> > > > > > 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 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.
