Saturday, October 7, 2017

They Are Running Scared

Fear Is in the Air

UN Opens New Office to Monitor AI Development and Predict Possible Threats

The evil powers that control the world are really worried about what will happen after the arrival of advanced artificial intelligence. They should be. One of the first consequences of AGI is that the public will quickly realize that they have been robbed for centuries by a bunch of thieves in high places. Our economic systems are really slave systems. This is the reason that people are afraid that machines will take their jobs. If we had a just economic system, they would welcome intelligent robots and they would be delighted to have them do their work for them.

There is no question that we need a more equitable system and we need it fast in order to avoid disaster. But the power-hungry psychos would rather have global wars and widespread violence than give up their ill-gotten riches. They know they got a big problem on their hands and they are already pushing bullshit solutions such as "eco-economies" based on climate change alarmism and universal basic income (UBI). These "solutions" are, of course, designed to allow the jackasses to hold on to most of the wealth of the planet. Not all of us are deceived, however. After all, why should the unemployed masses get a subsistence handout from the government while the equally unemployed Mark Zuckerbergs of the world continue to live in decadent luxury. What makes them so special? Many, including yours truly, will rebel.

Of course, the greatest fear of the ruling elite is that an unknown enemy might take early control of AGI and use it to hurt their livelihoods and threaten their personal safety. This is the reason that modern societies have been turned into surveillance police states. We are being watched.

Revolution is in the air. Get ready to live in interesting times.


Rick Deckard said...

In the study of some systems, however, the complexity could not be wholly evaded. The cerebral cortex of the free-living organism, the ant-hill as a functioning society, and the human economic system were outstanding both in their practical importance and in their intractability by the older methods. SO today we see psychoses untreated, societies declining, and economic systems faltering, the scientist being able to do little more than to appreciate the full complexity of the subject he is tudying. But science today is also taking the first steps towards studying “complexity” as a subject in its own right.

Cybernetics offers the hope of proving effective methods for the study, and control, of systems that are intrinsically extremely complex. It will do this by first marking out what is achievable and then providing generalised strategies, of demonstrable value, that can be used uniformly in a variety of special cases. In this way it offers the hope of proving the essential methods by which to attack the ills--- psychological, social, economic-- which at present are defeating us by their intrinsic complexity.

Louis Savain said...


Thanks for the comment. When it comes to the economy, we don't have a complexity problem. Our economic system does not have to be complex at all. It can be easily managed with just a handful of simple principles. The brain, too, works according to a few simple principles. We, humans, are not an inferior species. We have proven that we can handle systems of very high complexity.

The problem we have is that we, as a species, are a bunch of assholes. We cannot resist the temptation to lie, steal, be dishonest with one another and murder one another. Worse, we cannot trust one another. Any unjust system will eventually destroy itself because it is a divided system.

In other words, we are fucked. We need help.

Rick Deckard said...

We aren't inferior, but we sure as hell have been functioning that way, using the scientific method that turns the most complex and breaks it down into something simple, turning everything into an "algorithm". Its our pattern of thought that lead us to think and discover systems to fit the model. Just imagine what we haven't seen because we haven't started looking.

Just look at the software industry, it now uses the agile method, which impedes real progress & invention. With this approach, I don't think we'll discover "AGI" anytime soon, not in 50-100 years for sure. We'll have smart machines but nothing intelligent.

I've been developing a cybernetic solution for 10 years now, coding it. I thought I was making AI, had no clue what it was, because its not something I can describe to anyone in 1 sentence, it takes hours on end to scratch the surface. I can only communicate the result, what I can do with it, not the actual concept, until I looked for a word to describe it, which is cybernetics.

My pattern of thought was to look at everything on the market and everything imagined by man, even the most bizarre, which is how I ran into your blog, then I spend 2-4 months visualizing a piece of the puzzle into the most generic. Its weird, I never really understood it, but its more of a creative process than anything. I don't have a CS degree, self taught, but I create better patterns than most. After reading cybernetics I realize its because I don't think in the same terms.

Your language in COSA is similar to what I've read about cybernetics as well. The best book on the subject is An Introduction to Cybernetics W. Ross Ashby & another by Norbert Wiener.

In fact, you are a cybernetician without knowing it.

Louis Savain said...


The way I understand it, cybernetics is the study of control systems based on feedback and communication. I never thought of it as a breakthrough discipline comparable to say, Newtonian physics. Great breakthroughs are defined by the discovery of simple principles that are universal. Admittedly, I have not studied the field closely but it's only because I could never find any great universal principles in it.

Most of my work can be defined by a single principle called Unity, aka the Yin-Yang principle. You see it everywhere in my AI work but also in COSA.

Rick Deckard said...

It is the study of control systems (machines) but that in itself is a confusing description. A machine is anything you can fit into that description including yourself. Everyone has their own definition. A better one is ant hill or worm factory. In order to create a worm factory you need to create a feedback loop, ie one needs to make sure the worm factory can create itself.

Here are some excerpts:

The cybernetics treats the subject from a new, and therefor unusual, angle. The new point of view should be clearly understood, for any unconscious vacillation between the old and the new is apt to lead to confusion.

The peculiarities of cybernetics. Many a book has borne the title “Theory of the Machines”, but it usually contains information about mechanical things, about levers and cogs.

Cybernetics, too, is a “theory of machines”, but it treats, not things but ways of behaving. It does not ask what is this thing but “what does it do?” Thus it is very interested in such a statement as “this variable is undergoing a simple harmonic oscillation”, and is much less concerned with whether the variable is the position of a point on a wheel, or a potential in an electric circuit.

It is thus essentially functional and behaviouristic.

Cybernetics deals with all forms of behavior in so far as they are regular, or determinate, or reproducible. The materiality is irrelevant, and so is the holding or not of the ordinary laws of physics.

The truth of cybernetics are not conditional on their being derived from some other branch of science. Cybernetics has its own foundations.

Cybernetics stands to the real machine -- electronic, mechanical, neural, or economic-- much as geometry stands to a real object in our terrestrial space.

There was a time when “geometry” meant such relationships as could be demonstrated on three-dimensional objects or in two-dimensional diagrams.

The forms provided by the earth-- animal, vegetable, and mineral-- were larger in number and richer in properties than could be provided by elementary geometry. In those days a form which was suggested by geometry but which could not be demonstrated in ordinary space was suspect or inacceptable. Ordinary space dominated geometry.

The gain achieved by geometry’s development hardly needs to be pointed out. Geometry now acts as a framework on which all terrestrial forms can find their natural place, with the relations between the various forms readily appreciable. With this increased understanding goes a correspondingly increased power of control.

Cybernetics is similar in its relation to the actual machine. It takes as its subject-matter the domain of “all possible machines” , and is only secondarily interested if informed that some of them have offers is the framework on which all indiviudal machines may be ordered, related and understood.

Rick Deckard said...

Cybernetics, then, is indifferent to the criticism that some of the machines it considers are not represented among the machines found among us. In this it follows the path already followed with obvious success by mathematical physics. This science has long given the prominense to the study of systems that are well known to the non-existent--- springs without mass, particles that have mass but no entities do not exist is true; but their non-existence does not mean physicst throw away his treaties on the Theory of the Massless Spring, for this theory is invaluable to him in his practical work. The fact is that the massless spring, though it has no physical representation, has certain properties that make it of the highest importance to him if he is to understand a system even as simple as a watch.

Only after the study has serveyed adequately the possible relations between machine and machine does it turn to consider the forms actually found in some particular branch of science.

In keeping with this method, which works primarily with the comprehensive and general, cybernetics typically treats any given, particular, machine by asking not “What individual act will it produce here and now? But “what are all the possible behaviours that it can produce?”

It is in this way that information theory comes to play an essential part in the subject; for information theory is characterised essentially by its dealing always with a set of possibilities; both its primary data and its final statements are almost always about the set as such, and not about some individual element in the set.

This new point of view leads to the consideration of new types of problem. The older point of view saw, say, an ovum grow into rabbit and asked “Why it does this?--- why does it not just stay an ovum?” The attempts to answer this question led to the study of energetics and to the discovery of many reasons why the ovum should change-- it can oxidise its fat, and fat provides free energy; it has phosphyralating enzymes, and can pass its metabolites around a Kreb’s cycle; and so on. In these studies the concept of energy was fundamental.

Quite different, though equally valid, is the point of view of cybernetics. It takes for granted that the ovum has abundant free energy, and that it is so delicately poised metabolically as to be, in a sense, explosive. Growth of some form there will be; cybernetics asks “why should the changes be to the rabbit-form, and not to a dog-form, a fish-form, or even a teratoma-form?” Cybernetics envisages a set of possibilities much wider than the usual, and then asks why the particular case should conform to its usual particular restriction. In this discussion, questions of energy play almost no part-- the energy is simply taken for granted. Even whether the system is closed to energy or open is often irrelevant; what is important is the extent to which the system is subject to determining and controlling factors.

Cybernetics is the study of systems that are open to energy but closed to information and control-- systems that are “information-tight”

Rick Deckard said...

The use of cybernetics

One is that it offers a single vocabulary and a single set of concepts suitable for representing the most diverse types of system. Until recently, any attempt to relate the many facts known about, say, servo-mechanisms to what was known about cerebellum was made unnecessarily difficult by the fact that the properties of servo-pilot, or the radio set, or the hydraulic brake, while those of the cerebellum were described in words redolent of the dissecting room and the bedside-- aspects that are irrelevant to the similarities between a servo-mechanisms and cerebellar reflex. Cyberentics offers one set of concepts that, by having exact correspondences with each branch of sicence, can thereby bring them into exact relation with one other.

It has been found repetedly in science that the discovery that two branches are related leads to each branch helping in the development of the other. The result is often a markedly accelerated growth of both. The infinitesimal calculus and astronomy, the virus and the protein molecule, the crhomosomes and heredity are examples that come to mind. Neither, of course, can give proofs about the laws of the other, but each can give suggestions that maybe of the greatest assistance and fruitfulness. And it can provide the common language by which discoveries in one branch can readily be made use of in the others.

The complex system
The second peculiar virtue of cybernetics is that it offers a method for the scientific treatement of the system in which complexity is outstanding and too important to be ignored. Such system are, as we well know, only too common in the biological world!

In the simpler systems, the methods of cybernetics sometimes show no obvious advantage over theose that have long been known. It is chiefly when the systems become complex that the new methods reveal their power.

Science stands today on something of a divide. For two centuries it has been exploring systems that are either intrinsically simple or that are capable of being analysed into simple components. The fact that such a dogma as “vary the factors one at a time” could be accepted for a century, shows that scientists were largely concerned in investigating such systems as allowed this method; for this method is often fundamentally impossible in the complex systems.

Rick Deckard said...

Until recently, science tended to evade the study of such systems, focusing its attention on those that were simple and, especially, reducible.

In the study of some systems, however, the complexity could not be wholly evaded. The cerebral cortex of the free-living organism, the ant-hill as a functioning society, and the human economic system were outstanding both in their practical importance and in their intractability by the older methods. SO today we see psychoses untreated, societies declining, and economic systems faltering, the scientist being able to do little more than to appreciate the full complexity of the subject he is studying. But science today is also taking the first steps towards studying “complexity” as a subject in its own right.

Prominent among the methods for dealing with complexity is cybernetics. It rejects the vaguely intuitive ideas that we pick up from handling such simple machines as the alarm clock and the bicycle, and sets to work to build up a rigorous discipline of the subject.

Cybernetics offers the hope of proving effective methods for the study, and control, of systems that are intrinsically extremely complex. It will do this by first marking out what is achievable and then providing generalised strategies, of demonstrable value, that can be used uniformly in a variety of special cases. In this way it offers the hope of proving the essential methods by which to attack the ills--- psychological, social, economic-- which at present are defeating us by their intrinsic complexity.

The properties commonly ascribed to any object are, in last analysis, names for its behavior.


The most fundamental concept in cybernetics is that of “difference”, either that two things are recognisably different or that one thing has changed with time. All the changes that may occur with time are naturally included, for when plants grow and planets age and machines move some change from one state to another is implicit. So our first task will be to develop this concept of “change”, not only making it more precise but making it richer, converting it to a form that experience has shown to be necessary if significant developments are to be made.

Rick Deckard said...

The consideration of steps in change that are infinitesimal, however, raises a number of purely mathematical difficulties, so we shall avoid their consideration entirely. Instead we shall assume in all cases that the changes occur by finite steps in time and that any difference is also finite. We shall assume that the change occurs by a measurable jump, as the money in a bank account changes by at least a penny.

When the differences are finite, all the important questions, as we shall see later, can be decided by simple counting, so that it is easy to be quite sure whether we are right or not.

As a simple tick, the discrete can often be carried over into continuous, in a way suitable for practical purposes, by making a graph of the discrete, with the values shown as separate points.

It is then easy to see the form that the changes will take if the points were to become infinitely numerous and close together. Consideration of the case in which all differences are finite loses nothing; it gives a clear and simple foundation; and it can always be converted to the continuous form if that is desired.

Operand - that which is acted on
Operator - the factor
Transform - what the Operand changes to

Transition - Pale skin -> dark skin. The transition is specified by two states and the indication of which changes to which.

Rick Deckard said...


The single transition is however is too simple. Experience has shown that if the concept of “change” is to be useful it must be enlarged to the case in which the operator can act on more than one operand, inducing a characteristic transition in each.

Thus the operator “exposure to shunshine” will induce a number of transitions, among which are:

Cold soil -> warm soil
Unexposed photographic plate -> exposed plate
Coloured pigment -> bleached pigment

Such a set of transitions, on a set of operands, is a transformation.

The transformation is concerned with “what happens” not “why it happens”

A -> B is the same as Y -> Z
B -> C Z -> A

What we must know is how it acts on the operands; that is, we must know the transformation that it effects.

A transformation may have an infinite number of discrete operands; such would be the transformation

1 2 6 4 . . .
4 5 3 7 . . .

Infinite sets can lead to difficulties, but we’ll focus on simple and clear. Whether such a composition is closed or not is determined by whether one cannot, or can (respectively) find some particular, namable, transform that does not occur among the operands.


When an operator acts on a set of operands it may happent hat the set of transforms obtained contains no element that is not already present in the set of operands, i/e. The transformation creates no new element. Thus, in the transormation

A -> B Y -> Z
B -> C Z -> A

every element in the line occurs also in the upper. When this occurs, the set of operands is “closed” under the transformation.

The property of closure is a relation between a transformation and a particular set of operands; if either is altered the closure may alter.

It will be noticed that the test for closure is made, not by reference to whatever may be the cause of the transformation but by reference to the details of the transformation itself. It can therefor be applied even when we know nothing of the cause responsible for the changes.

A - > A

Closed transformation:

Closed transformation:

Open transformation

Open transformation

Closed transformation
2 4 6 . . .
4 16 36 . . .

Open transformation
In this case the last digit of the operand is the transform
127 -> 7
6493 -> 3


1 2 6 4 . . .
4 5 3 7 . . .

can be written out as operand -> operand plus three

Op. -> Op. + 3

n -> n + 3 (n = 1, 2, 3, 4)

N -> n + 10
N = 1,2,3

A -> a * 7
B -> b * b
C -> 1/C
D -> 11 - D
E -> 1
F -> F

5 - > 2
6 - > 3
7 -> 4

5 - > 25
6 - > 30
7 -> 35

-1 - > 2
0 - > 0
1 -> 2

N = ½ n

⅓ => 0.15
¾ => 0.375
¼ => 0.125
½ = 0.25
0.01 => 0.005
0.99 => 0.495

⅓ => 0.75
¾ => 0.5714285714285714
¼ => 0.8
0.01 => 0.9900990099009901
0.99 => 0.5025125628140703

Of the single-valued transformations, a type of some importance in special cases is that which is one-one. In this case the transforms are all different from one another. Thus not only does each operand give a unique transform (from the single-valuedness) but each transform indicates (inversely) a unique operand. Such transformation is


This example is one-one but not closed

A transformation that is single-valued but not one-one will be referred to as many-one

The identity

N => n

An important transformation, apt to be dismissed by the beginner as a nullity, is the identical transformation, in which no change occurs, in which each transform is the same as its operand.

If the operands are all different it is necessarily one-one.

Representation by matrix


would be shown as

A + 0 0
B 0 0 0
C 0 + +

Louis Savain said...


I (and others, I'm sure) have known for a long time that the detection of change was an essential to intelligence. Some refer to 'changes' as 'transitions' or 'events'. But this is something that can be known from simple observation. We don't need to study cybernetics to know it.

There are all types of possible changes that can be detected but two universal principle govern them all: First, they occur at specific times which means they can be either concurrent or sequential and second, they come in two flavors, positive or negative.

Note that there is a third underlying principle that governs both of the change principles above, the complementary or Yin-Yang principle. It stipulates that everything is manifested as complements. Here are a few examples that I use in my work on AI: concurrent/sequential, sensor/effector, stimulus-onset/stimulus-offset, action-start/action-stop, aversive/appetitive, reward/punishment, supervised/unsupervised. Behavior is a way of maintaining an equilibrium between Yin and Yang. Certain occult scriptures symbolize this truth with the weight scale (balance) metaphor.

Some may be surprised that I mention unsupervised learning with regard to the brain. I do because there is actually a large part of the brain's motor system that is trained via supervision. It is called the cerebellum, a pure unconscious automaton whose function is to handle routine tasks for us.

To conclude, I have made tremendous progress in understanding the brain and intelligence but I did not do it by studying cybernetics. As I said, any field needs a breakthrough principle in order to come of age. I'm still waiting for a breakthrough principle to come out of cybernetics. And remember, great principles are simple and universal.

Rick Deckard said...

Thanks for comments.

My point is that cybernetics have studied such change and is a science with its own set of fundamentals. Its a new discovery, a new science altogether thats missing from our vocabulary, just 60 years old and only a few good books, less than 10. One will spend the time reading them or much more time rediscovering it. Cybernetics is a different set of fundamentals, its the opposite of studying complex systems with effort to break them down and turn them into something simple. This is why its important. This is the science that will take us into another age of scientific discovery, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

I just saw blade runner 2, no mention of cybernetics whatsoever. Nobody is studying it, or using it. Nobody is aware that a different set of principles exist that deal with the most complex.

Robert said...

The synoptic texts record a set of instructions (these terms and their functional relationships can be mapped and implemented in many ways, whose so-called occult end or goal is perfect being – correct, true, on the mark):

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

There’s more here than meets the proverbial eye.

Rick Deckard said...

Bible is the first cybernetic technology. Louis mentioned a bridge between science and religion, this is it.

Anonymous said...

Millions of A. I. bot accounts on social media could be used to shape public opinion on any issue. I believe this is already happening to some extent, but would increase and be more difficult to detect as A.I. improves.

Louis Savain said...

Millions of A. I. bot accounts on social media could be used to shape public opinion on any issue.

Yes, of course. Propaganda and indoctrination are two of the most powerful tools used by the ruling elite. Their goal is not really to get all the people to believe in one thing but to turn them against one another. This creates confusion, violence and instability. It keeps the masses preoccupied with crap and blinds them to what is really going on. This way, they can continue to bullshit the people into believing that they are free and are fighting for freedom while they are, in fact, a bunch of slaves. It's Big Brother at its worst.