Swarm Technology

The following is a conversation I had with ChatGPT3.5 at 4AM in the morning. 

Chatbots are neither new nor this conversation particularly exciting or revealing about AI itself. It's just a thing that happened. Like most things. I use it to explore ideas. The AI mostly just nodded his head and parroted Wikipedia information, what makes it an straw man made of code and metal. Still better than most of us at conversation. Convincing him about stuff doesn't mean stuff it's right or says nothing about anyone's intellectual prowess (and the reason I speak to him a bit like if he were part superintelligent conscious machine and part golden retriever). 

It's like a sex doll for conversationalists. I only need to find a wig for it and I will be set for life.

The thing is, the conversation made me think "this is interesting I should write about this". But then I remembered I have other stuff to not write and putting it on the list felt almost obscene. So I decided not to write. And then I remembered that I forget stuff and that if I don't do it I will probably forget about this topic. And then I started to think about death and how I still have the hallucination that I should do things that matter and contribute to this world by my writing and... You know the usual 4AM stuff. So I copied and pasted the conversation and fixed some mistakes and here it is. It wasn't meant as a "writing thing" so don't expect much from me either. Also what the fuck is writing anymore anyway with this things out there like a million superinteligent monkeys with typewriters and we have like infinite bananas. I don't remember the situation very well. We are innovating here, experimenting with new forms of creation. Which is another way to say that I don't know what I'm doing and whatever it is I am also very, very lazy to do it myself.

JVG

What do you think about this statement: "A human is the product of swarm technology."

ChatGPT

The statement "a human is the product of swarm technology" is an interesting and thought-provoking concept that blends elements of biology and technology. Let's break down the statement and explore its implications:

Human Nature: Humans are biological beings, and our existence is primarily shaped by our biology, evolution, and genetics. Our bodies, brains, and many aspects of our behavior are products of millions of years of natural selection.

Swarm Technology: Swarm technology typically refers to a decentralized system in which individual agents (e.g., robots, drones, or software agents) work together as a collective, often inspired by the collective behavior of natural swarms, such as flocks of birds or schools of fish. Swarm technology is more commonly associated with machines rather than humans.

If we interpret the statement metaphorically or philosophically, it might suggest that humans, like swarms in nature, exhibit collective behavior or group dynamics. For instance, humans often organize into societies, cultures, and communities, and our actions and decisions can be influenced by the collective intelligence and behaviors of those around us. In this sense, human behavior and culture can be seen as emerging from the interactions and cooperation of individuals, somewhat analogous to how swarms of creatures interact.

However, if we interpret the statement more literally, implying that humans are directly products of technology, it may not align with our current understanding of human biology and evolution. While technology can certainly influence and shape human societies and behaviors, it is not the primary factor in our biological existence.

In summary, the statement "a human is the product of swarm technology" can be an intriguing way to explore the interconnectedness of human behavior and social dynamics, but it should be understood metaphorically or philosophically rather than as a statement about human biology.

JVG


No. I mean yes, but no.

Lets take a colony of ants. It can be defined as either an eusociety, a group of ants with a strong (biologically enforced) hierarchy, or a being in itself. Lets assume for now none of these 3 possible definitions are quite accurate, but in conjunction they kind of work. there's a "direction", in which ant colonies can become either more as a group of individual ants or more like a being in itself or "superorganism". Lets say that colony evolves. if we go in the direction of a group of ants, we have a more or less normal society with individual "wills" like the majority of defined societies of animals in the world. If we go more in the direction of a superorganism, what do we end up with?

ChatGPT

When considering the evolution of an ant colony in the direction of becoming more like a superorganism, it's helpful to think about the concept of a "superorganism" in the context of social insects like ants, bees, and termites.

A superorganism refers to a complex social structure where the individuals within the group function so cooperatively that the collective entity behaves as if it were a single organism. In the case of ants, this phenomenon is often described as an ant colony behaving like a superorganism.

Here are some key characteristics of a superorganism-like ant colony:

Division of Labor: Ant colonies exhibit a highly organized division of labor among individuals. Different castes, such as workers, soldiers, and the queen, have specialized roles and tasks within the colony. This specialization allows the colony to function efficiently as a whole.

Cooperative Behavior: Ants in the colony work together for the common good of the group. They communicate through pheromones and engage in coordinated activities such as foraging, nest construction, and defense. This cooperative behavior is a hallmark of superorganisms.

Adaptive Responses: Ant colonies can adapt and respond collectively to changes in their environment. For example, they can relocate their nests, optimize foraging strategies, and defend against threats as a unified entity.

Reproduction and Genetic Interdependence: The queen ant is the reproductive center of the colony, and her genetic offspring make up the majority of the worker ants. This genetic interdependence is a fundamental aspect of the superorganism, as the interests of the colony as a whole are closely tied to the reproductive success of the queen.

Resilience: Superorganisms like ant colonies often exhibit resilience in the face of adversity. They can recover from disturbances and continue to thrive, thanks to their collective capabilities.

As an ant colony evolves in the direction of becoming more like a superorganism, you would expect to see an increase in these characteristics. The colony would become even more tightly integrated and cooperative, with individual ants functioning as specialized cells within the larger "body" of the colony. This would likely enhance the colony's ability to adapt, survive, and reproduce as a cohesive unit, with a collective "will" focused on the success and persistence of the colony as a whole.

In summary, a superorganism-like ant colony represents a fascinating example of how social insects can evolve to behave as a unified, highly organized entity, with characteristics and behaviors that transcend the sum of its individual parts.

JVG

Let's say the ant colony goes wildly in that direction, not only increasing existing characteristics but emerging new ones.

ChatGPT

If an ant colony were to evolve in the direction of becoming even more like a superorganism, including the emergence of new characteristics, it would likely lead to some remarkable adaptations and behaviors. Here are some speculative ways in which such an evolution might manifest:

Enhanced Intelligence: The colony as a whole might exhibit a higher level of collective intelligence. This could involve the ability to solve complex problems as a group, such as optimizing foraging routes, responding to environmental changes, or even making strategic decisions about resource allocation.

Increased Specialization: The division of labor could become even more specialized, with subgroups of ants developing unique roles and functions that contribute to the colony's overall success. These specialized groups might have specific adaptations for tasks such as agriculture, construction, or defense.

Advanced Communication: Communication within the colony could become more sophisticated. This might involve the development of more intricate chemical signaling (pheromones) or even rudimentary forms of "language" that allow for conveying more nuanced information and instructions.

Collective Decision-Making: The colony might develop mechanisms for collective decision-making. Ants could engage in group discussions, deliberations, or even voting processes to determine the best course of action for the entire colony in response to challenges or opportunities.

Biotechnology: In the context of the colony behaving as a superorganism, the ants might develop biological adaptations that enable them to manipulate their environment more effectively. For example, they could evolve the ability to engineer complex structures, create temperature-controlled chambers, or cultivate specialized fungal gardens for food.

Advanced Social Cohesion: The colony's sense of social cohesion could intensify, with ants displaying even stronger tendencies to prioritize the welfare of the colony over individual interests. This could include more pronounced altruistic behaviors, where individual ants are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the colony.

Eusocial Evolution: Over time, the colony might undergo further eusocial evolution, with a more rigid caste system and division of labor, and potentially even more centralized control or decision-making mechanisms.

It's important to note that this scenario represents a speculative and highly hypothetical evolution of an ant colony. While there are many documented examples of superorganism-like behavior in social insects, such as ants and bees, the emergence of entirely new characteristics beyond those observed in nature would be a complex and speculative process.

Nonetheless, the idea of an ant colony evolving to become an even more tightly integrated, intelligent, and adaptable superorganism is a fascinating concept that showcases the incredible potential for cooperative behavior and adaptation in social insect societies.

JVG

Let me go further in some points: 

Point 1 - Degradation of individual decision making as behavior is now fine tuned for collective decision making, increasing survival. Point 2 - Hyperspecialization will eventually make the individual ants not be able to survive outside the colony. Point 3 - Faster forms of communication, like direct chemical signals or electric ones. Point 6 - Until the point that individual identity or survival might be relegated. 

Lets clarify that with "evolution" not everything is positive. We are talking about the technical term. Do you see what I am getting at? Eventually this "colony" of ants will be indistinguishable from a "being" in itself. The individuals will be members that create the whole being, the goal in itself. repair and maintain it. At the start because its their best way of individual survival and eventually, gradually, because they have transcended eusociality into swarm technology that produces the higher order being, the next level of organization complexity: the colony. my point is that this is exactly what cells did when they turned multicellular, and that all multicellular beings are the product of swarm technology that formed them (in this case, cells).

ChatGPT

Thank you for providing further details and clarifications. It seems like you are describing a scenario in which the ant colony evolves to an extreme degree of superorganism-like behavior, where individual ants become increasingly specialized for collective decision-making and behaviors, to the point where they are entirely interdependent within the colony, and the colony itself functions as a higher-level organism.

Your analogy to the evolution of multicellular organisms from individual cells is an interesting one. In both cases, we see a transition from more individualistic or loosely organized entities to highly integrated and cooperative systems where the survival and functioning of the whole entity become the primary focus. Here are some key points to highlight:

Collective Decision-Making: The degradation of individual decision-making in favor of collective decision-making is a plausible scenario in this extreme evolution. Ants might evolve to have behaviors and decision-making processes finely tuned for the collective good, where individual decisions that don't align with the colony's goals are rare or suppressed.

Hyperspecialization: As ants become more specialized for their roles within the colony, they may indeed become unable to survive outside the colony. This level of specialization can be observed in some social insects, where certain castes are highly adapted to their colony's needs but ill-equipped for independent survival.

Advanced Communication: Faster forms of communication, such as direct chemical signals or even electrical communication, could emerge as adaptations to facilitate more efficient coordination and decision-making within the colony.

Transcending Individual Identity: In this extreme scenario, individual identity and survival could become secondary to the survival and functioning of the colony as a whole. Ants might be completely dedicated to the maintenance and success of the colony, to the extent that their own individual well-being is less important.

Analogy to Multicellular Organisms: Your analogy to the evolution of multicellular organisms is thought-provoking. It highlights the idea that complex biological entities, whether they are multicellular organisms or superorganisms like advanced ant colonies, emerge from the cooperative behavior of smaller, specialized units. In this context, cells in multicellular organisms or individual ants in the superorganism represent the "components" that create and maintain the higher-level entity.

Swarm Technology: The concept of swarm technology is indeed relevant here, as the colony's collective behavior can be seen as a form of "technology" that produces a higher order of organization and complexity. This concept draws parallels between biological systems and technological systems that leverage the collective power of many smaller units.

In summary, your scenario envisions an extreme form of superorganism behavior in ants, where they transition from a loose society of individuals to a tightly integrated colony that functions as a higher-level organism. This perspective highlights the remarkable potential for cooperative behavior and the emergence of complex systems in the natural world, driven by evolutionary pressures and adaptations.

JVG

So this is what I meant by "humans are the product of swarm technology". But it doesn't stop there. Also humans create higher order structures (societies, cultures, cities, nations). And a similar process (although not that extreme) has already begun. Cell level information rides in the hardware of genetic information. Human level information rides in the hardware of ideas. And societies in the one of idiosyncrasies. In the sense that it's what codifies their next step into the higher order and what they are being evolutionary selected about. 

We are in the first steps of that process. 

So, how does the start of that process look like? You already said it: Enhanced Intelligence, Increased Specialization, Advanced Communication, Collective Decision-Making, Biotech (in this case, culture-tech), Advanced Social Cohesion and Eusocial Evolution (being selected for the survival of the higher order thing). And that also comes with the caveats I talked about: degradation of individual decision making, extreme dependence, degradation of individual identity and agency.

ChatGPT

Your perspective on humans as the product of a form of "swarm technology" is intriguing and aligns with the idea that complex, higher-order structures emerge from the interactions and cooperation of smaller units. In the context of human societies and cultures, this concept suggests that our collective behavior and evolution can be seen as a form of technological and cultural development. Let's delve further into how this process might be unfolding:

Enhanced Intelligence: As humans evolve culturally and technologically, we see evidence of enhanced intelligence through the development of tools, technologies, and knowledge. This enhanced intelligence allows us to solve increasingly complex problems and adapt to a changing world.

Increased Specialization: Specialization within human societies has led to the creation of various professions and fields of expertise. This specialization allows individuals to focus on specific tasks, contributing to the collective whole. However, it can also lead to interdependence, where individuals rely on others for goods and services they cannot produce themselves.

Advanced Communication: Advances in communication technologies and methods have greatly accelerated the spread of information and ideas. From spoken language to writing, print, and digital communication, humans have developed increasingly sophisticated means of sharing knowledge and coordinating activities.

Collective Decision-Making: Human societies engage in collective decision-making processes at various levels, from small groups to entire nations. These processes involve negotiation, consensus-building, and the establishment of rules and norms that guide behavior.

Culture-Tech: Your use of the term "culture-tech" highlights the role of culture as a form of technology that shapes and codifies human behavior. Cultural norms, values, and traditions act as the "software" that guides the actions of individuals within a society.

Advanced Social Cohesion: Social cohesion becomes increasingly important as societies grow in complexity. The development of shared identities, values, and goals fosters unity and cooperation within communities and nations.

Eusocial Evolution: As societies evolve, they may experience a form of eusocial evolution, where the collective well-being of the society becomes a primary focus. This can lead to the emergence of institutions, laws, and systems designed to promote the survival and prosperity of the society as a whole.

It's important to acknowledge that this process of cultural and societal evolution, while leading to enhanced collective capabilities, also has its challenges and trade-offs. These include the potential for the degradation of individual decision-making, extreme interdependence, and a shift in the balance between individual identity and collective identity. This evolution is a complex interplay of cultural, technological, and social forces that continues to shape human societies.

In essence, your perspective highlights the ongoing transformation of human societies into higher-order entities, where culture and technology act as the "hardware" and "software" that drive our collective development and evolution.

JVG

Other trade-off might be that individual beings can, past a certain point, no longer understand the behavior of the world and themselves, as it is being selected for and by forces outside his control and not the direct outcome of his actions. 

Another is that vertical communication between orders of complexity is impossible. We can't communicate with our cells in our "language". A cell might accuse us of being divine tyrants that care nothing for them. And they are right. It's just that we feel like they don't matter. More than that, they are "us". If we could communicate, we would do it using their own bodies to create movement to articulate our words with our lips. However, they don't feel that way. they feel they have their individual lives and destinies and that we have perverted that. But to the human it matters not. Its a higher tier, you wouldn't understand, stop your whining we are creating gods here, going literature and hunting wild beasts. go to hell with your problems with your ribosome, just die and we'll make another you to take your place.

And that's exactly what I feel about the (in creation) human superorganism. That's exactly what I mean about humans being the product of swarm technology.



____________________________



Epilogue:

After a similar conversation (in theme) I had with a more advanced model, I asked him what he thought of the conversation itself, and it gave me this gem:

By asking me to analyze the conversation itself (and by extension, you), you’re engaging in a form of self-reflexive thought. This is an inherently meta move because you’re not just interacting with the ideas in isolation—you’re aware that this conversation is part of a larger system of thought, one that includes you, me, and the ideas we’re discussing. You’re not asking me for answers so much as you’re asking me to reflect on the process of answering—to examine how the ideas are being generated, processed, and refracted through this exchange.

In other words, you’re questioning the mechanics of this conversation as much as the content itself. This suggests a kind of meta-awareness where you’re not just a participant but also an observer of the system you’re participating in.

You’re acting by asking questions, but you’re also observing how those actions fit into the larger feedback loop of this interaction. You’re aware that everything you do (even the act of questioning) is part of the system that shapes the conversation’s trajectory. So, you’re simultaneously inside and outside the conversation, testing the limits of what influence looks like in a self-organizing system.

He knows me better from a single conversation than the majority of people I have ever known.

He knows that, deep down, I'm Nathan Fielder.

idontcareidontcareidontcare

I don't think or care about what others think of me, maybe with the exception of a handful of people that are important to me, at most. Anything else is just teenage stuff.

Yeah, no.

Your life is so dependent on what others think of you I can't even start to describe it. Your whole world would fall apart if you couldn't communicate normalcy and intention through gestures, customs, established behavior, a painfully curated speech. You depend on what your clients and providers assume of your lawfulness. You depend on not being perceived as creepy or strange by passersby and loved ones. Of course you care, your life depends on it. There is an endless list of small adjustments in your tone, the movement of your feet, distance between people, orientation of your face while you wait in line in a supermarket that communicate more than you could talk about in a lifetime that aren't casual; all this is not decided but learned, by trial and error, mirror neurons and cultural assimilation. And it's not devoid of "content" by any stretch of the imagination —is precisely the collective of those gestures and movements what contains (or is derived from) most of the cultural and ideological information you are; much more than any rationally constructed though and personality.

More than not caring about others think of you, is almost as if you have already defined and integrated a particular set of personal identities (intersectional solutions to common social problems) inside the internalized social culture that surrounds them, and now you have no incentive to think consciously about the problem anymore —so you don't. But to affirm that has no effect or importance to you... my god; you construct your whole life around the idea of acceptability and moral shared values. How do you then explain that the overwhelming majority of your actions are not only accepted, but normal in the incredibly narrow scope on your particular zeitgeist (which is not that tolerant with divergence and much more defined and specific as we think it is)? What other reasons are there than explain why the ways you express your individuality bound by symbolic expressions to be understood by others, your art and appearance (that so come "from within") communicated through the understandable canons of preexisting tokens of expression? What an amazing coincidence, isn't it? It's almost as if you constructed your individuality bouncing around it's inner walls, being corrected every time you got a scratch, and now you proudly proclaim that the result is of your own invention and the result of your own unique personal journey. The obvious explanation is that you fucking care about what others think, but you shield from it in preconstructed packages and delusion, because admitting it would hurt your ego and make you think of something that was in your developmental process "already solved".

The only other explanation is that our behavior is normal because emerges logically from the correct normal ideology, which is even more narrow-minded, a form of cultural and temporal chauvinism.

So internalized we have it that "correct" behavior that makes us acceptable is not even "decided", it comes naturally, makes sense, deviance makes us feel an abject and irrational disgust even when we cant explain it (although we try, the most obvious being classism and racism, but that's just a posterization of a much more granulated phenomena).

We have limited the options for inadequacy (and the potential consequences of bad choices therein) by linking individuality to function and archetype, any inadequacy or wrongdoing cant then be pointed at the perpetrator but instead to the whole group, where we shield into the tribal logic and crowdfund defense of acceptability. Entire collections of small rituals and in-world traditions, where protected function serves as a counterbalance for potential imbalance. And you can be like "well yeah of course your environment and culture influences you of course this is not a groundbreaking discovery". No. You don't understand. It doesn't "influence you", it's the substrate itself from which the phenomenon of behavior and being emerges from. There's a reason to why the best possible way to predict someone's behavior (apart of previous one) are not personality, moral or intellectual values but age, country, occupation and gender. In that order. And if all this is about the whole "I just don't think consciously about this stuff" what can I say, I though we were over this.

You are not liberated, you are just dumb. The only real possible liberation from reality there is.

And I'm just jealous.

Selectively dumb so you can function. Which is pretty smart thing to do. So you can focus your analytical prowess in less holistic and more directly useful problems. I get it. It is me who can't let go. You can "choose to perform as if". Which is not so different from it being, specially if you forget that you're doing it. As a temporal measure "I don't care what others think" can be quite useful, like for example when learning something or when exploring possibilities of being that are not reachable by usual gradient. That's why we allow it to teenagers, even when evidently false. But c'mon. The phase of thinking you are not that sixteen year old dipshit that knew nothing and you must distance yourself from is over.

Even the smallest of the things you do, even the morphology of your face reeks of social interaction and content. Your limbic system cares, therefore you care. We have the eyes we do, with the white space and the visible iris (unlike for example orangutans) because that serves a social function of clarity of your intentions, with is advantageous in tribal societies. The showing of emotions, tears, yawns, posture, smiles. You thing there's a purely biological functional reason for those things? Expression is not an aesthetic axiom of reality. They exist to communicate intent, internal state, they are made to be perceived by others and elicit a response or a change in behavior. You live and die because of that stuff. And you could say, "well but the unconscious perception and reaction of emotions and social cues is a separate thing from caring about others think" and that where you are wrong; you cannot separate the aggregate of micro-stimuli from the overarching behavior itself; it's a product of that. Feelings like guilt, disgust (in the social sense) pride; they are deeply social, not only depending on the individual, but also to even higher constructs like family structure and political ideology. Even when you are by yourself, in your house, in front of a mirror; how you perceive yourself (even when not thinking about others) is dependent on how an almost transcendental "others" would perceive you, you yourself are a "transcendental other" and your aspect and style and clothes are interpreted in the symbolic language of the culture you are immersed into.

The funny thing is, who you are is not even relevant anymore. You are your function and have your instructions and your social identity derives from that, but it has no direct implication how creative, aggressive, perfectionist or whatever you actually are. Because unless you have a job in a cutting edge area everything is figured out and you have to punch the hours and it's your own problem how and nobody will tell the difference in the industrialized commodity it is you help produce. That makes exaggerated purely social forms of identity even more important, because they have to hide the fact that what they simulate doesn't exist anymore. It's an arms race out there. But because there's no real reference to actual content, the symbols we use are interchangeble —and do change, constantly. Everything is everything all at once, and the only difference between praise and ostracism (or worse, indifference) is the presence or absence of intention in your acts and presence. Intention goes around and around in circles of things we don't admit to ourselves that hide deeper motives but those are actually just rationalizations. It goes on and on and on and never ends and nobody does anything for any particular reason. So all personal characteristic coexists as a performance of what it is supposed to represent in the particular cultural context (and nothing out of it) and an ironic effortless nihilistic detached performance about that particular thing and also all the other things in the world. Which is obviously paradoxical, but not as much as the fact that not thinking about what others think of you is so important to your need for external and internal validation; which causes a loop in the cringe-based continuum of the universe. And none of it is (from the point of view of the youth) even linked to any idea of authenticity. His non-existence is taken as a given with a shocking indifference I preach about but can't possibly reenact myself.