Singularity levels and their limitations

[Rynn]

The TL;DR of Todd's explanation is that each S-levels Theory of Mind is orders of magnitude greater than that below. When a transap models human behaviour in its mind the entities in its imagination can be as cognitively complex as the real thing. They probably aren't most of the time, experience and transap science probably mean they have more efficient simplified models but the end result is the same.

For higher transaps and archai they can model entire societies and predict the outcomes of thousands of variables as easy as baseline humans can work out the likely outcome of slapping a friend for no reason. IMO it's this ability more than any other that explains why transaps rule. Even without their superior science and technology figuring out how to get a society of humans to do what they want is as easy as us manipulating pets with treats.

[turoni]

Even without their superior science and technology figuring out how to get a society of humans to do what they want is as easy as us manipulating pets with treats.

Thanks for the explanation but I don't think I need a TL;DR for this site

Speaking of pets, I found this pet page where I found pet humans and toy humans but is there an easy way to find the forum where these have been discussed? Thinking about humans as pets of AI's was one of the idea's that eventually led me to this site.

[Rynn]

You can use the forum search button on the top right. IIRC we've discussed them before.

Another option for pet humans is a human-mimicking softbot. It could easily be 90% human with a body that is completely organic and natural other than the brain. Rather than a normal human brain the softbot could have a biotech processor of similar size and shape but which runs a non-sophont program (a simm). It might be very difficult to tell it's not sophont, but underneath its personality it's just unconscious algorithms.

Such an entity could be kept as a pet with no ethical concern in most of the civilised galaxy. Unlike actual human pets which are often found in less liberal polities.

[turoni]

I must have overlooked that search button. This one is pretty recent.

but underneath its personality it's just unconscious algorithms.

Is there a consensus that unconscious algorithms are not actually alive?

[Rynn]

What do you mean by "alive"? Plenty of things are alive that aren't sentient (plants, fungi, helminths etc). What most of the major powers are concerned with is the ethics and law surrounding sophonce. Starting with the idea that conscious, sentient, intelligent beings deserve rights and working out from there.

There's some interesting research in neuroscience that points to consciousness (which leads to sentience, personhood etc) being not directly linked to intelligence. Hopefully that line of study will reveal more in time but atm OA takes the position that it is possible to make an intelligent entity that is not sentient. It has no (or minimal) conscious perception, no personhood, no sophonce. For all the intelligence it might have its no more a moral agent than a rock.

Look up bots and vots in the EG. They form the basis for a lot of OA tech and they are intelligent without being sophont.

[Drashner1]

Speaking of pets, I found this pet page where I found pet humans and toy humans but is there an easy way to find the forum where these have been discussed? Thinking about humans as pets of AI's was one of the idea's that eventually led me to this site.

The actual article on 'pet humans' (which is linked to the article you mention) dates back to the earliest days of the OA project. As such, it would have been discussed and created using the older version of the OA discussion group that was hosted on Yahoo Groups - or on the even older E-groups that existed before Yahoo bought them.

The old Yahoo Groups still exist and we can give people access to them if they wish to go archive diving. However, it should be noted that a few years ago Yahoo redesigned their discussion groups, pretty thoroughly fubaring them in the process. We are looking at ways to fix that for archival purposes, and will let the forum know if/when there is progress on this front.

Todd

[stevebowers]

I intend to explore the idea of 'pet humans' a little further, especially the 'seacastles' inhabited by the pets on Hwii. Pet humans are undoubtedely happy, but they have no real freedom.

This is in some ways an analog or allegory of the situation of many modosophonts in the Terragen Sphere, especially in locations like the Utopia Sphere and the Caretaker worlds, where any freedom they do have is a gift that could be taken away at any time.

[turoni]

Regarding being alive/conscious/sophont I'll read the EG a bit further before discussing this, I guess it must be pretty documented already.

The actual 'pet humans' do not interest me that much, (although they are a likely consequence of breeding and domesticating humans).
I think there are 2 main ways to keep humans as a pet. One is the ant keeper way that seems to be pretty documented with the caretaker worlds.
The other is a direct owner/pet relationship that poses some more (moral) problems.

No human today would feel free if they were taken as a pet in the middle of their lives. Yet I think that if we were raised under such circumstances with no knowledge of ever being free we might not question this too much. Especially if they are pretty benevolent in what we may do.
If we knew our pets would be safe doing something we wouldn't restrict them from going out on their own and doing what they want.

[Rynn]

I think there are 2 main ways to keep humans as a pet. One is the ant keeper way that seems to be pretty documented with the caretaker worlds.
The other is a direct owner/pet relationship that poses some more (moral) problems.

I think it's a lot more nuanced than that to the point of being non-trivial to define. For example:

- The Caretaker Gods are nature reservists/historical curators. Most of their worlds are kept isolated, safe from the outside world but with little interference within.

- The Utopia Sphere transaps/archai treat humans as pets in the same was as some humans spend tens of thousands of dollars on high-end pet accessories and leave their cats the estate in their will. The modosophonts of the utopia sphere exist in a constant state of pampering, entertainment, guidance and decadence maintained by transaps.

- In the Terran Federation modos are left to run their own societies via the bureaucracy but they can be overruled at any time by the transapients. So they have freedom to an extent, but you could make the case that freedom with an asterisk that says "at any time, anything could happen to you" isn't freedom in the modern sense of the word.

Beyond that there are thousands of societies that transapients exist within and it would be virtually impossible for the modosophonts to know if they're being influenced by the transaps. As Rom said earlier, the modos may think they're free but in reality their pets that can't see the bars of their cage.

[Drashner1]

No human today would feel free if they were taken as a pet in the middle of their lives. Yet I think that if we were raised under such circumstances with no knowledge of ever being free we might not question this too much. Especially if they are pretty benevolent in what we may do.
If we knew our pets would be safe doing something we wouldn't restrict them from going out on their own and doing what they want.

Bear in mind that most of modosophont civilization in the setting may qualify as the 'pet' of the ruling archailect. Or maybe something closer to a tended garden of plants. The relationship also need not be anything like what we think of when we think 'pet and owner'.

As far as the issue of 'freedom' - Modosophonts in the sephirotics have vast amounts of freedom to do all kinds of things - but they also live in a world where transapients or archailects rule absolutely and can remake or destroy them at will and with no hope of resistance (although they rarely do so). Some people interpret that to mean that 'freedom' is impossible under transapient rule (or in proximity to them). Others disagree. Freedom may be a somewhat flexible concept all around. Or be a somewhat different thing from what we are used to in RL as well.

Todd