Also, there probably aren't as many as you think. I personally can't recall having seen any of those videos while scrolling facebook. But if you've seen one and kept watching it, or even more if you've reacted to it, the AI algorithms start assuming you might like that content and start to suggest it more often. Even if you express hate or dislike about it, the algorithm classifies it as "something you love to hate" and still feeds it to you more. Meanwhile, the creators of such content get more views, whether their audience likes it or not, isn't their concern.

It's a very interesting article to think about. But I think if it comes to a point where the general population becomes almost unnecessary in the eyes of the big capitalist giants, then the economy too will collapse because they still need us as consumers. Also It's probably very unlikely to happen in my opinion because they will always need people for some tasks, even if it's just to create, repair, and maintain those systems, which needs people with the right skills and education. Otherwise, it wouldn't take many generations before those capitalist giants also collapse.

If we, however, take a bunch of other modern technologies, like genetical engineering and artificial wombs, in addition to this, I can see a more likely scenario that resembles Huxley's book "Brave New World" (also made into a movie in the early '90s). In which "modern civilization" is kept running by literally breeding and conditioning people with certain genetic qualities each for their specific functions.

I think the biggest concern about the impacts of AI is also one often used as inspiration in many sci-fi works. That it somehow develops a consciousness and its own morals and decides to turn against us. And this might become a more serious threat if they start running these things on quantum computers. These are very early in development and still have limited usability, but a few working models already exist. It also shouldn't be a surprise that the owners of these machines, which can pose many threats or be weaponized on their own, are also multi-billion dollar companies like Google or IBM.

I think we should worry more about the possible dangers of how this technology could be used as a weapon between nations, and be cautious with how we further develop and where we implement this tech. It would also probably be wise to start making regulations about this and think about ways to control if someone breaks those rules before it is already creating big problems and might already be too late, like we mostly seem to do.

I'm not sure if I've seen that one already. But it was also Donald Hoffman who inspired me to start thinking more about this subject in the first place.

I remember an anecdote he once made. About in order to save a certain beetle from extinction, Australians had to change the color of their beer bottles because them beetles thought they could mate with them, and even started preferring them 😅

Edit: Your link is probably the same video I once saw... he made the exact same anecdote 🙃 Lot of more interesting stuff from him out there...

Had to look this one up... but I'm afraid I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate?

Thanks for the tip. It's not always easy to translate these kinds of ideas and questions into words without having an academic background. Did a quick search on Kant, and it seems like his first critical work could cover some inspiring points. Might well be worth a closer look, indeed.

That last part helped me get an idea about the connection between these 2 concepts. And to bring this back to the original topic of free will brings a lot of extra questions to think about. Like if we are our own observers constantly deciding freely in which timeline we continue to exist, and if this would count for both the sum of our parts and consciousness, or only for te latter. And so on... 🤕

This gave me a lot to think about for a while 😅

I'm mostly asking questions about how realistic our perception and descriptions of that reality are. Assuming we already experience things we already consider as reality such as colors differently, In other words: does physics accurately describe how reality is or only the ways in which we all perceive the same relative differences between stuff compared to each other.

Another question could be if there is really something like empty space in which we and everything we see exists? Or is it rather a characteristic of al the matter and / or energy or whatever reality is made of, which we all just perceive in relatively the same way?

I already had a pretty good grasp of a 4th spatial dimension, not the mathematics behind it, but how to imagine it or how we might perceive certain actions from our 3D point of view. Gave me a lot of new ideas about the universe, especially black holes. However, it didn't help me in trying to grasp quantum physics, but I imagine this could possibly use even more extra dimensions.

Anyway, I understand the point you wanted to make. And now we're really starting to lose track of the topic 😅

That first part sums up what I've understood about it. Also, I think that despite it not allowing future predictions, you could predict or calculate a certain amount of probability of getting a specific future result and that the result is also subjective to the method of observing it. Which I think can give reasons to suspect determinism

The second part is also a nice clarification of how or why it could suggest free will as far as I understand it. Then again, I've also seen explanations of how it can suggest determinism. And I'm not sure I completely understand any of them. At least I know that at this moment, nobody really knows all the answers yet, still leaving it in a state of superposition until we find a way to measure it.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your clarification! Think I learned something 🙂

I think that by tickling yourself, you created a beautiful picture of how an observation could both prove and disprove free will simultaneously, determined by how you measure it.

It's almost like saying a photon can be a particle and a wave at the same time, but completely different 🙃

I like how your argument about the meaninglessness of these discussions seems to fit perfectly in the picture of a recent essay I wrote about how realistic our perception of reality is and how different it could be to every individual. 🙂

My brain is way too small to get a firm grasp of quantum physics and its mechanisms to form a meaningful opinion with it.

But based on the principles (I think) I understand from it, I also believe it could give us the ultimate answer to this question.

Let's just hope the answer doesn't turn out to be "42", leaving us with the need to find out what the actual question was 🙃

It's certainly a very interesting and possibly valid point that a person is not the same as just the collection of his cells... But then my question is what separates that person from said collection rather than being just a huge pile of complex cooperations between those cells in which the predetermined nature of everything just got a bit lost or impossible to perceive?

Those are also very good answers! Especially the one concerning the AI, which, as I understand it, attributes it more as a case of probability. I think we need quantum physics to further unfold this, which exceeds my knowledge way too far to say anything meaningful about 😊

I also agree with the argument that I'm not a group. But I don't think I entirely agree with the last sentence. I agree that an individual action can make the group less predictable, but not entirely, and also, this doesn't eliminate the possibility that the individual action was made with free will or that it wasn't determined by the workings of the group as a whole.

The way I see it can be compared to the working of the vast quantity of cells that taken as a group make us who we are... these cells individually are encoded with DNA, which determines how they work. Adding them all together creates a huge and complex entangled group of predetermined actions in which the meaning of the predictability mostly gets lost. Also, the other way around, our actions or external factors we experience can have an influence on the behavior of cells, either individual or groups.

So then the question might become if our collection of cells, or part of them, does the same for us as what DNA does for the cells or if we become an entirely new being that's seperated from the elements of which it's made. In the case of the latter, this also raises the question; with what, where, or how can the separation declared?

I'm not sure if this really stays within the same philosophy. But I have 2 concerning thoughts about this. I tend to agree with the statements suggesting we have free will. However, many of the modern AI systems seem to keep improving at predicting our preferences and behavior the more data they collect, contradicting the statement of our unpredictability.

Also, the more we look at humans in larger groups rather than at each human individually, the more it becomes possible to predict the overall actions of a group. Which also contradicts said unpredictability and possibly suggests that it's controlled by a complex ecosystem of humanity and its environment as a whole. Rendering free will to be an illusion.