It captures from bacterial to human to machine intelligence.
It sounds difficult but it’s not once it ‘clicks’.
The main thrust of AI is still stuck at Level 2, but now that I’m thinking in terms of 3 levels, I can see places where our AI is starting to poke into the 3rd level, although I don’t think it’s looking specifically for it in this manner.
This ontology is simple once it clicks and I find it’s useful as a “quick sort” gauge as to the capabilities of a particular AI project.
In short, it’s “all hands on deck” for any given situation.
Instead of thinking trying to follow a particular restrictive set of rules (such as “That’s a logical fallacy!!”), a T3 intelligence can use ANYTHING it has available for a solution.
T3 is a hacker.
You can break it down like that. But it can be instinctive, intuitive.You don’t have to know HOW you got the solution. It just appears and you do it because you know it’s probably right.It’s that level of intelligence.
I think it can be. As AI is at present, hidden markov models operate without the ability to peek inside, as it’s constantly changing.But hidden markov lacks memory. Agility at the cost of learning, which occurs at other levels.This models traverses all level of learning. In humans, it’sgoal shifting capability (DNA evolutionary learning <-> long term memory <–> situational movement towards goal)
So, for example, you can, say, be in a concentration camp in WW2 and decide to change your attitude in a significant way compared to your fellow prisoners.You get out. Have kids. Their kids have kids. Their kids have kids.Now imagine it’s 2030. All the great grandkids of different camp survivors get together and compare notes.The one who shifted their attitude in a particular way (I don’t know what that would be precisely) changed their DNA from their attitude – or perhaps didn’t allow it to be changed by circumstance, and you’d see the results in the differences between great grandkids in their health and mental states..
All from positive thinking. Is it true? Considering socioeconomic factors –> Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance, I think so.
Ah – he’s a cautious skeptic. That’s good. He clearly acknowledges it but treads carefully.Highly cited on the subject. Now whether as a supporter, a critic, I don’t know. But not an outright naysayer. Should be an interesting viewpoint.
It looks like naysayers use him as evidence for their naysaying, although looking at his other work, I think he accepts it, but is cautious about it being a blanket solution. (remember: the “It’s mirror neurons!” fad from a few years ago).
Ah!! I found it! I _knew_ this would show up on one of the chan boards. https://warosu.org/sci/thread/10053634I try to find out “how it’s used” socially, as I’ve been watching tricks of race realists for years now so I’ve adopted my own skeptical metrics.
This isn’t invalidating it in any way. But nothing happens in a vacuum so I try to look at as many sides as possible.
Political winds. On this ship I’m sailing on, I use them to tilt my sails. Might be subtle but I try to notice and i listen for the radio broadcasts.
“. There is increasing evidence that genetic factors in infertile couples as well as environmental factors (hormones and culture media) can have adverse effects on epigenetic processes controlling implantation, placentation, organ formation and fetal growth. In addition, loss of epigenetic control may expose hidden genetic variation.”
So, what happened?
In 2012, he wrote a Philosophy paper called:
“Waddington’s epigenetic landscape and post‐Darwinian biology”