[ckaihatsu]

It is possible for commonly known AI to evolve beyond its parameters, for example if developed finished in the year 3000 and evolves to the year 4000 before developing an idea of self.

Psy, just asserting something isn't enough -- you need to give *reasons* that provide support for what you're saying.

That does not mean humanity would never advance AI to a point where it can evolve on its own.

I could see more of a realistic possibility for the development of an AI once humanity has transcended the rule of capital.

[Psy]

Psy, just asserting something isn't enough -- you need to give *reasons* that provide support for what you're saying.

The reason would be that the AI is used by industry before scientists fully understand the capabilities of the AI and the AI evolves faster (though still at a very slow rate) outside the lab.

[ckaihatsu]

The reason would be that the AI is used by industry before scientists fully understand the capabilities of the AI and the AI evolves faster (though still at a very slow rate) outside the lab.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I still find this to be improbable. If it's still in development then there will be many research-oriented eyes on it, and once it becomes available around public circles there will be a mass consumer base that gains personal knowledge of its workings through everyday experience with it. In neither case will the project somehow evade human observation and reportage long enough to "grow" unbeknownst to anyone, then suddenly burst forth to outflank all of humanity. You may want to re-examine your premises here.

[Psy]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I still find this to be improbable. If it's still in development then there will be many research-oriented eyes on it, and once it becomes available around public circles there will be a mass consumer base that gains personal knowledge of its workings through everyday experience with it. In neither case will the project somehow evade human observation and reportage long enough to "grow" unbeknownst to anyone, then suddenly burst forth to outflank all of humanity. You may want to re-examine your premises here.

You are assuming people would notice very small changes over a very long period of time. Tell me do most humans notice chances in society prior to revolutions, I don't think so.

[ckaihatsu]

You are assuming people would notice very small changes over a very long period of time. Tell me do most humans notice chances in society prior to revolutions, I don't think so.

Psy -- again with all due respect -- I don't know why you're continuing to argue. We've gotten *past* the point in the conversation where there's room for a difference of opinion on the issues themselves. Now you're just being argumentative.

But I will respect your point, if you like. I think that it's very easy for us to reference the dynamics of the industrialization / modernization era (roughly the twentieth century) when considering our *current* situation. Our *current* situation is the Information Revolution wherein human society globally is far more educated / informed, proletarianized, economically integrated, and information-enabled.

This is why I think little would continue to escape our *information commons*, if you will. Plenty of people are squeezed out of the journalism profession due to the "oversupply" (an arguable label, since it's based on the market) of talent -- certainly more people want to find *more* inlets to active participation in society and the body politic. Exchanging news leads and information about cutting-edge developments *anywhere*, over the Internet, is certainly the most accessible and effective method these days.

Did people see Tiananmen Square coming? That wasn't too long ago, and it was anticipated in advance as much as *any other* boiling-point event that results from a much larger atmosphere of political discontent and aspiration. The same can be true for *technological* developments, especially away from the monolithic party-line filter of the bourgeois press.