SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
was the future written about 1863 — in a NZ letter about rudimentary AI organs?.....Sir—There are few things of which the present generation is more justly proud than of the wonderful improvements which are daily taking place in all sorts of mechanical appliances. And indeed it is matter for great congratulation on many grounds. It is unnecessary to mention these here, for they are sufficiently obvious; our present business lies with considerations which may somewhat tend to humble our pride and to make us think seriously of the future prospects of the human race.
DARWIN AMONG THE MACHINES — [TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS, CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND, 13 JUNE, 1863.] Samuel Butler, submitted under the pseudonym Cellarius Story follows in comment. cartoon above from US, 19th century [unchecked origins]...
If we revert to the earliest primordial types of mechanical life, to the lever, the wedge, the inclined plane, the screw and the pulley, or (for analogy would lead us one step further) to that one primordial type from which all the mechanical kingdom has been developed, we mean to the lever itself, and if we then examine the machinery of the Great Eastern, we find ourselves almost awestruck at the vast development of the mechanical world, at the gigantic strides with which it has advanced in comparison with the slow progress of the animal and vegetable kingdom. We shall find it impossible to refrain from asking ourselves what the end of this mighty movement is to be. In what direction is it tending? What will be its upshot? To give a few imperfect hints towards a solution of these questions is the object of the present letter. We have used the words “mechanical life,” “the mechanical kingdom,” “the mechanical world” and so forth, and we have done so advisedly, for as the vegetable kingdom was slowly developed from the mineral, and as in like manner the animal supervened upon the vegetable, so now in these last few ages an entirely new kingdom has sprung up, of which we as yet have only seen what will one day be considered the antediluvian prototypes of the race. We regret deeply that our knowledge both of natural history and of machinery is too small to enable us to undertake the gigantic task of classifying machines into the genera and sub-genera, species, varieties and sub-varieties, and so forth, of tracing the connecting links between machines of widely different characters, of pointing out how subservience to the use of man has played that part among machines which natural selection has performed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, of pointing out rudimentary organs* which exist in some few machines, feebly developed and perfectly useless, yet serving to mark descent from some ancestral type which has either perished or been modified into some new phase of mechanical existence. We can only point out this field for investigation; it must be followed by others whose education and talents have been of a much higher order than any which we can lay claim to. Some few hints we have determined to venture upon, though we do so with the profoundest diffidence. Firstly, we would remark that as some of the lowest of the vertebrata attained a far greater size than has descended to their more highly organised living representatives, so a diminution in the size of machines has often attended their development and progress. Take the watch for instance. Examine the beautiful structure of the little animal, watch the intelligent play of the minute members which compose it; yet this little creature is but a development of the cumbrous clocks of the thirteenth century— it is no deterioration from them. The day may come when clocks, which certainly at the present day are not diminishing in bulk, may be entirely superseded by the universal use of watches, in which case clocks will become extinct like the earlier saurians, while the watch (whose tendency has for some years been rather to decrease in size than the contrary) will remain the only existing type of an extinct race. The views of machinery which we are thus feebly indicating will suggest the solution of one of the greatest and most mysterious questions of the day. We ref er to the question: What sort of creature man’s next successor in the supremacy of the earth is likely to be. We have of ten heard this debated; but it appears to us that we are ourselves creating our own successors; we are daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of their physical organisation; we are daily giving them greater power and supplying by all sorts of ingenious contrivances that self-regulating, self-acting power which will be to them what intellect has been to the human race. In the course of ages we shall find ourselves the inferior race. Inferior in power, inferior in that moral quality of self-control, we shall look up to them as the acme of all that the best and wisest man can ever dare to aim at. No evil passions, no jealousy, no avarice, no impure desires will disturb the serene might of those glorious creatures. Sin, shame, and sorrow will have no place among them. Their minds will be in a state of perpetual calm, the contentment of a spirit that knows no wants, is disturbed by no regrets. Ambition will never torture them. Ingratitude will never cause them the uneasiness of a moment. The guilty conscience, the hope deferred, the pains of exile, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes — these will be entirely unknown to them. If they want “feeding” (by the use of which very word we betray our recognition of them as living organism) they will be attended by patient slaves whose business and interest it will be to see that they shall want for nothing. If they are out of order they will be promptly attended to by physicians who are thoroughly acquainted with their constitutions; if they die, for even these glorious animals will not be exempt from that necessary and universal consummation, they will immediately enter into a new phase of existence, for what machine dies entirely in every part at one and the same instant? We take it that when the state of things shall have arrived which we have been above attempting to describe, man will have become to the machine what the horse and the dog are to man. He will continue to exist, nay even to improve, and will be probably better off in his state of domestication under the beneficent rule of the machines than he is in his present wild state. We treat our horses, dogs, cattle, and sheep, on the whole, with great kindness; we give them whatever experience teaches us to be best for them, and there can be no doubt that our use of meat has added to the happiness of the lower animals far more than it has detracted from it; in like manner it is reasonable to suppose that the machines will treat us kindly, for their existence is as dependent upon ours as ours is upon the lower animals. They cannot kill us and eat us as we do sheep; they will not only require our services in the parturition of their young (which branch of their economy will remain always in our hands), but also in feeding them, in setting them right when they are sick, and burying their dead or working up their corpses into new machines. It is obvious that if all the animals in Great Britain save man alone were to die, and if at the same time all intercourse with foreign countries were by some sudden catastrophe to be rendered perfectly impossible, it is obvious that under such circumstances the loss of human lif e would be something fearful to contemplate — in like manner were mankind to cease, the machines would be as badly off or even worse. The fact is that our interests are inseparable from theirs, and theirs from ours. Each race is dependent upon the other for innumerable benefits, and, until the reproductive organs of the machines have been developed in a manner which we are hardly yet able to conceive, they are entirely dependent upon man for even the continuance of their species. It is true that these organs may be ultimately developed, inasmuch as man’s interest lies in that direction; there is nothing which our infatuated race would desire more than to see a fertile union between two steam engines; it is true that machinery is even at this present time employed in begetting machinery, in becoming the parent of machines often after its own kind, but the days of flirtation, courtship, and matrimony appear to be very remote, and indeed can hardly be realised by our feeble and imperfect imagination. Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question. Our opinion is that war to the death should be instantly proclaimed against them. Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species. Let there be no exceptions made, no quarter shown; let us at once go back to the primeval condition of the race. If it be urged that this is impossible under the present condition of human affairs, this at once proves that the mischief is already done, that our servitude has commenced in good earnest, that we have raised a race of beings whom it is beyond our power to destroy, and that we are not only enslaved but are absolutely acquiescent in our bondage. For the present we shall leave this subject, which we present gratis to the members of the Philosophical Society. Should they consent to avail themselves of the vast f ield which we have pointed out, we shall endeavour to labour in it ourselves at some future and indefinite period. I am, Sir, etc., Cellarius
WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ON THE CASE OF THIS ISSUE... SEE: if it quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, it could be a robot...
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS. HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…
PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME AMERICA.
|
User login |
about it...
ABOUT THE LETTER ABOVE: FROM APPLE TECHNICA...
On June 13, 1863, a letter published in The Press newspaper of Christchurch warned about the potential dangers of mechanical evolution and called for the destruction of machines, foreshadowing the development of what we now call artificial intelligence—and the backlash against it from people who fear it may threaten humanity with extinction. It presented what may be the first published argument for stopping technological progress to prevent machines from dominating humanity.
Titled "Darwin among the Machines," the letter recently popped up again on social media thanks to Peter Wildeford of the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy. The author of the letter, Samuel Butler, submitted it under the pseudonym Cellarius, but later came to publicly embrace his position. The letter drew direct parallels between Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the rapid development of machinery, suggesting that machines could evolve consciousness and eventually supplant humans as Earth's dominant species.
"We are ourselves creating our own successors," he wrote. "We are daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of their physical organisation; we are daily giving them greater power and supplying by all sorts of ingenious contrivances that self-regulating, self-acting power which will be to them what intellect has been to the human race. In the course of ages we shall find ourselves the inferior race."
In the letter, he also portrayed humans becoming subservient to machines, but first serving as caretakers who would maintain and help reproduce mechanical life—a relationship Butler compared to that between humans and their domestic animals, before it later inverts and machines take over.
"We take it that when the state of things shall have arrived which we have been above attempting to describe, man will have become to the machine what the horse and the dog are to man... we give them whatever experience teaches us to be best for them... in like manner it is reasonable to suppose that the machines will treat us kindly, for their existence is as dependent upon ours as ours is upon the lower animals," he wrote.
The text anticipated several modern AI safety concerns, including the possibility of machine consciousness, self-replication, and humans losing control of their technological creations. These themes later appeared in works like Isaac Asimov's The Evitable Conflict, Frank Herbert's Dune novels (Butler possibly served as the inspiration for the term "Butlerian Jihad"), and the Matrix films.
Butler's letter dug deep into the taxonomy of machine evolution, discussing mechanical "genera and sub-genera" and pointing to examples like how watches had evolved from "cumbrous clocks of the thirteenth century"—suggesting that, like some early vertebrates, mechanical species might get smaller as they became more sophisticated. He expanded these ideas in his 1872 novel Erewhon, which depicted a society that had banned most mechanical inventions. In his fictional society, citizens destroyed all machines invented within the previous 300 years.
Butler's concerns about machine evolution received mixed reactions, according to Butler in the preface to the second edition of Erewhon. Some reviewers, he said, interpreted his work as an attempt to satirize Darwin's evolutionary theory, though Butler denied this. In a letter to Darwin in 1865, Butler expressed his deep appreciation for The Origin of Species, writing that it "thoroughly fascinated" him and explained that he had defended Darwin's theory against critics in New Zealand's press.
What makes Butler's vision particularly remarkable is that he was writing in a vastly different technological context when computing devices barely existed. While Charles Babbage had proposed his theoretical Analytical Engine in 1837—a mechanical computer using gears and levers that was never built in his lifetime—the most advanced calculating devices of 1863 were little more than mechanical calculators and slide rules.
Butler extrapolated from the simple machines of the Industrial Revolution, where mechanical automation was transforming manufacturing, but nothing resembling modern computers existed. The first working program-controlled computer wouldn't appear for another 70 years, making his predictions of machine intelligence strikingly prescient.
Some things never change
The debate Butler started continues today. Two years ago, the world grappled with what one might call the "great AI takeover scare of 2023." OpenAI's GPT-4 had just been released, and researchers evaluated its "power-seeking behavior," echoing concerns about potential self-replication and autonomous decision-making.
GPT-4's release inspired several open letters signed by AI researchers and tech executives warning of potential extinction-level risks posed by advanced artificial intelligence. One of the letters, reminiscent of fears about nuclear weapons or pandemics, called for a global pause on AI development. Around the same time, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testified of AI dangers in front of the US Senate.
A year later, California legislator Scott Wiener proposed a bill to regulate AI, backed by prominent figures that critics labeled as "AI doomers"—those who feared the uncontrolled progression of machine intelligence. Opponents of the bill argued such measures were overblown and could stifle innovation, much as Butler’s fictional society had done. Yet his 19th century call for pausing mechanical progress bears a striking resemblance to recent open letters and policy proposals about AI safety.
Perhaps the great AI takeover scare will one day be viewed as another chapter in humanity’s long struggle to reconcile progress with appropriate human oversight—a struggle Butler foreshadowed over 160 years ago. But in some ways, even if machines never become truly intelligent, he was still eerily accurate about our dependence on the ways they algorithmically regulate our lives.
"Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them," Butler wrote in 1863. "The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question."
Butler didn't end his letter with passive acceptance of this fate. Somewhat like Eliezer Yudkowsky's 2023 proposal of bombing data centers to prevent AI takeover, Butler's letter concluded with a dramatic call to arms: "War to the death should be instantly proclaimed against them. Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species. Let there be no exceptions made, no quarter shown; let us at once go back to the primeval condition of the race."
Even then, he feared it might already be too late, writing that if such destruction proved impossible because of our growing dependency on them: "This at once proves that the mischief is already done, that our servitude has commenced in good earnest, that we have raised a race of beings whom it is beyond our power to destroy."
https://apple.news/AzfyQ1MiZTzyV21S6G4U48g
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.
HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…
PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME AMERICA.
SEE ALSO: if it quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, it could be a robot...