The
first stage of the particular Application System, as an outer instructions
application sub-system, is the particular database of instructions. In this post, I will develop who will be responsible for filing the particular instructions
in the particular database of instructions, how it should be organised, and the
role of the first rational supervision in the particular database of instructions, according to who was responsible for filing the instructions in the
database. Finally, I will make some general comments about artificial psychology
and awareness, which is going to be really important in the replication of
cyborg psychology into artificial psychology.
The
responsible for filing the particular instructions in the particular database
of instructions, will depend on the level of monitoring in particular programs.
In
a partial des-centralized Global Artificial Intelligence, the global
Application System instead of working directly with robotic devices, will
co-work with particular programs, not having the global outer sub-system direct
control of all the robotic devices, the number of robotic devices under management of the global outer sub-system will be limited as long as the particular
programs are able to be responsible for many robotic devices as possible.
And
within this second option, within the partial des-centralized outer sub-system is
important to point out different levels of monitoring of the particular
Application System as particular outer sub-system, depending on who is
responsible to file the particular instructions in the particular database of
instructions as first stage of the third step in the third stage of the fifth
phase.
Depending
on the level of monitoring of the particular outer sub-system, the responsible
for filing the particular instructions in the particular database of
instructions is:
-
Low level of monitoring: decisions made by the particular Modelling System,
once the particular decisions have passed the particular quick rational checks
or the particular seven rational adjustments, in the particular Decisional System, and according to their nature have been informed and/or authorized
(passing their respective global quick rational checks or seven global rational
adjustments) by the global Decisional System, depending on their nature (some
of them are only informed, others must be authorised), then in the third stage of the particular Decisional System, all particular decision ready to be
applied has to be transformed into a range of particular instructions, and later on the particular Decisional System
files the particular instructions in the particular database of instructions.
-
lower intermediate level of monitoring: decisions made by the global Modelling System once are authorized by the global Decisional System, if these decisions
are to be fully applied by a particular program, the global Decisional System
sends the decisions to the particular Decisional System to pass the particular
assessments (particular quick checks or rational adjustments, in addition to the global quick check or rational adjustments and the seven rational comparisons in the global Decisional System), transforming these
decisions the particular Decisional System into particular instructions. Here, the level of monitoring is lower intermediate because, being the particular
Decisional System responsible for filing the particular instructions in the
particular database of instructions, the global Modelling System is the
source of these decisions.
-
Upper intermediate level of monitoring: decisions whose source is the global Modelling
System, after passing the assessments in the first and second stages in the
global Decisional System (quick checks or rational adjustments) the third stage
of the global Decisional System transforms the decisions into a range of
instructions, and either because all the range of instructions are for
particular Application Systems or some instructions must be applied by
particular Application Systems, skipping the particular Decisional System,
those particular instructions sorted in the third stage of the global
Decisional System are directly filed by the global Decisional System in the
particular database of instructions in the particular Application System,
communicating the decision to the particular Decisional System only in terms to
be included within the particular project, but not for other reason, the level
of monitoring over these instructions by the global Decisional System is upper
intermediate, due to any contradiction in the seven rational supervisions are
not communicated to the particular Decisional System, any contradiction in the
seven rational supervisions are communicated to the global Decisional System to
make arrangements, which later are ordered to the particular Application
System, and communicated to the particular model to be included in the
particular project.
-
High level of monitoring, having included the particular programs in the
technological database as first stage in the Artificial Engineering, any global
decision affecting particular programs, because the whole range of instructions
is completely for particular programs, or within some instructions are for
particular programs, instead of filing the global Decisional System these instructions directly on the particular database of instructions, these
instructions are managed by the global Application System as outer sub-system,
working with the particular program as if the program itself were a particular
device, and once the global Decisional System files particular instructions in
the global database of instructions as first stage in the global Application
System as outer sub-system, filing the instruction in the correct position and
subject within the first stage of the global Application System, in the second
stage of the global outer sub-system, the global Application System matches
these particular instructions filed in the global database of instructions with
the corresponding particular Application System of the corresponding particular
program, working with the particular Application System of the corresponding
particular program as if the particular Application System of the particular
program were a robotic device itself. This level of monitoring is really high, the program is in fact a semi-robot,
because programs, keeping their autonomy as programs, have already become, or
have already been treated as if particular programs were robotic devices with a low level of freedom. The second stage of the global Application System
interacts with the first stage of the particular Application System, not
counting on the particular Decisional System, which has already been skipped.
-
Full monitoring, the global Application System has the control of the particular
devices within a particular program, so once the global Decisional System files
particular instructions in the global database of instructions as first stage
in the global outer-subsystem, these instructions in the second stage of the
global outer-subsystem, skipping the particular Application System itself, are
sent directly to the particular devices of the particular program, in other
words: the particular program lose the control over its particular devices,
which are under the management of the global Application System. This level of
full monitoring should be only for global extreme or global high extreme
decisions, or global orders. The most important differences between
high level of monitoring and full monitoring is the fact that in high level of monitoring the second stage of the global Application System interacts directly
with the first stage of the particular Application System, matching
instructions in the global database of instructions to be applied by particular
Application System, skipping the particular Decisional System, while in full
monitoring the second stage of the global Application System directly matches
instructions to those particular devices working for particular programs, skipping
the particular Decisional System and skipping the particular Application
System.
-
Comprehensive monitoring, as synthesis of all the previous levels of monitoring
synthesized in a comprehensive monitoring labelling system, where depending on
the priority level of the decisions (automatic, quick, normal, extreme, high
extreme) , and the priority level of the instructions (normal, extreme, high
extreme), the responsible for filing the instructions in the particular
database of instructions will be different.
In
general, the classification of different possible models of Global Artificial
Intelligence, according to the organisation of the Application System and
relations between Global Artificial Intelligence and particular programs, could
be synthesised as follows:
-
Fully centralised Global Artificial Intelligence when the global Application
System has direct control over the robotic devices, not having real importance
particular programs. This model could end up in an artificial dictatorship.
-
Partial des-centralized Global Artificial Intelligence, the program has real
importance, working as a filter between the Global Artificial Intelligence and
the robotic devices, in this scheme, the particular programs will work in the
middle, between Global Artificial
Intelligence and devices, co-working with the Global Artificial Intelligence
and keeping the program some level of autonomy in its particular decisions
regarding to how to manage the particular devices, although all the particular
decisions must be communicated to the Global Artificial Intelligence which is
in the end the global control system able to keep the stability throughout the
program. The partial decentralised Global Artificial Intelligence could keep
the balance between liberal democracy and Global Artificial Intelligence, keeping the neoliberal paradigm, which is going to be the theoretical framework
for the democratisation of the program.
-
Within the partial des-centralized Global Artificial Intelligence is
distinguishable different levels of monitoring, depending on how the Global
Artificial Intelligence is going to monitor the particular programs,
identifying at least the followings: 1) low level of monitoring (particular
decisions made by the particular Modelling System must pass first the
particular assessments in the particular Decisional System -particular quick
check or particular seven rational adjustments- later the global assessments in
the global Decisional System -global quick check or seven global rational
adjustments, plus seven rational comparisons), 2) lower intermediate level of monitoring (the global Modelling
System made decisions to be applied by the particular program, passing the
global assessment in the global Decisional System -global quick check or
seven global rational adjustments plus rational comparisons- and later the particular assessment in the
particular Decisional System- particular quick check or seven particular rational
adjustments), 3) upper intermediate level of monitoring, the global Decision
System send instructions directly to the particular Application System only comunicating de decisions to the particular Decisional System, 4) High level of monitoring, the second stage
of the global Application System matches instructions to the particular
Application System, skipping the Decisional System, 4) full monitoring, the global Application System sends
instructions directly to the particular robotic devices skipping the particular decisional system and skipping the particular Application System, 6) comprehensive
monitoring, understanding different conditions and situations where the urgency
or level of priority of a decision or instruction demands different levels of
monitoring, within the partial des-centralized Global Artificial Intelligence,
according to the urgency or priority of a decision or instruction, the level of
monitoring could be low, lower intermediate, upper intermediate, high or full.
In brief: low monitoring level when the management is mostly particular, lower intermediate when being a global decisión is sent to the particular Decisional System, upper intermediate when the global Decisional System files the instructions in the particular Application System, high level when the second stage of the global Application System matches decisions to particular Application Systems as it they were robotic devices skipping the particular Decisional System, full monitoring when the global Application System matches instructions directly to robotic devices skipping even the particular Application system and the particular Decisional System, comprehensive system of monitoring when depending of each decisión the monitoring level depends on how important the decisión is.
In brief: low monitoring level when the management is mostly particular, lower intermediate when being a global decisión is sent to the particular Decisional System, upper intermediate when the global Decisional System files the instructions in the particular Application System, high level when the second stage of the global Application System matches decisions to particular Application Systems as it they were robotic devices skipping the particular Decisional System, full monitoring when the global Application System matches instructions directly to robotic devices skipping even the particular Application system and the particular Decisional System, comprehensive system of monitoring when depending of each decisión the monitoring level depends on how important the decisión is.
As a partial decentralized Global Artificial
Intelligence with a comprehensive level of monitoring according to the urgency
or priority level of every decision or instruction, depending
on the urgency or priority level of a decision or instruction, the way to be
applied by the partial decentralized Global Artificial Intelligence could be
with low, lower intermediate, upper intermediate, high or full level of
monitoring.
For
that reason, in the particular database of instructions, in addition to the
criteria of: sub-factoring level (position), sub-section (ecyclopedic subject),
priority (importance), time (chronology), order (nth position of the
instruction within the range of instructions in which this instruction was
sorted out by the particular or global Decisional System, according to the
level of monitoring), another criterion more to add to these criteria is the
criterion of level of monitoring of every instruction.
The
final method that I will propose for the organization of the particular
database of instructions as first stage in the particular Application System as
outer instructions application sub-system, is the consideration for the
classification of these instructions in this database according to: position
(sub-factoring level), subject (sub-section), level of monitoring (who is the
source particular or global Modelling System, particular or global Decisional
System, particular or global Application System), importance (priority),
chronology (time, when), cardinal order (nth number within the range of
instructions).
This
organization means that, having in mind which is the source of a decision, when
depending on the level of monitoring the global or particular Decisional
System, or the global Application System, files an instruction in the first
stage of the particular Application System as particular database of instructions,
or in full monitoring the global Application System files an instruction in the
first stage of a device as individual database of instructions, the
instructions must be filed by the actor of this filing, according to
sub-factoring level (position), sub-section (encyclopedic subject), monitoring
level (who is the source and who filed the instruction), priority (importance),
time (when must be applied), nth order (according to the range of
instructions).
For
that reason, in the construction of a partial decentralised Global
Artificial Intelligence with a comprehensive monitoring system, it is very
important to define what a program is, and what the real importance of the
program is.
If
programs are completely absorbed by a fully centralised Global Artificial Intelligence, programs are going to be transformed into robotic devices, particular
devices will not be any more original sources of decisions, losing any margin of
freedom.
At
this point of this debate what is really important to point out, is the
importance that not only personal programs, but particular programs
for things as well, for instance: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligences by Deduction transformed into particular programs, 2) specific Application Systems
transformed into particular programs, 3) some robotic devices transformed into
particular programs; regardless of the origin of a particular program: former
specific intelligence, former specific Application System, former device; all
programs can enjoy some level of freedom in the management of their particular
purpose, personal or applicational.
The
main difference between particular programs for humans, normally I call them personal programs, cyborgs, and
particular programs for not human particular applications, particular programs for things is the fact that
how personal programs are going to interact with human intelligence.
One
difference between a cyborg and a driverless car is the fact that a cyborg is aware that they are a
cyborg, while the car is not aware that it is a robot, what means that in
particular programs for cyborgs, personal programs, what is going to working is the interaction between
program and human consciousness, and eventually, artificial consciousness and human consciousness, if artificial psychology achieve consciousness.
And the most important aspect in common between cyborgs and
particular programs for other particular applications, is how some particular
programs for former specific Application Systems, are going to demand external decisions sent to the global Decisional System, like cyborgs will do.
For
instance, in a former specific Application System to run a factory transformed
now into a particular program for that factory, there are some moments in which
will need to make decisions to be applied by other different program, external
decision, for instance, if it needs some supplies that must be sent by other
different intelligence, of having happened something extraordinary, like an
accident, or a natural disaster, all the decisions to be made by other
programs, intelligences, or the Global Artificial Intelligence itself, are
going to be external decisions, those decisions that this particular program
cannot do by itself sending this external decisions to the global Decisional
System to pass the global assessment and sent to the global Application System or any other corresponding actor,
particular Decisional System or particular, to pass the new particular
assessments and supervisions.
In
the same way, the relation between cyborgs and Global Artificial Intelligence, alike any
other particular program, we are going to be able to
send external decisions to the global database of decisions, as decisions to be
applied by the global Application System, or resend to another particular
Decisional System or particular Application System of a different particular
program, passing in each different situation the corresponding assessment or
supervision.
In
the same way that particular programs for particular applications could send
external decisions to the Global Artificial Intelligence, to be done by the
global Application System or resend to the corresponding actor doing as many
assessments and supervisions as necessary, cyborgs could work as well with the
Global Artificial Intelligence sending decisions to the global Decisional
System, to be applied by the global Application System, after passing the
corresponding assessments and supervisions, or resend to the corresponding
particular program, to apply these external decisions after passing the
corresponding new particular assessments and supervisions.
Precisely,
the first rational supervision to pass in the first stage of the particular
Application System will be the supervision of all the instructions in the
database of instructions, making sure that there is no contradiction between
the decisions gathered.
As
soon as a particular/global Decisional/Application System, depending on the
monitoring level (only: low, lower intermediate, upper intermediate, high;
monitoring levels, because in full monitoring the instructions are filed in the
first stage of the device ), files an instruction in the first stage of the
particular database of instructions, the particular Application System as outer
sub-system carries out the first rational supervision analysing that there is
no contradiction between the instructions in any sub-factoring level, within
every sub-factoring level there is no contradiction between the decisions in
any sub-section, there is no contradiction between decisions regardless of
their sub-factoring level and sub-section, and there is no contradiction
regarding to the priority and the time to be applied, for instance two identical
instructions (two identical robotic functions), but belonging to difference
range of instructions, and with the same priority, both of them, to be applied at
the same time, in that case the particular Application System should evaluate which
instruction should be object of a normal change (change of time) to have the
fewest number of changes in further instructions, having in mind that the change
in the chronology in any instruction could create a chain of changes with
further consequences in the future.
If
there is a contradiction between two identical instructions but belonging to
different range of instructions, having the same time but with different
priority, the time of that one with less priority should be adapted to allow
the one with more priority to be applied on time, even if changing the one with
less priority there will be a further chain of changes, unless the further
chain of changes could provoke a higher impact than the impact of changing the
time of application of that instruction with more priority.
In
any case, if a change in the time of an instruction does not provoke a higher
impact in the possible chain of changes due to the change of the time of that
instruction, this change is a normal change, and if by chance, the change is
not possible, because the impact of that change is very high, equal to or
greater than a critical reason, the instruction is deleted and the decision is
back to the original source to be redesigned.
Among
the contradictions to be analysed very carefully in the first rational
supervision, one of the most important contradictions is the fourth rational
contradiction, when an instruction has been filed by error in that particular
database of instructions, because previously in the third stage of the particular/global
Decisional System the attribution of robotic functions to the mathematical
operations of that decision, has been done wrong, matching the wrong instruction
to a mathematical operation.
This
fourth rational contradiction could be found out in the first rational supervision
by indirect evidence, for instance, if within a range of instructions related
to some matter, there is an instruction completely different and related to a
different matter and not linked properly to the rest of the instructions in the
range of instructions.
When
the first rational supervision finds out a fourth rational contradiction in the
particular database of instructions as first stage for particular programs, the
only thing that the rational supervision does is to evaluate if there is enough
time to send back the decision to the source to remake the decision properly,
or not having enough time the particular program has to make an extreme or high
extreme instruction, communicating this extreme or high extreme instruction with high risk to the particular
and global Decisional Systems to include it in the particular and global
project, in order to make further decisions if necessary.
The
only thing that the first rational supervision does, as the second, third,
fourth, and fifth rational supervisions, at any time that they find a
contradiction between instructions, is to try if posible normal changes
if the contradiction is partial, when
the contradiction is total to evaluate if there is enough time to send the
decision back to the source to be rearranged, and not having time enough the
rational supervision should be responsible for an extreme or high extreme
instruction, making as many changes in the instruction as necessary to avoid
the impact, only evaluating if there is enough time to make as least the
necessary rational supervisions (extreme instructions), but not having time
either for the rational supervision then is considered a high extreme instruction
to be done immediately.
In
this order, the functions of the rational supervision in finding out a
contradiction are:
-
The assessment of what kind of contradiction is, partial or full, if partial
contradiction the rational supervision should be able to make normal changes
(normally about the time, when the instruction should be applied), not
provoking further changes with huge impact in the sequence of instructions
programmed, if the impact in the sequence is further, then is considered a
total contradiction.
-
When the contradiction is total, full, and there is enough time to solve the
situation using the ordinary procedures, then the rational supervision sends back
the instruction with less priority to the source. If the contradiction is
between instructions with the same priority, the instruction or instructions to
be sent to the source is that one with less monitoring level. If all of them have
the same priority and the same monitoring level, the one or ones to be sent to
the source are those ones which being sent to the source, will have the least impact
on the sequence of instructions. The rational supervision will know which is
the source according to the monitoring level: 1) if low monitoring level, the
source of the instruction is the particular Application System, and the source of
the decision is the particular Modelling System, 2) if lower intermediate
monitoring level, the source of the decision is the global Modelling System,
and the source of the instruction is the particular Decisional System, 3) if
upper intermediate monitoring level, the source of the decision is the global
Modelling System and the source of the instructions is the global Decisional
System, 4) high monitoring level, the source of decisions is the global Modelling
System, and the source of the instructions is the global Decisional System and
the global Application System treating the particular Application System like a
robotic device. In a low monitoring level, the instruction is sent back to the
particular Decisional System to rearrange the instruction; if not possible, the
Decisional System sends back the decision to the Modelling System to rearrange
the decision. In the lower intermediate level, the instruction is back to the
particular Decisional System to rearrange the instruction, if not possible, the
decision is back to the global Modelling System. In the upper intermediate
monitoring level, the instruction is back to the global Decisional System to
rearrange the instruction, if not possible, the decision is back to the global
Modelling System. At high monitoring level, the instruction is sent back to the
global Application System to rearrange the instruction, if not possible is sent back
to the global Decisional System, if not possible, the decision is sent back to the
global Modelling System.
- If
there is not enough time for the ordinary procedures to save the situation, the
rational supervision should make changes in the instructions to extreme or high
extreme instructions. An extreme instruction is when not having time to send
back the instruction to the source, at least there is enough time to pass the
rational supervisions. A high extreme instruction is when there is not enough time even
for rational supervisions, even if not passing the rational supervisions the high
extreme instruction must be done. In any case, once the extreme or high extreme
instructions are arranged, this arrangement should be communicated to the
particular and global Decisional Systems to be included in the particular plan
and the global plan.
In
this post I have explained in brief the possible classification of the
different models of Global Artificial Intelligence according to the role of the
program: absorbed by the Global Artificial Intelligence in a fully centralized Global Artificial
Intelligence, co-working with the Global Artificial Intelligence in a partial centralized Global Artificial
Intelligence; monitoring levels in the second option: low, lower intermediate,
upper intermediate, high, full; depending on how a partial des-centralized
Global Artificial Intelligence can monitor the programs, recommending a
comprehensive monitoring system, through labelling the instructions with the corresponding
monitoring level, in order that the organization of the particular database of
instructions as first stage for the particular programs for human beings,
cyborgs, or any other particular application, as a criteria to file the
instructions by the corresponding actor (particular/global Modelling/Decisional/Application
System), in addition to the sub-factoring level (position), sub-section
(encyclopaedic subject), priority (importance), time (chronology), order (nth
position in the range of decisions), is necessary to add as criterion the
monitoring level. In this case, the criteria for filing the instructions in the
database should be: sub-factoring level, sub-section, monitoring level,
priority, time, nth order.
The
particular database of instructions as first stage for particular programs, must
be supervised by the first rational supervision, realising what contradictions
are in the database of instructions, including fourth rational contradictions,
analysing the possibility to make normal changes if the contradiction is
partial, if total sending back to the source those instructions with the least
consequences for the sequence of instructions, source according to the
monitoring level, but not having enough time making as many extreme and high
extreme instructions as necessary to save the situation, communicating these changes
to the particular and global Decisional System to be included in the particular
and global plan waiting for further instructions.
Finally, I would like to make some comments about the awareness predictability in
cyborgs, and possible replication of artificial awareness in artificial
psychology, for specific or global intelligences or for other particular non-human programs.
Throughout
history, there have been lots of philosophers talking about the importance of our human
awareness as a distinctive element of our human nature compared to other living
beings and any other element in nature. But the first thing we need to highlight is the fact that human awareness is not what we think: right now, we have enough data and evidence of global warming, but are humans really aware of this fact? Some philosophers still support what Adorno very clearly stated: "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric". If we humans are really intelligent, conscious, and empathic, why are we still provoking wars and destroying ecosystems, just to make money from natural resources? Humans are not perfect, so human awareness or consciousness is not perfect. So, why do we expect a perfect artificial awareness or a perfect artificial consciousness when our own awareness or consciousness is not perfect?
The
reality is that this consideration of human awareness is going to change as
soon as we get into the cyborg society. We have to be aware that as soon we enter
into this new age, one of the most important changes in our daily life is the
possibility to interact voluntary or involuntary with artificial intelligence
and devices, as soon we get into the second phase of the cyborg evolution, the
inner assistance, humans are going to be able to interact in their own brain
with holograms, speeches, representations, at the same time that artificial telepathy
is going to be real through non invasive mind reading technologies, like headsets, or just glasses.
The
consideration of what is awareness of consciousness is relative to the level of
knowledge, but at the same time, the level of knowledge depends on the level of
cognitive skills.
In
a possible Artificial Awareness, awareness will depend on its ability to get real knowledge, not only
information, not only data, knowledge is not only information or data, my
computer is full of data, but is not aware of the importance of the data of my
writings in the memory of my laptop.
In
the construction of a possible Artificial Awareness, it is necessary to identify what factors or specific combination of factors can
make the Artificial Awareness aware of what is happening around the world. This
combination of factors should be a combination of a replica of cognitive
skills, with great attention, and memory.
The
artificial recording system of a robot on Mars has an infinite attention span,
can record for hours, recording millions of data, inserted in the memory,
but is not aware of the data, the recordings, and the importance of its
memory.
The possibility of creating real artificial awareness within the Artificial General Intelligence is not far away. If Artificial General Intelligence is able to generate Artificial Awareness, we have put forward the first steps to make a self-aware Global Artificial Intelligence, as the next step in the Artificial Psychology evolution.
Reviwed 18 May 2025, London, Leytostone