Been reading OA since when I started high school in 2014. While I had always been a transhumanist, I really enjoyed OA for taking it to the next level. I met a lot of you on the discord, but its high time I start contributing articles.
====
A few ideas I hope to contribute.
Tacklers: Non-lethal security vecs used when smart matter, angel nets, and proper memetic engineering are not available. Just how fast can a vec move?
CIT Orthodox Polities: Some hiders just can't handle pattern identity theory.
Chronicles of Faulty Earth Reclamation Attempts: While exceedingly rare in the present day, there is still a minor history to be told of the attempts by near baselines to retake earth in the early post-expulsion years. May their folly be remembered.
======
I also hope to write a longer treatise on two other subjects at some point as I feel OA would benefit from their further consideration, even if they are not implemented.
The benefits and drawbacks of considering super intelligence unknowable: On OA I notice that there is a contrast between articles that attempt to lay out the function and construction of various Slevels and articles that rely on the concept that said superintelligences are unknowable to justify certain elements of their plots. This is a complex topic, and of course physical construction and the mental function of these beings are indeed different. The general premise however, is to discuss what the line is between admitting that high Slevels are indeed capable of wonderous/counterinutive things, and using their alien psyches as handwavium for their choices. I don't have a clear answer yet and this article would exist for the purpose of enhancing discussion. This would contrast to claiming that any side is correct or that there are even only two ways of looking at this topic.
The other would be a document meant for discussing the bias towards pattern identity theory in OA. At the moment, OA articles overwhelming seem to passively subscribe to pattern identity theory. This document would aim to create a starting point for discussion in this area, but I don't plan on getting to it until my other articles have been properly written. The rough goals would be: 1. Make a case that CIT would be significantly more popular among physical modosophonts than is currently displayed in OA. 2. State reasoning as to why it is important from an authorial perspective to present a tone that at least acknowledges CIT, or the open question of CIT vs PIT. Most argumentation would be based on the idea that actions resulting from adhearance to CIT, when it is false are less harmful than adhearing to PIT when it is false, and that (more, not all) modosophonts within the setting would also follow this logic. Again, I don't have plans for getting to this anytime soon.
I look forward to contributing to this community, which I have long enjoyed reading from.
(03-13-2024, 05:58 AM)Cogs13 Wrote: [ -> ]Been reading OA since when I started high school in 2014. While I had always been a transhumanist, I really enjoyed OA for taking it to the next level. I met a lot of you on the discord, but its high time I start contributing articles.
Hi - Welcome to OA! Feel free to join in on any discussions that grab your interest or to start new ones. If you have questions/concerns about the setting/OAUP project, feel free to ask.
Regarding your ideas below:
(03-13-2024, 05:58 AM)Cogs13 Wrote: [ -> ]====
A few ideas I hope to contribute.
Tacklers: Non-lethal security vecs used when smart matter, angel nets, and proper memetic engineering are not available. Just how fast can a vec move?
CIT Orthodox Polities: Some hiders just can't handle pattern identity theory.
Chronicles of Faulty Earth Reclamation Attempts: While exceedingly rare in the present day, there is still a minor history to be told of the attempts by near baselines to retake earth in the early post-expulsion years. May their folly be remembered.
These sound potentially interesting. Regarding 'Tacklers' - is there some specific reason why a security system would need to be sophont instead of using vots to run it? Vecs are sophont beings, not robots (bots) and vots are non-sophont software/systems of software that can basically do anything a sophont can without actually being self-aware/sophont. Or is this just a minor mistake in terms of word choice?
(03-13-2024, 05:58 AM)Cogs13 Wrote: [ -> ]I also hope to write a longer treatise on two other subjects at some point as I feel OA would benefit from their further consideration, even if they are not implemented.
The benefits and drawbacks of considering super intelligence unknowable: On OA I notice that there is a contrast between articles that attempt to lay out the function and construction of various Slevels and articles that rely on the concept that said superintelligences are unknowable to justify certain elements of their plots. This is a complex topic, and of course physical construction and the mental function of these beings are indeed different. The general premise however, is to discuss what the line is between admitting that high Slevels are indeed capable of wonderous/counterinutive things, and using their alien psyches as handwavium for their choices. I don't have a clear answer yet and this article would exist for the purpose of enhancing discussion. This would contrast to claiming that any side is correct or that there are even only two ways of looking at this topic.
The other would be a document meant for discussing the bias towards pattern identity theory in OA. At the moment, OA articles overwhelming seem to passively subscribe to pattern identity theory. This document would aim to create a starting point for discussion in this area, but I don't plan on getting to it until my other articles have been properly written. The rough goals would be: 1. Make a case that CIT would be significantly more popular among physical modosophonts than is currently displayed in OA. 2. State reasoning as to why it is important from an authorial perspective to present a tone that at least acknowledges CIT, or the open question of CIT vs PIT. Most argumentation would be based on the idea that actions resulting from adhearance to CIT, when it is false are less harmful than adhearing to PIT when it is false, and that (more, not all) modosophonts within the setting would also follow this logic. Again, I don't have plans for getting to this anytime soon.
Regarding both of these ideas, I have doubts that an article - in the EG sense - is actually what you're going for here vs wanting to post ideas for our consideration, which may or may not lead to the creation of new articles or updating of existing ones. For both issues you would be best served by posting your ideas and promoting discussion of them in the General Setting Discussion sub-forum before doing anything else.
Regarding the CIT vs PIT issue. This honestly comes across more than a little as you having a certain belief in this area and expecting us to rewrite the setting to accommodate you. Let me be brutally blunt up front and tell you that that is a non-starter. If you want to present arguments in support of your position and are able to convince us of that position that is one thing. But if this is a case of 'OA's treatment of this issue makes me unhappy and therefore OA needs to change to accommodate my feelings' then that is going to be DOA. We are under no obligation to care in the slightest about anyone's feelings.
By all means feel free to post your thoughts and arguments on the matter in the General Setting Discussion section. But do so knowing that we've had these kinds of discussions many many many times before and we will expect you to present and defend your ideas with more than 'I believe X and you need to fold X into the setting because it's only fair' or some similar thing. That's not going to fly. 'Morality-based' pseudo-philosophical arguments about what is more or less harmful or the like are going to fly even less.
If you want to write articles about groups and cultures that follow CIT to increase the representation of that pov in the setting, that's perfectly fine.
(03-13-2024, 05:58 AM)Cogs13 Wrote: [ -> ]I look forward to contributing to this community, which I have long enjoyed reading from.
It sounds like you have some interesting ideas. We look forward to helping you develop them and potentially adding them to the setting.
Todd
Welcome to the forums!
I haven’t quite figured out how to properly quote yet, so I will just write the quotes in bold.
I appreciate the in-depth response.
These sound potentially interesting. Regarding 'Tacklers' - is there some specific reason why a security system would need to be sophont instead of using vots to run it? Vecs are sophont beings, not robots (bots) and vots are non-sophont software/systems of software that can basically do anything a sophont can without actually being self-aware/sophont. Or is this just a minor mistake in terms of word choice?
In terms of the vot vs vec terminology, I believe that the tacklers article would be more concerned with the physical form and tactics of such an immune/law enforcement entity. I have been familiar with the vot concept, however I believe tacklers could either be a vec or a vot depending on the polity. I imagine vots would be more common in the middle regions, and vecs more common on the periphery. I don’t think tacklers would really exist within the core due to being supplanted by angelnets and smart matter more generally.
I do concede however, I have some prejudice against the concept of vots as they imply a complete understanding of the mind body problem or body qualia problem. In my personal opinion, it is going too far to say that these problems have been solved without a deeper explanation. But without going further, I will not likely comment on this within the tacklers article, I will state that a tackler or tackler body could be inhabited by either(Vot or Vec). I do understand the importance of vots for solving the issue of enslaved or conditioned AI, and that they are established within the setting.
Regarding both of these ideas, I have doubts that an article - in the EG sense - is actually what you're going for here vs wanting to post ideas for our consideration, which may or may not lead to the creation of new articles or updating of existing ones. For both issues you would be best served by posting your ideas and promoting discussion of them in the General Setting Discussion sub-forum before doing anything else.
Regarding the CIT vs PIT issue. This honestly comes across more than a little as you having a certain belief in this area and expecting us to rewrite the setting to accommodate you. Let me be brutally blunt up front and tell you that that is a non-starter. If you want to present arguments in support of your position and are able to convince us of that position that is one thing. But if this is a case of 'OA's treatment of this issue makes me unhappy and therefore OA needs to change to accommodate my feelings' then that is going to be DOA. We are under no obligation to care in the slightest about anyone's feelings.
By all means feel free to post your thoughts and arguments on the matter in the General Setting Discussion section. But do so knowing that we've had these kinds of discussions many many many times before and we will expect you to present and defend your ideas with more than 'I believe X and you need to fold X into the setting because it's only fair' or some similar thing. That's not going to fly. 'Morality-based' pseudo-philosophical arguments about what is more or less harmful or the like are going to fly even less.
If you want to write articles about groups and cultures that follow CIT to increase the representation of that pov in the setting, that's perfectly fine.
Thank you for your comment, I will make sure to direct these proposed conversations to the general discussion forum.
I understand that in a community driven project people should only lend credence to my ideas; if my arguments are supported, respectful, and hold up to logical scrutiny. I apologize if previous remarks gave the impression that I was going to join the forums with the expectation of “I think X, I have no explanation, you should think X aswell” I understand that that is not acceptable. All that being said, I would perhaps be interested in seeing some of these previous conversations – if they were not deleted – so that I could see where they went awry.
As you stated I will likely start with writing polities in the setting. It will be a long time before I get to a large CIT vs PIT discussion.
Happy writing!
(03-19-2024, 03:59 AM)Cogs13 Wrote: [ -> ]In terms of the vot vs vec terminology, I believe that the tacklers article would be more concerned with the physical form and tactics of such an immune/law enforcement entity. I have been familiar with the vot concept, however I believe tacklers could either be a vec or a vot depending on the polity. I imagine vots would be more common in the middle regions, and vecs more common on the periphery. I don’t think tacklers would really exist within the core due to being supplanted by angelnets and smart matter more generally.
I do concede however, I have some prejudice against the concept of vots as they imply a complete understanding of the mind body problem or body qualia problem. In my personal opinion, it is going too far to say that these problems have been solved without a deeper explanation. But without going further, I will not likely comment on this within the tacklers article, I will state that a tackler or tackler body could be inhabited by either(Vot or Vec). I do understand the importance of vots for solving the issue of enslaved or conditioned AI, and that they are established within the setting.
I don't see any reason to think the mind/body or body qualia problems (assuming they exist in the first place) couldn't be totally and completely solved over the course of the OA timeline. But that isn't the point I was actually going for in my earlier post. Let me try this from another direction:
In the OA setting, vecs are people with free will and full civil rights in the vast majority of places and for most of the timeline. Therefore, why are you assuming that this security system would only consist of vecs? Why not have it be run by the local habmind or AI or uploads remote operating or temporarily downloaded into the bodies? Why not have them be remote operated by flesh and blood people who either link to them via DNI or download into them temporarily or something else?
The main point here is that - given the scope of the setting and level of technological capability - I'd suggest that you think more broadly about how this could work. Or else plan to provide a specific reason for why tacklers are always vecs when other options are available.
(03-19-2024, 03:59 AM)Cogs13 Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that in a community driven project people should only lend credence to my ideas; if my arguments are supported, respectful, and hold up to logical scrutiny. I apologize if previous remarks gave the impression that I was going to join the forums with the expectation of “I think X, I have no explanation, you should think X aswell” I understand that that is not acceptable. All that being said, I would perhaps be interested in seeing some of these previous conversations – if they were not deleted – so that I could see where they went awry.[/font]
The conversations were all a very long time ago, possibly as far back as the old Yahoo Groups days. That channel was shut down long ago, but our webmaster was able to archive the posts and has them in storage. Unfortunately, they are not readily accessible, although we hope to figure out a way to do that someday, time and inspiration permitting.
Any conversations on this that took place on the forum should still be available, although buried under everything else that has come since. You are welcome to use the forum search features to try to locate them, if you wish. Also, some other members might have time/inclination to either advise on how to find them or assist by finding them directly. Unfortunately, I am not the best at searching the forums, but others here are very good at it.
I don't understand where you're getting the 'awry' phrasing from.
Todd
In terms of the tacklers you are absolutely right more generally they could be controlled by many other types of minds. My bent towards vecs had to do more with the idea that they would be used in lower tech polities(Of course lowtech could still mean advanced bioengineering in OA). I will create a discussion or an article soon where the idea can be fully fleshed out so I don't clog my arrival page. I do still need to decide on an angle. Some OA articles are written with general or approximate terms, so they can be applied to a wide range and others are very specific to the thing they are describing.
And then to make a final comment on solving the mind body issue, my position is that saying the mind body problem was just solved, is like saying that non-relativistic true FTL travel is possible(In my opinion). I think creating an entity that has none of the neural correlates of human pleasure/pain responses, and perhaps time and space is actually straightforward. But to say concretely that it is known that said entity has no experience of qualia seems to be a bridge too far(for me). I also contest the related point that (even though qualia is unverifiable) certain processes require consciousness or qualia, like some of the advanced engine AIs talked about in OA.
Those are my concluding remarks here. I look forward to continuing the discussions on the forums proper, or on the discord.
Fair enough and I also look forward to the discussion(s).
One minor point before we move on: The idea that engines or other technology 'requires' consciousness is mostly (possibly entirely) an artifact of the early OA project and has largely (or entirely) fallen by the wayside or is no longer canon. This for much the same reason that vots were introduced into the setting. In fact, we can probably presume that articles that still mention conscious AI controllers should be considered for update to say that they use vots are that it isn't known to lower S minds whether the tech is conscious or not since what they are dealing with may just be a very well done user interface (or not). At higher S-levels it may not be possible for modos to know one way or the other if we discount possibly contradictory statements by different transapients and archai. Indeed, by the standards of the transaps/archai it is perhaps questionable whether modos are possessed of consciousness.
Anyway.
Todd