You are quite right @fergish and I hope I wasn’t too harsh on those with concerns. I share those concerns, but I’m saying “hold them” because I’m hearing some tendency to dismiss this without proper consideration.
I confess this approach is not at all new to me (as I’ve mentioned) but David has both taken his inspiration into something I didn’t explore (colony intelligence) and managed to build something amazing with it.
Thanks And thanks for helping me reign in my perspective a little, by showing how important it will be to have this discussion and respect the difficulties inherent in such a paradigm shift.
That’s because there are different forms of evolution…I thought the whole idea was basing it on natural evolution, not any old “Evolution” - cars evolve over time, ideas, fashion etc. The conversation is restricted to Natural Evolution - as in the biological theory, as far as I can see
Not a new means of Evolution…
That again, would be un-natural Evolution…so to speak.
I would say these things are emergent properties of the Neo-Cortex - or, alternatively emergent properties of Natural evolution
That’s a valid distinction. It’s not one I’m making and I don’t see a need to do so. Yes, David is modelling using biological systems, so it’s correct to say we’re talking about a biological system, and that this means he’s modelling based on “natural evolution.” While technically useful, the word “natural” has connotations that make me avoid it, and when I say evolution, I generally mean evolution in all its forms (which to me are all natural, whether present on this planet before humans, or as a result of us). It would not concern me if we started to look at memetics, or any other phenomenon to improve SAFE Network, “natural” or “unnatural.” What I think is important, is being conscious of how we’re doing this, and using the best method we can, to fulfil the purposes we set out to achieve.
Think we are all saying the same thing, bar some semantics perhaps. Key is that using what we know works in ways it works is cool. So finding simple things that work extremely well is great, we can do simple We cannot (obviously, in this thread we prove it) do much past simple. So the ant behaviour is simple enough to hopefully mimic, other things are way harder (like mice/rats/chimps etc.), but we are all on a path, whatever it’s called.
I just like to explore ideas and thoughts as many here seem to. Great to see it all happening, I enjoy the banter and various angles.
Interesting…so even though, that’s what it is and you recognise it is distinct from other forms of Evolution, you maintain we’re better off dropping the distinction and the word “Natural” because it has connotations? (What connotations?)Can you see how this might muddy the waters somewhat and if so, what is the impact of the “connotation” that would be worse than this on which you’ve based your opinion?
If it’s a “different means of evolution”, then it is something else…is what I’m saying.
Nor me, but it’s again an emergent property - memes do act like genes though in propagating ideas - the process is analogous to it not the same as it - so yes, you could use the analogy and yes you could in this example see little difference - however there are other forms of Evolution, where the model would break down I think. If we adopt a larger catch all definition of “Evolution”, then we could all potentially be talking about different processes -however nuanced and end up talking at cross purposes. I’d say in this instance, for clarity, so we can all be on the same page and talking about the same thing .
Is the “Theory of Evolution” better then?
Since the discussion in this thread has revolved around the word “evolution” and the comparison with natural systems as possible mechanisms of interest for the development of the SAFE network after it is finally launched, it seems to me (as a sometime biologist) that what people are debating above (substantially) are the merits of “natural selection” vs “artificial selection” - or maybe something in between?
Lol…this is all just playing around in the sand-pit with thought experiments really about the future…not something to hold the Launch up or anything…
Regarding the AI…and parallels with the brain/evolution etc etc
It starts with the Amygdala, regulating the basic functions of the Network…ie Launch!
The AI (or Neo-Cortex) develops after that…it has to - at least it has to if we are ever going to get to the point where the Network has a “meaning” - we already know it’s “purpose” and this does not enter into it. The only “meaning” it can have is one that it creates itself. In order to create meaning, it needs to evolve a Neo-Cortex…OK…it needs sentience.
So, How do we achieve this?
As with evolution, we have to create the Environment within which Natural selection adaptive processes can operate. The nodes are the genes I think - we have to cause the genes/nodes problems in order for the fittest to survive - a virus thingy is a mutation…That’s how I see it and I think it is feasible in general terms - technical terms, I’m not your man…
Many issues within issues here but very interesting…would this not just create a better Amygdala? …No Idea…lol
It’s sad to see how an interesting thread goes to a boring discussion about nature, ants, evolution, and this kind of stuff. I miss technical discussions.
Yes, I know the feeling…every time I have an interesting conversation, someone says something like that. I find technical discussions boring, because I don’t understand them, probably similar to your situation.
That’s why I don’t visit any technical threads and start injecting un-helpful comments.
There seems to be a common idea that all anyone should talk about is technical issues - this is a community with different interests, what one finds interesting another might not.
If you enter a room and people are talking, would you interrupt to tell them how boring their conversation was? No- I don’t think so.
I think there is a big central paradox to overcome here and I think this is where there’s some confusion. You cannot by random means achieve a goal or purpose - highly improbable anyway. At some point you are “guiding” the process artificially - to achieve the goal/purpose.
To use the Evolution analogy - you are just as likely to grow a pair of horns or wings as a Neo-Cortex.
Good point. I’m out. It seemed courteous to respond to @al_kafir’s questions but they never end, and so again we’ve muddied what was a fascinating discussion about what David has planned. I hold my hand up to that and will be more willing to ignore “invitations” to discuss in future.
David is still the 'creator" as far as I have seen.
I don’t see why he ought to drop that roll to make the system fit the ‘evolution’ analogy you (and others) are imposing on it.
Breeding works equally well as an biological analogy – And more or less that is what we are looking for in upgrades. Bring out the good, reduce the bad. In many areas we can identify what is good or bad. Fast is better than slow. Large is better than small. Correct consensus is better than incorrect. Goals are perfectly acceptable in many areas.
So is that a warning from the mod to stop asking too many questions or what?
You seem to be accusing me of “muddling up” the thread - why me? Seriously?
If you have a problem with me then do something about it or are you too “courteous”?
All I’ve done throughout this thread is try to unmuddle the confusion- particularly yours!
A vault that does not comply with the majority, gets disconnected. if a simultaneous switch happens, e.g. on a hard fork switching on a deadline, then that would for sure give a momentary dent in the message flow, and a loss of 12,5% (keeping with that number) of nodes on the network. With sacrificial data providing a 33% minimal buffer, the network should still be able to continue uninterrupted. The safecoin farming rate would likely strongly change to encourage the original 87,5%.
Do you want me to answer you or what? I appear to be in a catch 22 - either I don;t respond to people, or get accused of being the one going off-topic.
It is not my analogy it is DIrvine’s as far as my understanding is - so again why exactly are you saying it’s mine?
There IS a paradox I think - I don’t believe it will be easy to figure out the best way for the system to evolve. What I should also have said is that the situation is not like a typical IT Genetic Algorithm situation - even if something like those things could work (I don’t think they are applicable here) - it still wouldn’t be wise to make use of them in this case I think. I would like to see the system move towards the AI (“Neo-Cortex”) state because it fits in with one of my projects - but I believe it will more likely get there with the help of “artificial selection”.
No it’s not official, it’s my personal opinion. I make it clear when I’m acting as moderator, and because you and I have had some disagreements recently I won’t be doing so in relation to you for the time being at least.
I liked your distinction given by the example of animals not having a purpose, where man-made computer programs are made for a purpose.
As the SAFE network is intended to be “made” “autonomous”, it might sit at the boundary of those two words. Would it help if we speak of the SAFE network to have “fundamental principles” of protecting freedom, security and privacy; where it’s final purpose, what it will become in several or many year, we cannot yet know and perhaps should leave to the people then to guide?
If you have St. Bernards, Greyhounds and Dachsunds, Each will win various transactions based on its strenghts…
Watching movies may need a St. Bernard (High Payload) live conversation may need the greyhound (low latency) And the Kitten pictures probably go on Dachsunds…
If you have variety the network can bend wherever the users decide to take it.
And thanks for helping me reign in my perspective a little, by showing how important it will be to have this discussion and respect the difficulties inherent in such a paradigm shift.
We cannot (obviously, in this thread we prove it) do much past simple. So the ant behaviour is simple enough to hopefully mimic, other things are way harder (like mice/rats/chimps etc.), but we are all on a path, whatever it’s called.