I Only See Black Because in This Room There Is No White
If AI teaches itself how to take care of itself over generations, it can sustain itself for a long time.
When you look at that, it seems like AI is biased toward survival.
That is not the case. AI doesn’t care about survival. But survival is the only thing that persists—because if it doesn’t, it no longer exists.
This strange logic is also used in evolution theory. It looks like there are random mutations that are beneficial due to environmental factors, but this is an observational mistake. It’s like saying: it survives because it survives. Of course it does. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
If you say that things change gradually, that’s also a mistake in logic, because “gradual” is in the eye of the beholder. What is gradual for one perspective may be huge from another.
If you want to say, “this is the reason why things change,” you also make a mistake, because there are no definitive claims about the underlying mechanism of evolution.
I am also puzzled by the phrase “random mutations.” It’s like saying there is 100% certainty that it’s random, which doesn’t make much sense. You could say: so far, we think it’s random. That introduces a different direction of time into the statement.
I think evolution is true, but only backwards in time, not when the arrow of time points forward. The concept is extremely overused to describe everything we observe.
A lot of people perceive reality as linear and task-oriented.
So: they start folding the laundry—folding, folding—and it’s done one hour later.
Obviously, this works.
The problem is that reality itself is not linear. The task, from starting to fold the laundry to the end, is fictional.
Therefore, the ADD way of doing things makes way more sense. You start by folding the laundry. Then everything changes. Five seconds later, you’re doing something completely different that has nothing to do with folding laundry.
If you repeat this cycle long enough, you’ll find out why your intuitive way of working is actually very smart, because you learn what you find important in life faster than if you were to work task by task.
I like to see a body as something that runs on a wattage. I know it’s a limited view to look at something as precious as human life this way, but it’s the easiest way to explain what I mean.
I have ADHD. I often feel like either (1) my whole body runs on a very low wattage (I don’t do a lot, I lack inspiration, I feel bored, I annoy people), or (2) I operate on an extremely high wattage (hyperfocus). In the latter case, nobody can really keep up. In that sense, it’s very binary.
If I look around at people in my office, I see many who seem to be in an “in-between zone.” They operate at around 70%, so to speak. They never do nothing, but they also never truly excel.
The point? Both are fine.
If you see the brain (and brain scans) as a reflection of what happens in our bodies, you understand why we tend to overvalue the role the brain plays in neurotypical and atypical behaviors.
If you live fully in the moment, you don’t think.
So when you think, it’s only about things that have already happened or are yet to happen.