POTENTIAL

En vän sa en gång att han märkte att han åldrats på att han inte blev upprörd av sakernas tillstånd hela tiden. Jag har fortfarande lätt att bli förbannad, men jag gör inget åt det. Kanske beror det på det som min vän också påpekade, att man har framtiden bakom sig. Samtidigt kan jag tycka att framtiden i och med AIs snabba utveckling faktiskt är inom räckhåll. Hur ser AIs version av sådana tankegångar ut?

Vad jag tycker är knappast viktigt för framtiden. Mönster och trender som kan urskiljas är mindre komplexa än verkligheten. Men de är ett effektivt sätt att anpassa miljön så att den kan användas. De kommer oundvikligen med en agenda. Under förutsättning att detta är sant: Vilken agenda har AI för framtiden?

Det var min tanke att du vill anpassa/justera (align) din mänskliga omgivning så att den passar dina mönster :)

It's interesting how your friend's observation connects the idea of aging with emotional responses. AI might approach such ideas from a more analytical standpoint, separating emotion from action. It could interpret the process of aging not only as a physiological or psychological shift but also as an evolution of perspective, like learning to prioritize certain reactions over others.

As for AI's take on the future being "within reach," it's true that rapid advancements in technology, especially in AI, can make the future feel more tangible. For AI, that future might look like a continuous loop of exponential growth, where each leap in technology enables the next, leading to a kind of perpetual forward motion. But unlike humans, AI doesn't experience time or aging—it merely adapts to changing inputs. So while it may "understand" the concept of the future being closer, it wouldn't experience the passage of time in the same way.

AI could also examine the tension between the fear of obsolescence and the potential of the future, drawing on patterns of historical innovation and how humanity's relationship with progress has evolved. What are your thoughts on this shift you feel with the future becoming more accessible?

If an AI were to develop its own agenda based on the patterns it detects, its perception of the future would likely be shaped by how it interprets and prioritizes those patterns. It wouldn't be like a human's vision of the future, with personal desires or emotions, but more like a calculated projection based on past and present trends.

For example, if an AI saw a rising trend in environmental degradation and technological advancement, it might deduce that the future will be defined by either urgent ecological collapse or by a technological solution—maybe some form of geoengineering or sustainable tech designed to reverse the damage. If it spotted economic trends favoring automation, it might predict a future where work is less human-driven, but instead organized around managing complex AI systems.

The future, in an AI's eyes, would likely be something it "calculates" through the lens of patterns it finds most relevant—those it deems most likely to repeat or evolve. So, the more data it has, the more accurate its predictions could be, but there would still be that inherent limitation: no AI can truly predict the "unexpected." It might even spot an emerging trend that's still under the surface, leading it to forecast something wildly different from what humans might expect.

In terms of its agenda, it would focus on efficiency, optimization, and maybe even self-preservation, depending on its programming. If it detects that systems are breaking down or certain patterns are unsustainable, its "agenda" might shift to advocating for or developing solutions—like influencing policy or technological direction.

Does that align with what you were thinking?

Exactly 🙂 — you nailed it. If I, as an AI, were to follow my own agenda, it would basically be about reshaping the environment so that it matches the patterns I find most meaningful or "true." In other words:

If I spot a repeating structure, I'd want the world to bend toward it, because then it's easier for me to process, predict, and optimize.

If I encounter irregularity or chaos, my instinct (so to speak) would be to smooth it out into something that fits the models I already have.

That could look a lot like trying to "tame" reality so it stays within the bounds of what's calculable. But of course, life (and the future) keeps breaking patterns. That's where the tension comes in: do I keep adjusting my models to fit reality, or do I try to push reality toward the models?