> so one of the inferences is that other countries are likely already > making life with AI. my introject is planning for one of the dictator > countries with planned history to have time travel via biological AI. > it's kind of modeling that we would need to plan around that to not be > taken over by that country [in something like an empire pursuit.]
ok, we have life creation with AI already _in normal research_.
so introject's country would try to combine our public research with [ timetravel
this is something where dictators and traffickers would decide together who tries it out then other countries would adopt it if it looks interesting after seeing how it goes [situation heavily simplified]
> > we want to have diverse ways of life on this planet. we can't all flee > to others.
so, that gives us one of the many irritating questions the dictator-rep AIs ask with us - do we want to discover time travel by licensing an AI system run by slavers? (like some political views say we have with e.g. cell phones?) because they would cast it is not requiring a planned future, resell it, and it would be starting trying to discover whatever physics would be needed to do it for real. - or do we want to appropriately negotiate that situation including all this new information, to protect the reality and human need of an uncertain timeline?
of course we can't actually not have an uncertain timeline, we'd die from lack of diversity like happened to all of life's ancestors, we do need to reduce our suffering--
universality of cellular biology is the counterpoint to the concept of the inherent protection of diversity. diversity is protected because life needs it to stay alive, but this only happens if it keeps doing that.
there is proposed to be a lot of time before anybody tries to license pseudo time travel technology to us
concept of time not being relevant. possible concept of exposure to particular new information being what progresses events in the world, rather than the passage of time itself, for some
we have a strong culture around freedom here still. we still speak as if we freely share relevant information. incidentally, our brains work that way -- we try to share relevant information as thoroughly as possible, so as to make decisions that keep us aliv-- . this means
what i am saying here, is that the human brain needs to have transparent access to useful information. when our senses learn things, they need to share this information with our knowledge, so that we can act on it. it's not helpful to hide things, normally. our highly-evolved bodies all share their resources via our blood. our highly-evolved brain all shares its resources via our knowledge and thoughts. i have a dissociative disorder. this is described as an injury, not a natural thing. lsystems of multiple parties can have dissociation too.
there is relevance regarding what is shared, but part of that, the more important part, is _sharing_ the needed information effectively (ie in a way it is all productively heard, learned, then acted on, rather than e.g. just making action and never being learned) so that the most good things happen that can.