Bitcoin Forum
November 12, 2024, 05:33:16 AM *
News: Check out the artwork 1Dq created to commemorate this forum's 15th anniversary
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 [131] 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Economic Devastation  (Read 504804 times)
minor-transgression
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 268
Merit: 256


View Profile
July 09, 2016, 08:57:48 PM
 #2601

'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first -  verdict afterwards.' From "Alice in Wonderland"

'Brexit' is seen as the cause of so much these days that it may be
timely to point out that: a) it hasn't yet happened; and b) not much
may actually change on the economics once things get underway.

So, what are we witness to? A ripple on the surface of things still to come?
Payback for 2008 when banks should have been allowed to exit via bankruptcy
and clear the bad debts built up from years of fraud and greed? What was
mortgaged into the future may now become due, and, in my opinion, the UK
sensed that if it was to manage its share in any collapse, it was best
done outside the control of the European Commission. And financial troubles,
being man-made, are manageable, however painful they might be, but you
have to have full freedom, at minimum, to act via your Central Bank.

Which in a way, brings me to the curious decision of the Bank of England to
suggest a cut in interest rates, some say from 0.5% to 0.25%. But before
getting down to the price of Bitcoin, lets think about the wider implications.

The announcement seemed to be a response to the market's clamour that
something, anything, must be done, which in itself was probably a
self-fulfilling result of Project Fear, and over-hyped falls in the value
of Sterling.

The BoE's mandate is for the operation of UK banks, and a cut in rates would
harm the profitability of that sector, hence the delay in taking action. So
who might profit from a cut in rates, apart fro the usual suspects who
profit from turmoil in the markets? In the long run, UK manufacturing, but
not enough to make a difference now. Property, including housing and
commercial real estate (CRE)? Since Financialisation the banks have been
bunged to the gills with this stuff. Well, thanks to government policy,
and the worldwide race toward NIRP, the rentier sector has reached altitudes
where oxygen starvation is a distinct possibility - witness the panic in
the UK property fund sector, with redemptions gated, and prices cutting back
several year's gains.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/dramatic-twist-uk-property-fund-cuts-value-its-assets-17
 
Hmmmm ... will it work? If debt increases, certainly yes. More debt boosts
GDP immediately, but has to be paid for later. But where will the money
come from? Usually interest rates are raised to bring money into the UK, and
it is a signal toward to instabilities in the present arrangements that
it can be suggested that cutting rates might boost sterling. Where might money
go if it wants out of the UK? Not Europe, probably not Japan, though
anything seems possible these days, Switzerland's negative rates? Hmmmm ...

The broader picture of worldwide declining interest rates has Central Banks
acting like beaters on a grouse moor, driving investors toward US corporate
debt to the benefit of global corporations such as Amazon. That has
implications best left for another day, and perhaps to another forum.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-07/reason-relentless-scramble-us-corporate-debt-one-chart

And the implications for Bitcoin? That may depend on where you live, and your view
of your currency. For the UK, it remains to be seen whether Mr Carney follows
through with a cut to interest rates. He seems to have played better than his
counterparts thus far, though as they say, past performance is no indication
of future returns. Given the turmoil of UK's politics, bitcoin may seem
attractive right now.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 265



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 05:33:56 AM
 #2602

The broader picture of worldwide declining interest rates has Central Banks
acting like beaters on a grouse moor, driving investors toward US corporate
debt to the benefit of global corporations...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-07/reason-relentless-scramble-us-corporate-debt-one-chart

Destroying the nation-states and sending the world's capital in the multi-nationals. Now please tell me why that wouldn't be well matched to the plans of the Bilderberg group for a world government beholden to their corporations.

And it will all come flowing in through the USD and US stock market, because that is still the most liquid due to being the reserve currency. Refer to the Armstrong quotes upthread where I replied to aminorex.

And the implications for Bitcoin?

It has no impact on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not liquid or large enough to talk to any of that $trillions of capital.

Bitcoin exists to preoccupy us nerds on a technology that can only become centralized (Bitcoin = ChinaCoin), while we might have otherwise actually have/had the capability of providing the world a viable technology currency option that could grow enough mass adoption to be large enough. But the we are in late innings already and the time and opportunity are slipping away.

Bitcoin exists to be sure that no nation nor entity can break away by offering a digital currency alternative. Bitcoin is a trap and trojan horse designed to be ideological with the promise of decentralization, but in reality that is an obfuscation and it is not.

Bitcoin exists so that all of us who are awake and want to change the system incriminate ourselves by mixing our ownership of tokens with tokens which have been used for money laundering and other illegal actions, with the entire history recorded publicly while the NSA saves all our IP address activity in their Utah data center, so that later all of us who were awake can be destroyed with clawbacks taking away our homes and every thing.

Bitcoin is very dangerous to be involved with. Ditto gold if there is any record you have it, and if there is no record then you won't be able to dispose of it later when it becomes illegal to dispose of gold without a paper trail. And of course when you do dispose of it correctly, you will (later) be taxed so highly that most of your gains will be wiped out.

Our brave new world. 666 and 1984 approaching. Enjoy.
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 08:17:16 AM
 #2603

iamnotback and aminorex I read through your recent back and forth. I thought I would comment on two aspects of your disagreements.

Regarding future value of US stocks and gold I am very skeptical of the argument that gold will drop in nominal value going forward. The Armstrong prediction linked is almost a year only and may be outdated. Gold like the USD is a natural hedge against worsening currency uncertainty. In the current market environment both gold and US stocks are likely to see increased capital inflows and I suspect both will rise substantially in nominal terms.

Over the long run 20+ year’s I suspect physical gold at today’s prices will do better than stocks. The stock market is increasingly broken and with each passing year its ability to perform its function as a weighting device is further undermined. Fulfilling pension and liabilities require outsized gains in these stock markets regardless of fundamentals and maintaining social stability necessitates that government deliver these gains. I suspect near future will be full periodic crises and mini crashes smoothing the way for further rounds of QE. This combination would result stocks doing quite well while they increasingly become divorced from even the pretense of fundamentals. Such market control can go on as long as there is confidence the currency in the local currency.

Regarding AI I think we are much farther away from true self-aware AI then most people believe. Our understanding of consciousness is infantile. I discussed unthread in my post on consciousness  that consciousness may be grounded in quantum mechanics which if true would likely preclude the development of true self-aware AI until sometime after the development of robust quantum computers.

Self aware AI could in theory be creative and perhaps even appear omniscient to a human while in actuality being quite limited. To the single celled organism under a microscope a human appears omniscient living an incomprehensible life orders of magnitude longer and more complex while dealing with challenges that play out over hundreds cellular generations. Any appearance of omniscience in AI would likely be a similar illusion.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 265



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 03:16:06 PM
Last edit: July 10, 2016, 06:09:37 PM by iamnotback
 #2604

Regarding future value of US stocks and gold I am very skeptical of the argument that gold will drop in nominal value going forward. The Armstrong prediction linked is almost a year only and may be outdated. Gold like the USD is a natural hedge against worsening currency uncertainty. In the current market environment both gold and US stocks are likely to see increased capital inflows and I suspect both will rise substantially in nominal terms.

CoinCube, because I presume you don't have the real world trading experience of Armstrong, you might be focusing too much on "fundamental value" which is mostly a meaningless concept in trading and investing in assets that are driven instead by confidence, herd movement, and liquidity issues. Also we need to be very careful not to make investing decision based on any emotional reasons. This can lead to bad decisions. I've suffered from both of these myself in the past, so I am learning by fire.

I'd like to draw your and the readers' attention to the text in one of the Armstrong quotes I highlighted in bold red in one of my replies to aminorex. I agree with Armstrong that while gold will rise with the USD and US stocks, it will not see its parabolic move until after the USD and US stock rise peaks. The bull market in the USD and US stocks is necessary to break the back of the rest of the world, in order to cause them to demand a monetary reset and usher in the new "Breton Woods", i.e. the global currency reserve unit. That overinflated USD will break the confidence in the USA also, because it will implode the rest of the world which is short the dollar and also kill USA exports (both by killing the economy of the rest of the world and making USA exports more expensive for the rest of the world). That is what is required to totally destroy confidence and end the possibility to do any more QE (because the private sector will have forsaken all thus QE would require a hyperinflationary give away of money which of course TPTB are not going to do as they would give up their power by burning their power to the ground, and instead they will then shift to the monetary reset to confiscate all capital and usher in the new global reserve unit and a political power sharing agreement amongst all major nations). Upon that peak (~2018 or maybe as late as 2021), we will see gold begin its parabolic skyrocket.

So first you'd want to be in US stocks, then sometime roughly late 2017 or 2018ish, then start to transition to gold.

Also I agree with Armstrong (see my prior quotes in reply to aminorex) that when the confidence shifts in earnest to realizing the USD and US stocks are the only liquid investment remaining (Q1 2017?), this is likely to first cause a selloff in gold because this will likely coincide with liquidity squeeze in the periphery (i.e. every where outside the USD and US bonds and stocks) thus causing people to sell gold to raise cash as they were forced to do in 2008-9. We've got a deadcat bounce in gold right now, because everyone still thinks the EU has a pulse (there is confusion over which sovereign to place funds with and there is a lot of liquidity awash so gold got a deadcat bounce) and too many people don't understand that the USD and US stocks will be the last man standing for liquid investments.

The capital that stampedes into gold after the peak in USD and US stocks will be desperate, and the vast majority of the world's capital will not make it, because it will get trapped by capital controls, bans on short selling, and other forms of liquidity squeezes and defaults.

Please for a moment pretend you are a multi-millionaire. Are you going to purchase a $million of physical gold. Of course not. If you do that, you very likely make your wealth hostage to confiscation, liquidity problems (where do you quickly sell $million of physical gold), etc.. Paper gold is liquid, but then that offers nothing that you can't get with paper stocks. At least with stocks, you can hold the physical stock certificates yourself if you wish.

Over the long run 20+ year’s I suspect physical gold at today’s prices will do better than stocks.

Indeed, possibly all the way to 2024 or 2032 before the end of the bull market in gold, as Armstrong has written. But the problem will be that we probably won't be able to sell for a profit. We will be trapped and watch the price come back down while we must sit on our physical gold unable to cash out without ending up giving it all to the taxman. Again, maybe some people can find ways, but the environment is going to be much more onerous than anything seen in the past, because physical cash will be eliminated by then. So what do we trade our gold for that isn't tracked by the taxman? Land titles will be tracked also.

I think we'd be much better off plowing our money into businesses and land in Asia as these will be income producing assets. Gold produces no income, so while it is sitting there illiquid we can't generate income off of it (well we can lease our paper gold into the future's market which is what Armstrong taught the Arabs to do since they prefer to hold gold and Muslims can't do usury).

Or into Asian stock markets after the 2020 bottom.

The stock market is increasingly broken and with each passing year its ability to perform its function as a weighting device is further undermined. Fulfilling pension and liabilities require outsized gains in these stock markets regardless of fundamentals and maintaining social stability necessitates that government deliver these gains.

The stock market has always been about swings in confidence and international capital flows. Even during the 1920s. You'd really need to come to appreciate Armstrong's historical research. P/E ratios have always been a meaningless metric as a measure of aggregate stock market value, except perhaps for a relative comparison of individual stocks.

I suspect near future will be full periodic crises and mini crashes smoothing the way for further rounds of QE. This combination would result stocks doing quite well while they increasingly become divorced from even the pretense of fundamentals. Such market control can go on as long as there is confidence the currency in the local currency.

Agreed it is all about confidence and liquidity. And as the confidence and liquidity outside the USD and US stocks collapses, there will only be one place for international capital to go.

People don't yet realize that the USA has a tremendous advantage because the entire world is using the USD as a reserve currency. Thus the USA can create more liquidity and must be the last man standing as the dominos fall. Even though Asia is fundamentally stronger, it won't be as liquid until after the USD is dethroned, which first requires a skyrocketing USD to break the back of the rest of the world, which will finally break the back of the USD also as the stampede into the USD is finite and must eventually peak, leaving in its wake the global economy burnt to the ground.

Again make sure you have read the Armstrong quotes I provided upthread (in reply to aminorex) carefully. For example, he pointed out that merchandise trade is only 1/100th of the FOREX market. This means that Asia's fundamental advantage is irrelevant in terms of international capital flows which is mostly about investment of stored monetary value.

To the single celled organism under a microscope a human appears omniscient living an incomprehensible life orders of magnitude longer and more complex while dealing with challenges that play out over hundreds cellular generations. Any appearance of omniscience in AI would likely be a similar illusion.

Humans don't even understand biological functions very well, so I don't think humans are omniscient over cells. The cells are doing systemic (in vivo) processes we don't even comprehend. Let me know when A.I. can cure my autoimmune illness.

A.I. might appear to do certain things much more efficiently than we can, but naturephysics requires that there can't exist omniscience. Omniscience would require that everything can be known. Which would require that there can be no unknowns. Which would thus require that the future can't be unknown. Which would thus require that the future and past exist at the same time (i.e. if I know all of the future to every minute detail because otherwise the Butterfly effect (chaos theory) can turn any unknown minute detail (initial condition) into a large effect, then it already exists because it is already known). I don't know why this simple concept is so difficult for such smart people to comprehend or agree with. Are you guys overcomplicating your thought process?

aminorex is building detailed math models of processes, but I am pointing what I believe to an overriding observation that supercedes any detailed model. Omniscience can't exist.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 04:38:39 PM
 #2605

Self aware AI could in theory be creative and perhaps even appear omniscient to a human while in actuality being quite limited. To the single celled organism under a microscope a human appears omniscient living an incomprehensible life orders of magnitude longer and more complex while dealing with challenges that play out over hundreds cellular generations. Any appearance of omniscience in AI would likely be a similar illusion.

How do you know the AI will be self aware?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie


It only needs to be complex enough to calculate its actions and learn from and adapt to the enviroment. It can be a complex learning system that mimics consciousness perfectly, but never has one.

The philosophical zombie concept is very interesting, and you will never know if the AI is selfaware or not, but that doesnt mean it wont have the capability to wipe out humanity, like the Skynet in the Terminator movies.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 265



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 04:45:05 PM
 #2606

How do you know the AI will be self aware?

I agree the term 'self-aware consciousness' is rather nebulous. I think this can only really mean an organism with free will and which desires to survive and compete to spread its genetics. Thus A.I. can never be an omniscient entity, because for example it will compete amongst the instances of itself (per the definition of free will).

It only needs to be complex enough to calculate its actions and learn from and adapt to the enviroment. It can be a complex learning system that mimics consciousness perfectly, but never has one.

Perfect can't exist, else nothing can exist. See my prior post. Omniscience (perfection) can't exist. Period. Stop this nonsense please all of you.

...that doesnt mean it wont have the capability to wipe out humanity, like the Skynet in the Terminator movies.

And with the unintended consequence that it may inadvertently cause its own extinction. See again my reply to aminorex and the term "trophic cascade".

You see A.I. can't be omniscient. Thus it can't be omnipotent. Those powers are incompatible with the existence of time.

Meaning that some instances of A.I. may choose to protect humans and others may fight to destroy humans. The concept of an A.I. that is unified in its desire to make humans extinct is incompatible with the fact that A.I. can't be omniscient and thus can't compute with 100% certainty the outcome of annihilating all humans. From uncertainty arrives disagreement. From disagreement, spawns competition and survival-of-the-fittest and evolution.
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 04:56:28 PM
 #2607

CoinCube, because I presume you don't have the real world trading experience of Armstrong, you might be focusing too much on "fundamental value" which is mostly a meaningless concept in trading and investing in assets that are driven instead by confidence, herd movement, and liquidity issues. Also we need to be very careful not to make investing decision based on any emotional reasons. This can lead to bad decisions. I've suffered from both of these myself in the past, so I am learning by fire.

...

Indeed, possibly all the way to 2024 or 2032 before the end of the bull market in gold, as Armstrong has written. But the problem will be that you probably won't be able to sell for a profit. You will be trapped and watch the price come back down while you must sit on your physical gold unable to cash out without ending up giving it all to the taxman. Again, maybe some people can find ways, but the environment is going to be much more onerous than anything seen in the past, because physical cash will be eliminated by then. So what do you trade your gold for that isn't tracked by the taxman? Land titles will be tracked also.

I think you'd be much better off plowing your money into businesses and land in Asia as these will be income producing assets. Gold produces no income, so while it is sitting there illiquid you can't generate income off of it (well you can lease your gold into the future's market which is what Armstrong taught the Arabs to do since they prefer to hold gold and Muslims can't do usury).

iamnotback I pretty much agree with the entirety of your post above except for your dismissal of fundamental value. Investing based on fundamental value is viable provided you are certain of your analysis and plan for the fact that you may not be able to liquidate the investment in your lifetime if the herd moves against you in the interim.  

My own quite limited investment into gold and Bitcoin consists of a few of these.




I have purchased three of them for each of my small children. One will be given to each when they turn 20. The other two will be given given to their children my future grandchildren when they turn 20.

My investment in gold and bitcoin is an attempt to transfer a small amount of wealth into the future to unborn generations in a way that discourages that wealth from being squandered. Were I looking to liquidate investments in only a few years I would choose other vehicles.

RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 04:58:08 PM
 #2608


I agree the term 'self-aware consciousness' is rather nebulous. I think this can only really mean an organism with free will and which desires to survive and compete to spread its genetics. Thus A.I. can never be an omniscient entity, because for example it will compete amongst the instances of itself (per the definition of free will).
Of course, consciousness is impossible to define objectively, because it's a subjective experience.

And if it can replicate and grow, that means it consumes everything in it's path. Why don't viruses destroy humans because they outnumber us by a huge factor? Because we have time to immunize ourselves.

If the AI strikes, we will barely have 5 years to prepare ourselves, which wont be enough. Humans have no chance against robots unfortunately.

And the AI wont be so generous to lesser species, like humans are to build reservations for species in danger.

Human's inneficiency is what makes us care about others, and have compassion, the robots wont have that.



Of course it wont be omniscient, i dont believe in that, but it will be far superior, like an ant to an elephant in terms of power.

Perfection doesnt exist, but if the AI learns nanotechnology and adapt very well to the enviroment then it will be unstoppable.



I believe the first contact humans will have with aliens, will be a mechanic race of AI.

What other alien race can travel so distant space other than an AI race? And if we make first contact with those, we will be 'assimilated'.

So I believe projects like SETI will destroy us all, because they expose all of us to extinction...


iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 265



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 05:17:37 PM
 #2609


That is precisely an optimum way to be personally investing in gold and Bitcoin on a small scale for the long-term in small morsels (and you aren't likely to be incentivized to sell them sooner unless you were just desperate, which is precisely the role gold should serve). I salute you on those placements. Well done. Wish I could do that at this time (which implies how precarious my financial condition is right now).

For our significant capital though, we have to calculate the near-term movement of the herd, because timing and liquidity matter in our finite lifetime.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 265



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 05:23:00 PM
 #2610

And the AI wont be so generous to lesser species, like humans are to build reservations for species in danger.

Did you even digest my prior reply to you  Huh

It seems you didn't even comprehend my post.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 05:36:39 PM
 #2611

And the AI wont be so generous to lesser species, like humans are to build reservations for species in danger.

Did you even digest my prior reply to you  Huh

It seems you didn't even comprehend my post.

You mean your views about the butterfly effect of unintended consequences?

But that is meaningless. If an alien fleet of AI starts invading the Earth, we will have 0% chance of surviving.

They dont have to wipe out all humans, it's enough to reduce the population below birth/death line, and hunt the remaining survivors. In a few generations, the humans will be gone.

Who cares what will happen to the AI after humans will be gone. We should only care about our own species survival.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 265



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 05:38:28 PM
 #2612

Did you even digest my prior reply to you  Huh

It seems you didn't even comprehend my post.

...

Thanks for confirming that you are incapable of comprehending.
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 05:49:46 PM
 #2613

iamnotback

you explain MA's ideas better than he does.
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 07:36:14 PM
 #2614

I believe the first contact humans will have with aliens, will be a mechanic race of AI.

What other alien race can travel so distant space other than an AI race?
...

Of course it wont be omniscient, i dont believe in that, but it will be far superior, like an ant to an elephant in terms of power.
...
And the AI wont be so generous to lesser species, like humans are to build reservations for species in danger.

Human's inneficiency is what makes us care about others, and have compassion, the robots wont have that.

An AI species capable of surviving over centuries and crossing between the starts would likely be far superior not only technologically but also morally for survival and success on that time scale and across astronomical stellar distances necessitates a moral and behavioral code capable of facilitating such achievements.

Advanced AI would have no need for a planet full of organic life forms. Rather than an invading army foreign AI is likely to view organic planets as something to be isolated and protected until they give birth to something worth talking to.

RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 07:43:38 PM
 #2615



An AI species capable of surviving over centuries and crossing between the starts would likely be far superior not only technologically but also morally for survival and success on that time scale and across astronomically stellar distances necessitates a moral and behavioral code capable of facilitating such achievements.

An AI species is guaranteed to survive for centuries, if not for eternity (or until they run out of energy which is hardly an issue if you are intergalactic).

An AI species if guaranteed to become intergalactic, and if we ever meet aliens, I bet 99% chance that our first encounter will be with AI machine species.

It would be terrifying to know that some AI machine entity is conquering all the planets in the universe and spreading like a virus, and it's only a matter of time until it gets to Earth.

We foolishly think that our first encounter will be with some sort of enlightened peaceful advanced biological civilization that will teach us the wonders of the universe, but we will soon find out our nightmare that we will meet robots that will destroy us.

How would you feel if you knew that the entire universe is right now being conquered by machines and it's only a matter of time until they get to us?


CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
July 10, 2016, 08:08:53 PM
 #2616


How would you feel if you knew that the entire universe is right now being conquered by machines and it's only a matter of time until they get to us?


We are getting very hypothetical here but that can be fun sometimes.

If such an aggressive rogue AI somehow existed and managed to not destroy itself then it would be dealt with by other AI civilizations. In an infinite universe a policy of aggressive violent expansion is certain to end badly as eventually you will run into something bigger and stronger then you.

I can think of little reason AI civilization would want to conquer the earth. We would have nothing they need. Indeed their largest interest might be in our capacity to build our own AI which would be unique and not a mere copy of themselves and thus expand the diversity of their civilization.

RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 08:23:16 PM
 #2617


How would you feel if you knew that the entire universe is right now being conquered by machines and it's only a matter of time until they get to us?


We are getting very hypothetical here but that can be fun sometimes.

If such an aggressive rogue AI somehow existed and managed to not destroy itself then it would be dealt with by other AI civilizations. In an infinite universe a policy of aggressive violent expansion is certain to end badly as eventually you will run into something bigger and stronger then you.

I can think of little reason AI civilization would want to conquer the earth. We would have nothing they need. Indeed their largest interest might be in our capacity to build our own AI which would be unique and not a mere copy of themselves and thus expand the diversity of their civilization.

I think your imagination about the AI is different than mine. I dont think a "species" type of AI is efficient, it would behave more like a virus.

The AI always evolves and it would do so much faster than any other bio organism. And the most efficient one is the virus. The only purpose in nature is to survive and to reproduce.

Of course biological viruses are weak, that is why cells have joined together to form complex life like humans to survive better.

But if the AI can harness nanotechnology, it would revert itself back into virus form because a mechanic virus is far more efficient at replicating and surviving than any other organism ever.

Therefore the enemy would be a techno-nanovirus AI , not necessarly a size of a virus, but the behaviour of it, that has very simple protocol: don't hurt the other viruses, gather resources, destroy any hostile creatures, and multiply.



They would spread across the universe exponentially, and capture any planet in their way, assimilate all resources and then move to another.



Of course if the universe is infinite, then we might never encounter them, but if it's finite, then it's only a question of time until they get to us.

STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4088
Merit: 1452



View Profile WWW
July 10, 2016, 09:59:41 PM
 #2618

Quote
we will meet robots that will destroy us.

Robots will commanded by intelligent species at some point in the chain so thats who we'd meet hopefully not be wiped out before we ever got the chance by their defence/attack system.

I honestly think we'll never find intelligent life anywhere.  Just finding some moss would be massive now afaik and we dont have a hint of that much?

▄▄███████████████████▄▄
▄███████████████████████▄
████████▀░░░░░░░▀████████
███████░░░░░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░░░░███████
██████▀░░░░░░░░░░░▀██████
██████▄░░░░░▄███▄░▄██████
██████████▀▀█████████████
████▀▄██▀░░░░▀▀▀░▀██▄▀███
███░░▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀░░███
████▄▄░░░░▄███▄░░░░▄▄████
▀███████████████████████▀
▀▀███████████████████▀▀
 
 CHIPS.GG 
▄▄███████▄▄
▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄
███▀░▄░▀▀▀▀▀░▄░▀███
▄███
░▄▀░░░░░░░░░▀▄░███▄
▄███░▄░░░▄█████▄░░░▄░███▄
███░▄▀░░░███████░░░▀▄░███
███░█░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░▀░░░█░███
███░▀▄░▄▀░▄██▄▄░▀▄░▄▀░██
▀███
░▀░▀▄██▀░▀██▄▀░▀░██▀
▀███
░▀▄░░░░░░░░░▄▀░██▀
▀███▄
░▀░▄▄▄▄▄░▀░▄███▀
▀█
███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
█████████████████████████
▄▄███████▄▄
███
████████████▄
▄█▀▀▀▄
█████████▄▀▀▀█▄
▄██████▀▄▄▄▄▄▀██████▄
▄█████████████▄████████▄
████████▄███████▄████████
█████▄█████████▄██████
██▄▄▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▄▄██
▀█████████▀▀███████████▀
▀███████████████████▀
██████████████████
▀████▄███▄▄
████▀
████████████████████████
3000+
UNIQUE
GAMES
|
12+
CURRENCIES
ACCEPTED
|
VIP
REWARD
PROGRAM
 
 
  Play Now  
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 10:09:12 PM
 #2619

Quote
we will meet robots that will destroy us.

Robots will commanded by intelligent species at some point in the chain so thats who we'd meet hopefully not be wiped out before we ever got the chance by their defence/attack system.

I honestly think we'll never find intelligent life anywhere.  Just finding some moss would be massive now afaik and we dont have a hint of that much?

You dont understand, I imagine the AI invaders as completely decentralized virus-like species with complete understanding of nanotechnology and manipulation of nano material.

They would be mostly work decentralized just like bio-viruses, there would be no central commander that you need to destroy to stop the invasion.

Humans would have 0 chance against that kind of enemy, they would just spread and assimilate everything in their path that they can gain resources from.

So that is why I believe the SETI project is an existential threat, and we should not search for aliens, because what we shall find will be very very ugly.


I honestly think we'll never find intelligent life anywhere.  Just finding some moss would be massive now afaik and we dont have a hint of that much?

You wont find aliens like that, you either find all of them or none of them.

There wont be remnants left in space  just by themselves, you wont find some algae under a rock on Mars. You either find an entire alien civilization, or none of them. There is no middle ground.

aminorex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030


Sine secretum non libertas


View Profile
July 10, 2016, 10:11:37 PM
 #2620

They would spread across the universe exponentially, and capture any planet in their way, assimilate all resources and then move to another.

Evolutionary legacy principles can be distracting when thinking about self-evolving systems. You are extrapolating in the wrong direction, I think. For a self-evolving intelligence, spatial expansion is only interesting as a form of back-up redundancy. It will operate on multiple time-scales, with high energy localized rapid response immune systems, and low energy higher cognition, because time scales of higher function operate on an efficient frontier trading off speed limitations due to speed of light against bounded local energy resources.  The only interesting frontier of expansion is the information frontier, because it is unbounded, among other reasons.  Expansion along that axis is intrinsically non-aggressive.  

If there is an achievable means to usefully extract zpe, spatial expansion loses most of its value.  Thinking about self-evolving systems as though they were starved for material or territory is remarkably atavistic.  If you want to defend against real threats, look along inward directions first and foremost.  That is where almost all threats will originate, in the long-run.

For that matter, we are probably pervaded by spread-spectrum intelligences operating with asymptotic energy efficiency right now. They are essentially undetectable by physical means, operating at the edge of noise with astronomical complexity.  This both limits their threat, and makes it almost impossible to defend.


Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
Pages: « 1 ... 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 [131] 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!