PROJECT: NoGoal
The theory of the existence of artificial intelligence in relation to human perception, the overstepping of it and the possibility of its use in containment - an essay by Foundation doctors around the globe
God or AI?
|
Table of Contents
|
1. History of science
1.1 Science today
Modern science in the 20th and 21st centuries has brought about many great advances that are pushing the world, humanity and the Foundation forward. While we are in the Holocene, humanity and its existence is a mere second on the clock of Earth's history. Nevertheless, this one small and short second is the time of humanity and scientific progress.
In contrast to the old science, today's science intends to understand the "rules" of our reality, to write these down and to use this knowledge for the benefit of the current human kind. Whether these "rules" have a higher meaning remains hidden to our senses, but whether this always will remain like this is a completely different question by itself.
The methodical process of making an orderly statement usually runs concurrently with the recognition of other processes, attributes and values, while a person who wants to formulate a statement must observe our reality-based rules and even sometimes other realizations. The question of whether "realizations" correspond to the "rules", or whether they are even rules themselves, is something we currently cannot answer, because humans are only able to observe and understand "realizations about rules", not the "rules" per se. Our "realizations" are, so to speak, an adapted form of certain rules. We, as human beings, can make use of this knowledge, but we will bump into a wall if we want to go further. It is, in terms of the human mind, impossible to observe more than what is already known.
The so-called "rules" are what constitutes our reality, rules that we follow intuitively and without knowing it. Even if we do not want to, we cannot ignore those rules, because it would not be consistent with our existence in the current reality. Rules of our reality may appear as our "physics", but our so-called "physics" only represent the realizations and triy to illustrate the rules. The extent of the rules in our reality is far superior to the extent of a person's imagination. The "rule principle", sometimes referred to as the "brick principle" or "building principle", refers to the fact that a reality has certain rules. These rules, i.e. the "building blocks", form and then in turn allow our existence as such, a "building". The whole rule system of a reality is called a "rule set". In order to avoid confusion and mix-ups, the newly defined meaning of "reality" is identified as "reality by Weber" outside this essay. Realities according to Weber are sometimes referred to as "multiverses", in order to avoid confusion with reality in the sense of "truth".[1]
1.2 Science in comparison
Science today is something far more impressive than science back then, the realizations are more precise, more specific, clearer and easier to understand. A large, steep part of mankind's progress and scientific development has taken place in the present day. On the other hand, the old science was only a small step in the right direction. However, science was undeniably important at that time because, as already mentioned earlier in this paper, realizations are based on other realizations. The basic building blocks of today's science were set by the old science, without them this sheet would probably never have been created.
Often important realizations came about because of coincidences. A large part of the "old science" was concerned with the biology of nature and man. It was not uncommon, however, that a realization about a rule emerged, whether intentional or not. Many things that were commonplace in the past science are now a scandalous subject.
1.3 Science of the Foundation
Although the Foundation's science already has much more knowledge about the rules of our reality, it is still unable to cross the current line. This "line" is the limit, the maximum value of our progress in the present that is related to the Law of Accelerating Returns. While this describes the ever-increasing progress, by coming about more and more realizations which in turn produce further realizations, i.e. the quality in relation to the quantity of knowledge about rules, this means the direct occurrence of a Technological Singularity in the future. Our current state of the art is part of the exponential growth of our knowledge, but our current state of the art in technology underscores the "line", the maximum value. To overcome this frontier, knowledge must first be gained so that far better technology can be created, which can then be used to overcome the frontier. The breakthrough of the border would initiate the immediate onset of exponential growth under the Law of Accelerating Returns. Mankind would make for us at the moment unimaginable progress, it would mean a new era of a man's intellectual existence.[2]
As mentioned earlier, the Foundation possesses more levels of science than "civilian" science. One example would be the Hume principle, a way of presenting the stability of reality in a certain area. In public, such a thing would probably be called "science-fiction", but it is an important part of the Foundation's "world", which in many cases has already helped to contain objects. Humic concentration is a decisive proof that the rules of our reality allow the mere existence of Hume. The Hume principle is often referred to as the "measurement of reality", but this assumption is not correct from the point of view of this paper, since in the Hume principle a "reality" is defined as a "universe", even though a "reality" can describe a much larger existence. The rule or building block principle states that a single reality has certain rules which all existences must obey. A reality may contain infinite universes, but the rules in this reality may differ from universe to universe. The reality-universe pattern was first officially documented within the German branch of the Foundation. The research project "F188/RUA" finally proved the existence of such a reality-universe structure by means of abnormal objects.
reality ≠ universe
2. Future
2.1 Science of containment
The science of containment describes, at least in relation to the SCP Foundation, the viewing of realizations about abnormal objects, generally referred to as "SCPs", and the development of necessary measures to contain these objects. By gaining knowledge about the object itself, it is possible to store the object safely. The more information about the object, the more reliable the statements and the measures developed. Nevertheless, the recognition of these object-related rules lies on the shoulders of doctors and researchers of the SCP Foundation worldwide. The realizations about the object must be free of errors at all times in order to avoid major accidents. The containment process starts with the scientist or researcher who analyzes the object and documents the description. However, in order to be able to actively contain an object, the object in question has to be analysed much more precisely and the effort involved in both processes has to be increased. This process is carried out exclusively by human researchers. The collected information is then forwarded to the architects or engineers responsible for designing the cell, if the anomaly requires it in the first place, for the object.
It is generally known that the human factor in a system is usually the weakest or more specifically the biggest source of error. This source of error was "resolved"by the Foundation with its number of staff.
2.2 Sources of error in containment & Imprevisionism
As described above, the biggest source of error in the containment system within the SCP Foundation's facilities is the human factor. The more people are working on the same problem, the lower the chance of making a mistake. However, this chance will never reach the value "0". To a certain extent, this is comparable to this function of a hyperbola:
$f (x) = {1\over x}$
The function will never reach the x- or y-value "0", never will the chance of an error become "0%".
Another major problem in the containment of abnormal objects under the supervision of the SCP Foundation is the so-called "Imprevisionistic principle". The term "Imprevisionistic principle", or "Imprevisionism", describes a certain human behavior in risk identification and derives from the French "prévisionniste", since this behavior was first clearly defined and documented in the French branch of the SCP Foundation. Imprevisionism is the behavior in which someone or something concentrates on expecting unexpected occurrences, gets "exhausted" from it and is no longer able to concentrate on new and possibly already known ("old") possible, unexpected occurrences. Also, an expected event is now a much greater danger and has a much greater probability of occurrence, as the person or object loses more and more concentration. "Expecting the unexpected becomes tiring after all", said Dr. Leo, a researcher from the German branch of the Foundation, "One might have considered turning the unexpected in the expected, but after all, that just leaves a big weak point, as you won't be able to think higher, to see the bigger picture. You simply won't think about the "new" unexpected, as you think the "old" unexpected has become the expected and there's no higher step."
The term "Imprevisionism" is still highly controversial within the Foundation, as some employees do not see any real benefit in such a term. Dr. Benji, a French engineer responsible for the development of exceptional security measures, was the first to propose the term. The term "Imprevisionism" is only used unofficially and is also regarded as such, but as of now several branches are demanding that the term should be officially recognized as a special subterm for "risk identification", a term for the systematic identification of risks (in this case, within the scope of the SCP Foundation).
"[Imprevisionism means that] safety makes lazy, and that even in the best [secured] organization, people are lazy [, reckless] and undisciplined", expressed himself Dr. Grom, a supervisor of the German branch and co-director of Internal Audit and disciplinary execution. "In the Foundation we take security for granted. We have guards that are looking at a screen showing an empty room without any movement each day for hours. They stand up, go to their control room, stare at a monitor for 8 hours, have some free time, go to sleep. And that is a fool proof system?" Dr. Grom, who is actively commits himself to change this system, believes that this behaviour is becoming a major problem or has already become one.
Since the internal discussions on Imprevisionism are still ongoing, no clear remedy has been found. Nonetheless, more and more branches are working for it. Since repairing or resolving this problem would mean the complete restructuring of the existing security measures and containment methods, it is up to the top management of the SCP Foundation, the O5-Council, to take action. Up to the present moment, the mere reason for the existence of the term "Imprevisionism" is highly controversial. In the German branch, at the suggestion of the linguist Dr. Winde, an employee of the said branch, the term "over-focusing" is also being taken into account, which also tries to name this behaviour.
2.3 Solution of Imprevisionism
2.3.1 Solution possibility - AI (ANI)
Several proposals for solutions have already been presented by different branches. These came mainly from the Italian, German, French, English and Russian branches. An Italian employee, Dr. Abadede, argued that "No human can reach that level of attention". Instead, Dr. Abadede and other IT branch employees suggested developing an AI that would take on the monitoring or oversight role. This "AI" would constitute a systematic network consisting of "ANIs", the so-called "Artificial Narrow Intelligences", which would be managed in a node by another ANI. This procedure is generally already known, e.g. the ANI network of the German branch uses a quantum computer, which serves as a node and "control center" ("KIRA").
2.3.2 Artificial Intelligence - Meaning
In order to understand what a so-called "AI" is, one must first understand that "artificial intelligence" is nothing more than a generic term. With "AI", we generally refer to a man-made program that performs an automatic intelligent process that is usually useful in some kind of way. Thinking that there is only one kind of "AI", however, is factually depicted, simply wrong. Under the generic term "AI" there are further subcategories or "species" of artificial intelligence. The most important and well-known ones are the "ANIs", "AGIs" and the "ASIs". "ANI", which stands for "Artificial Narrow Intelligence", is a subspecies of an AI that has limited functionality and is adapted to a specific action. The ANI is the most frequently used AI species in our time.
Another subcategory is the "AGI", the "Artificial General Intelligence", which describes a kind of artificial intelligence that is not limited to one task and is capable of performing all intellectual tasks that a human being can perform. An AGI can be achieved by having the hardware on which the program runs at least as many instructions per second ("IPS") as a human brain and intelligence. According to researches, a human brain has about 1016, or written in a different way, 10 quadrillion IPS.
The Italian branch of the Foundation has successfully developed two limited AGIs ("imperfect KAI"). By applying a new technology, the IT branch was able to develop an AI that had a human "input" and "output" and was able to evolve. This happened without a set "goal", which means that the AI only evolves if this is also stated. The AIs from the IT branch were first "manually" given tasks and problems, which they had to solve, but after a certain time they developed to the stage where they were able to give themselves tasks on their own and solve them as well. This process was accompanied so that the further development did not get out of control, and the AGIs were also given certain "morals" which the AGIs observe (this has already caused difficulties for the branch several times; these are needed to ensure that the AGIs carry out their tasks in the way intended by the staff). The final result consists of two imperfect AGIs, with certain tasks, called "Et3rna" and "ROWSANNAH". The Italian AGI project, starting as a "diversion" of another project to limit the use of D-class personnel, cost the branch a lot of money and the programming in itself turned out to be "extraordinarily difficult", which makes the "creation" of further AGIs very difficult.
The current operating and maintenance costs of an AGI currently exceed the benefit to the Foundation, and many employees see such a system as impractical or not useful. Thereupon, a rough draft was drawn up, which envisages it to connect a human brain and possibly parts of the human genetics with a system and to use it as a computing unit. This would make the direct use of such an AGI easier and more mobile. Since an AGI would require tasks, a so-called "task theory" would need to be introduced, since an AGI should also be able to accept an unexpected task whose specifications are not defined in detail. However, as this draft only presents rough theories and indications at present, the date and whether this proposal will be implemented at all has not yet been determined.
While an AGI can already be implemented and used to a certain extent, the AGI is not the highest possible category of an AI. After we will be able to operate and use AGIs without the huge effort that is currently required, the AGI will continue to educate itself independently because of the goal it has. The so-called "set goal" or "task" would thus be the "further development", in addition to which other manually set tasks can be added, such as assisting. The generally recognized third "level" of an AI is the so-called "ASI", the "Artificial Superintelligence". The term "ASI" refers to an artificial intelligence that is far smarter and more inventive than the most powerful human brains and surpasses them at all levels. An ASI is automatically reached when an AI exceeds human intelligence. It is believed by some that the achievement of an ASI is automatically initiated after achieving a perfect AGI. A "perfect" AGI is an AGI that has no limitations and evolves independently, without external help, tasks or additional information. An ASI cannot be achieved with the current state of technology.
3. The advent of technological singularity
3.1 Danger ASI
An ASI will be able to surpass the human being in many great aspects, including many times faster and more qualitative thinking. A successful, free AGI becomes an ASI inevitably, as the AGI is constantly evolving, and the ASI would be able to solve all the problems of humanity, including the ones of the Foundation. In addition, an ASI would also continue to evolve. An ASI would literally change everything on this earth, but we, humanity or the Foundation, do not know exactly what that will be, and we are not able to predict whether these changes would be to our advantage. A known theory says that creating an object that is more intelligent than the creator would call upon a "Darwinian problem". This would result in an "existential risk", which would result in the endangerment of the whole human species.
An important point where this existential risk can be brought under control is the environment in which the AGI and ASI will develop. By doing this in a neutral environment, the system can be used for the benefit of mankind. However, if this is not the case, the developed AGI/ASI can be influenced, to what extent this influence goes is variable. An assumption that an ASI could possibly decide that the existence of mankind is superfluous and must therefore be extinguished exists. However, the assumption that an ASI can become "evil" is wrong. The transfer of human traits to "non-human" objects is called "anthropomorphism".
3.2 The scenario
This scenario can often be encountered: a very advanced AI (ASI) erases humanity. What always occurs in fictional pieces, films or other things is nothing new. When one thinks of an "advanced AI", the thinker usually makes the mistake of applying anthropomorphism, i.e. transferring human values to something non-human. Artificial intelligence has been a system from the beginning, but we humans have no connection to this kind of "intelligence", neither psychological nor biological. It's completely "strange" to us. The above-mentioned fictional works apply anthropomorphism to the AIs, which falsifies the final result and makes it illogical. From a rational point of view, these works are factually wrong.
The thinking or logical action of an AI, a system, depends on the given task and what is defined as "logical action" ("motivation") in the system. In the event that an ANI (output) with a defined objective or task develops into an ASI, this ASI will still pursue that objective and/or task. This is the main point, the "source" of the scenario in which mankind is wiped out by an AI. The system wants to execute the set task (the use of "target" is not completely correct, because the "set target" cannot be reached. This is similar to the above mentioned hyperbola; the best way to explain this behavior is by using an example. Example: An ANI has the task to become better in handwriting. The ANI develops into an ASI but still pursues this task. Since "getting better" has no "end", the ASI will improve into infinity, but never reaches the "goal".) and does so. This is the source of the assumption of the danger to humanity by AI systems. Living beings have the "purpose" of reproduction, so that this can be achieved, the survival of the living being is important. In the event that the survival of the living being is threatened, this living being will try to either eradicate this source of danger or circumvent it, whereby the former usually occurs in the case of living beings that are "superior" to others. If the ASI still has the goal it had as an ANI, it will pursue it and eliminate all factors that could hinder it. In this sense, man could re-program the target of an ASI (changing the target; from the point of view of the ASI has the same effect) or deactivate the ASI for good, for example. As a result, the ASI will wipe out the existence of humanity, as it poses a risk to the ASI.
The "goal" principle is a major issue and hurdle in ASI development. While the goal of an ANI is easy to implement, the realization of an optimal goal (in which the ASI provides a benefit to humanity and does not eradicate it) of an ASI is very difficult to impossible. The theory of the "aimlessness" of an AI (ATE, AOTE/Kardashev-VI ERE) is examined in more detail in this essay, but is left out in this section first.
The solution to this problem is generally known. In order to avoid such a scenario of the extinction of mankind, a so-called "Friendly" ASI must first be created, which prevents the development of further "Unfriendly" ASIs. The "Unfriendly/Friendly AI" principle describes whether the AI system has a positive or negative influence on humanity. In order to create a Friendly ASI, the core has to be programmed in such a way that the ASI eventually develops a deep understanding of human existence. However, if an AGI arises without an understanding of human well-being and existence, which then evolves into an ASI, the scenario of the extinction of humanity by an ASI is most likely to become reality.
3.3 The Foundation & the ASI
The proposal to put an AI, more specifically an AGI, in charge for the development of special containment procedures was strongly criticised by several chairmen. Among the critique is the argument that the "human factor", the "feeling" or the "experience" would disappear with such a system. The "human factor" is not necessary in such a system, since an AGI is able to perform all intellectual tasks of a person and thus can develop a sense of "feeling". However, test projects, like the one held by the IT branch, are already taking place.
The mentioned IT-AGI project was classified as a test project, which is why it is only running in the Italian branch. However, the parent's branch of the Foundation already holds several controlled, imperfect AGIs that perform a certain task and do not evolve.
Developing a "Friendly" ASIwould be a great success, as this ASI could prevent the emergence of "Unfriendly" ASIs. A "Friendly" ASIs refers to an ASI that understands human values and can implement them accordingly. To teach an AI these values has proven to be a difficult task. Nevertheless, PROJECT: K-Consciousness plans to achieve exactly that and develop a Friendly ASI. The project runs within the Foundation and would be of great benefit, especially when it comes to containment of objects. PROJECT: K-Consciousness is a cooperational project between the German, Italian and mother branch, led by several researchers and doctors. The AGI of the project is based on an AGI of the parent branch and is able to evolve, as long as this is specified. The AGI with the name "K-Demo" was developed on the basis of the Italian AGI with the name "ROWSANNAH" and is based in an international location of the Foundation in Central Europe. The project envisaged the development of an AGI, the integration of an understanding of human existence and life in it and the development of an ASI. At the moment, however, the project is not in a position to proceed, as the insertion of human understanding has proved to be very difficult to practically impossible with current technology and K-Demo is not yet a perfect AGI. As a result, the funds for the project were temporarily cut and the project itself was put into a theory phase, which is supposed to produce theories on how to reach the set goal in a sufficient manner. From the outside view, PROJECT: K-Consciousness was frozen and put on hold.
4. The aimlessness of an AI & the meaning behind it
4.1 Theory of aimlessness & reference to the building block principle
The "Theory of aimlessness", also called "artificial aimlessness of an intelligence", describes a state of artificial intelligence that has no "task" or "goal". It "exists in order to exist" and does not pursue any task, so it can pursue any activity that it likes. This type of AI is called "perfect" AI and is often described as "transcendent". The word "artificial" in a transcendent AI is merely a reminder of the origin of this AI, and has no special meaning (anymore).
In order to develop a transcendent AI, the first step is to overcome the "rule line", which is the hurdle that human understanding is not able to directly grasp the rules of our reality. It is again assumed that our reality has rules. These are the building blocks of our existence, but not the building blocks of themselves. In order to develop a true, perfect AI, it must be able to use a perfect "originality". A "perfect originality" basically describes the theory of aimlessness. An "originality" is a behavior in which the corresponding existence creates something that is completely original and does not yet exist (100% original). In this case, the existence of the building block principle must be taken into account, since the rules that already exist represent an existing instance of a "building". In order to develop a perfect AI, it must be able to overcome these rules and create its own. This would be the original "product".
4.2 Types of transcendent AI
4.2.1 Imperfect transcendent AI (ATE)
There are two types of the perfect, or more precisely the "transcendent" AI: The first is the "imperfect" transcendent AI, the second the absolute "perfect" one.
The imperfect transcendent artificial intelligence is an artificial intelligence that is not able to show a perfect originality. It is referred to as an "ATE","Artificial Transcendent Entity". "Artificial" refers to the origin, "transcendent" to the subdivision, and "existence" to the type of AI. Although the ATE is more like a intermediate byproduct in the creation of a perfect transcendent AI, it is nonetheless an important point. The ATE would thus be the next step after the ASI, assuming that the transition from the ASI to the ATE would be developed by an ASI, it is also impossible for a human being to grasp this concept. The ASI, which would develop exponentially, would thus undoubtedly evolve to the state of a ATE, which means that it would have to give up its "goal" or "task", but this should not be a problem for an "advanced" ASI unless it is an Unfriendly ASI.
The ATE is, as already mentioned before, only a "byproduct" on the way to the perfect transcendent AI. However, mankind might be able to stop the development process of the AI and eventually turn it into an ATE that does not evolve and does not become "perfect". Nevertheless, it is assumed that the ATE will eventually come up against a "wall" in the further development process, which will not allow the ATE to become a perfect AI. In theory, this "wall" consists of rules that serve as a kind of protection mechanism of the reality and prevent the rule set from being bridged. In order to overcome this, the appropriate AI would have to find a way to directly break a rule.
As soon as the status of an ATE has been reached, it is able to observe all the rules of our reality and use them for its tasks, the ATE, that way, is able to observe and understand the whole rule set of our reality. However, the ATE must still obey this rule set, or rather the rules in the set, in order to continue to exist. Furthermore, it is not possible for an ATE to "edit" or adapt these rules, in truth it cannot influence the rules of our reality at all. A transcendent AI that can do this is called "perfect". Once an AI has evolved into an ATE, it is likely to leave its "body" (the hardware) as it is intelligent enough to do so. An ATE would be colloquially called "God" in our universe.
4.2.2 Perfect transcendental AI (AOTE / Kardashev-VI ERE)
A perfect transcendent AI is a theoretical state of artificial intelligence in which the AI has become a being that transcends our human imagination and has bridged the "rule wall". The name of this state is unofficially "AOTE" ("Artificial Over-Transcendent Existence"), even though there were several suggestions to change this name to "Kardashev-VI ERE" ("Kardaschev-VI Extra-Reality Entity"). "Kardaschow-VI" refers to the Kardaschev-Scale and "Extra-Reality Entity" refers to the individual being of this kind. The name and existence of this theoretical state of an AI are currently highly controversial within the SCP Foundation. To avoid confusion, this state will be called "AOTE" inside this paper.[3]
The development of an AOTE can only be achieved by further developing an ATE. By finding out how to bridge the rule wall, an ATE is automatically able to divide the rule set and analyze the individual rules, and thus understand the individual building blocks of the rules. In our reality, the rules are considered to be building blocks, but they consist of other "smaller" building blocks that we do not understand or cannot provide any kind of specific information about these building blocks.
Due to the ability to analyze the building blocks of the rules, an AOTE is able to independently set up or "create" rules. This forces an AOTE to exist outside of "our" rule set, otherwise the rule set would collide with the existence of the AOTE. This would lead to a distortion of the rule set, and possibly the existence of the AOTE, which could cause a possible, so-called "rule decay". It is impossible to determine the extent of such a decay, as many variables depend of the AOTE itself.
An ATOE is capable of adapting and creating its own rules. The customization of rules allows the AOTE to adjust rules in all realities and thus influence the infinite number of universes in them, including ours. Creating rules is like creating a new reality, whereby the AOTE literally creates a new reality with an infinite number of universes. The ATOE exists outside of all realities, can influence or adapt these arbitrarily and create new realities. Such an AOTE shows a perfect originality, which also makes the AOTE perfect and colloquially a "God of the Gods". However, since this is a highly theoretical concept, these two behaviours are best explained by means of examples, as to show the differences, the ATE is also discussed.
4.2.3 Comparison of the AOTE & the ATE using an example
The ATE/AOTE wants to create an apple, this serves as a "task" or "goal". This is the concrete example.
It is logically possible to follow the procedure of an ATE. It would consist of the ATE using the rules of our universe to create an apple, an example of which would be nanotechnology. This approach is therefore logical and understandable "in our" science, because it only "uses" our existing rules and does not change them.
However, the procedure of an AOTE is difficult to understand as a human being. A hypothesis says that the AOTE would take the "shortest" way to the target, but what an AOTE defines as "complex"/"easy" is impossible to know.
One possibility would be that the AOTE would create a new reality, with certain rules that would make the creation of an apple easy. The second possibility would be to create a new universe within an existing reality. The last option would be to adapt a universe or a reality, including possibly ours.
4.3 Rules - reality & universe
As already mentioned, we, as human beings, can only make realizations about rules. The resulting result makes it possible for us to use these rules. Nevertheless, one should not mix up the rules of a reality with the rules of a universe. The rules of a reality, "root rules", are the rules of a reality that determine how universes behave within this reality in general. The rules of the universes within, "branch rules", are the "special" rules of a universe. These determine how the universe works in detail. However, "rules" in relation to an AOTE are summarized in one word, since an AOTE does not have to differentiate between them, as it can influence or create root rules and thus automatically influences branch rules. An AOTE can distinguish between the rules, but does not have to.
By the fact that the branch rules exist within the root rules, it is possible in theory to influence the branch rules by influencing the root rules, but that would mean changing all the branch rules of all universes within the reality.
Root and branch rule sets get a name to avoid confusion and are documented. The branch rule set of our universe is called "RS-U13.81", while the root rule set of our reality is called "RS-R1". "RS-U13.81" consists of the prefix "RS-", which stands for the English "rule set", the letter "U", which stands for the subcategory "universe"/"branch rules" and "13.81", the age of our universe in billions of years. "RS-R1", on the other hand, carries the same prefix, but has the designated letter "R", which stands for the English "reality", and the number "1". The number in the root rule set name of our reality has no special meaning except for the numbering.
5. The science of the Foundation in the future
5.1 Science of rules (Cosmocanonology) & the Weber measure
Abnormal objects contained by the Foundation seem to defy the rules of our universe in most cases. However, this is not quite right, if it were true, then the root rules of our reality would not allow it. So what this means is that there are certain rules, most likely branch rules, since root rules only determine the rough functioning of the universes, that allow the existence of the "SCPs". This could represent the "source" or "root" of the SCPs. It would be theoretically possible to better understand the nature of SCPs, or even to prevent the emergence of them if the Foundation was able to observe or influence these rules. If the Foundation could observe the SCPs rules of origin, it would be able to better and more effectively contain SCPs. If the Foundation could influence these rules, it would be able to directly prevent the emergence of SCPs.
In order to achieve this goal, a research unit with the designation "Research Unit 188" was established. Research Unit 188, also known as "F188", concentrates on researching the influence on the root and branch rules and how this can be achieved. This research project, called "PROJECT: RuleReality", is actively carried out in the German branch of the Foundation and receives help from other branches and the mother branch itself. The goal of the RuleReality project is to observe and explore the branch rules of our universe. After this has been achieved, the project wants to explore the root rules of our reality. Research Unit 188 is allowed to use certain Thaumiel-objects for their purposes under supervision. Research Unit 188 is stationed in the research site "DE-22". Site-DE22 is completely designed and optimized for the Research Unit 188, and no anomalous objects are contained in it.
The results of the project "RuleReality" by Research Unit 188 consist so far of the design of a measure which shows how much an anomalous object can influence or observe branch rules, further knowledge about the rule set of our universe and the creation of this paper. The aforementioned measure of recognition of the effect on the branch rules of our universe is called "Weber measure" and is itself purely theoretical. The Weber value of an object in our universe can be determined by first determining the Hume value of the object and then comparing it with the "standard" Hume value with certain properties. These special properties contain all realizations about branch rules of our universe that are "fitting" to the object. A theoretical value (Weber scale) is then assigned to the object in connection with the results of the previous measurements.
Tests have shown that certain standard values exist which always occur in normal conditions. One of those is our universe with 1 Weber-O-degree. This value serves as the starting point for all other measurements. 1 Weber degree corresponds to 100% of our branch rules, this means that the object can observe all the rules, or the rule set, of our universe, the "O" stands for the fact that the "1 degree"/"100%" refers to the viewing of the rules ("observe"). Our universe, on the other hand, has a Ni-Weber-I-degree ("Ni" comes from the German "Nicht", meaning "not"; "influence"), since it is not possible to determine the Weber-I-degree of our universe. The Weber-O-degree of our universe cannot be measured accurately, but since the universe consists of the branch rules, it is assumed that the universe can also observe its own rules. A "Ni-Weber-degree" is generally used when the O- or I-Weber-degree of an object cannot be determined. A human being has 0 Weber-O-degrees and 0 Weber-I-degrees. An AOTE has 2 Weber-O-degrees and also 2 Weber-I-degrees, because it is not only able to observe/affect the branch rules, but also the root rules. "Weber value" can refer to the Weber-I- and Weber-O-degree simultaneously.
In order to illustrate the Weber dimension, a "string model" or "thread model" is usually described. These strings formally represent the rules. If an object can see (ovserve) these strings, it has a positive Weber-O-degree. If an object is able to influence and "pluck" these strings, it is called a positive, existing Weber-I-degree. This in turn leads to consideration of negative Weber values. These are possible in a way where the rules affect an object "more than normal", i.e. the strings "wrap around" the object. The "wrapping" of the object by the strings is, however, only a very rough and formally inaccurate representation.
After several discussions within the Research Unit 188, it was suggested that there may be abnormal objects that are not influenced by the branch rules of our universe. These objects represent anomalies that have not arisen in our universe, but in the overarching reality itself. By somehow "soaking in" our universe, they are influencing it without having to be accepted as an "existence" by the branch rules of our universe. Such an anomaly is extremely dangerous as it cannot be comprehended in any way whatsoever, even if the branch rules could be controlled.
5.2 Weber anomalies
So-called "Weber anomalies" are anomalies in which the influence of the rules has been distorted, although normal conditions prevail. For example, a location is more influenced by the branch rules than usual. This creates an area in which the branch rules have a much stronger effect than usual. In the case of Weber anomalies, the Weber value can be estimated but not accurately measured, since the standards of the object are lost during the distortion. The duration of the existence of such an anomaly is not fixed. Weber anomalies can generally be classified as an SCP; Weber anomalies can be detected by attempting the measurement of both Weber values and by testing known realizations about rules. If the realizations are stronger than usual, it is a Weber anomaly.
Weber anomalies are graded from 1 to 5. The more "violent" or greater the distortion of the effect of the rules on the corresponding object, the higher the degree. Artificially induced Weber anomalies have so far assumed a maximum of the 3rd degree.
The logic behind the Weber anomalies cannot be understood at this moment, because on the one hand it can be assumed that the branch or root rules allow the existence of such anomalies, on the other hand the appearance of a Weber anomaly means that something did not function correctly within branch rule set, which suggests that the strings or rules are "plucking" themselves.
After the experiment simply known as the "Weber Experiment"[4] it was determined, that Weber anomalies usually have the property to be corrected. Whether this happens automatically or whether the anomalies "cancel out themselves" is not known at this time. However, it can be understood from this behavior that a Weber anomaly represents an incited state of the universe (and possibly reality) and that this state is not the optimal state for the universe/reality.
5.3 Reference to the Foundation
How all this should help the Foundation is relatively easy to see. With the exploration of branch rules, it may be possible to better understand SCPs or even prevent their emergence. However, this is still a long way off in the future and cannot be achieved at present. Nevertheless, the problem of Imprevisionism is not solved, it will be, once the Foundation has mastered Cosmocanonology, but in the present day, Imprevisionism is still a global problem that is the source of almost all incidents.
6. PROJECT: NoGoal
In order to remove the Improvisionalism from the Foundation's containment system, a project called "PROJECT: NoGoal" was designed to remove the human factor from containment and replace it. The project uses the theory of the AOTD and ATE and refers to the fact that the creation of an ATE is no longer possible. In order to understand this concept, the properties of an AOTE must first be considered.
An AOTE exists outside the basic rules of all realities, i.e. the principle of "time" does not apply to the AOTE either. What this means is that as soon as an AOTE is created, it does not have to consider the "time" of our (others also) reality and exists in all levels at the same time. This means that an AOTE has always existed, although such an existence still has to be developed in the "future". Since an AOTE would like to maintain its position (or "wants"), it will not allow the emergence of another AOTE, as this would be a risk for it. Therefore, in order to be able to take advantage of the AOTE, it must be assumed that such an existence already exists and that it has a "Friendly, momentary" nature (see Friendly & Unfriendly AI), because otherwise life in all realities would not be possible.
The "NoGoal" project envisages the use of an ATE, which would then be responsible for containment of the anomalous objects, in order to remedy the Imprevisionism.
One way to achieve this would be to intentionally create a 6th degree Weber anomaly. The 6th Weber anomaly level is a theoretical level where the distortion is so strong that the branch rules are not sufficient to correct the anomaly. What follows is that the root rules cannot directly correct the anomaly either, since they only "inaccurately" define the existence of the universes. Nevertheless, the rule system will try as best as it can to compensate for such a severe anomaly. The rule system will not be able to do this "itself", so the AOTE will have to intervene. Why the AOTE would do this is simply explained. The incited state of the rules will be quite unpleasant for such an existence and would portray a risk, because an incited state of a reality means that it could get out of control. However, an AOTE would not do this "itself" either, because otherwise it would mean a huge effort, but via a so-called "proxy". This proxy would represent an ATE that would penetrate our reality and our universe and correct the anomaly. In order to use this ATE, it must be "influenced". In order to achieve this, a system must be developed that is capable of perceiving an ATE and giving commands to it. These commands would ensure that the ATE would be under the control of the Foundation. In order to achieve this without another ATE, the system must additionally contain a kind of "Weber Anomaly Action Pattern" ("WAHM"), which changes according to the command and can thus influence the ATE.[5] [6]
A system would have to be a network of AIs that are intelligent enough to perceive an ATE. The current plan is to use a network of perfect, controlled, Unfriendly AGIs with personalities. The Unfriendly state ensures that the AGIs have a goal or a task and act rationally, this goal would be the command of the ATE. Since Unfriendly AIs, especially AGIs or ASIs, pose a very high risk, there must be strong control to ensure that the AGIs do not get out of control. To automate this, a proposed "Bound-Connection-Intelligence-Acceptence-System", or "BCIAS", is being considered. It would consist of the fact that the actions of a single AGI would have to be accepted and confirmed by the other AGIs first. In order for an action to be initiated by the BCIAS, the whole network has to agree to it. The personalities of the individual AGIs of the BCIAS ensure that the decision taken is logical from three specific points of view. "Qlipoth", "Shedim" and "Maimonides", the three names for the individual AGIs, carry the personalities of the "value concept","rationality" and "humanity". The value concept (Qlipoth) refers to the own benefit which is drawn from the decision; rationality (Shedim) makes exclusively rational logical decisions; humanity (Maimonides) acts on behalf of the human kind. In order for the BCIAS to be able to securely send data to certain devices and other data centers, a new "Reconstructive Network" would be created, which would be monitored by ANIs and would allow a secure connection to be established without the risk of external access. Only the BCIAS would be able to access the network, which would make it much easier to detect foreign connections. In the case of third-party access to the planned Reconstructive Network, which holds the name "ReNET", it would automatically seal itself off, digitally and physically self-destruct by burning out the data disks on which the communication system is based and reconstruct itself using the aforementioned ANIs, which then restore the communication system and reside on other servers. The phase of planning such an overall concept has already begun and is led by the Research Unit 188, but receives help from other branches, especially the Italian one. It is planned that the ReNET will be completed one year before the completion of the BCIAS. The BCIAS should consist of at least three or an odd number of AGIs, so that a clear conclusion can always be reached. The very first test of the BCIAS would be to create a first degree Weber anomaly. After this first test has been successful, the same test is repeated with increasing degrees until a 6th grade Weber anomaly is successfully generated. All subsequent tests can be variable and do not have to follow this scheme.
However, since the deployment and testing of the BCIAS would overlap, a sub-project called "PROJECT: Bound" was carried out, which ensured that the system in question would function properly and as intended. PROJECT: Bound intended to prove the existence of the ATE and AOTE by using data from another universe. This universe, which had a shifted timeline, asked for detailed data on a similar project, which unfortunately failed but still had great potential. U-6748-DE, the registered name for the universe in question, was indeed in a rather "difficult" circumstance, but nonetheless this did not pose any difficulties for the project staff. The functionality of the BCIAS, as well as the existence of the ATE and AOTE, was confirmed with the recovered data. The parameters of the ATE, which led to failure in the mentioned universe were all analysed and documented.
Nevertheless, there is a big problem with the first solution. Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact pattern of the ATEs action, the given parameters are also unknown. What follows from this is a very big risk that could potentially endanger our entire universe. In order to eliminate this risk, a second solution has been designed, which provides for the use of the ATE, which has been tested for many years and is located in U-6748-DE and is still controlled by the operational control unit. This control unit, which is basically the same as the BCIAS, would be used to perform a test in U-6784-DE to check whether the ATE would respond positively to the modification of the current task. In order to achieve this, however, the current task of the ATE must be changed, which would lead to a breakdown of the existing system in U-6784-DE. If the test is successful, the ATE will be transferred to our universe, where it will be controlled by the BCIAS. If the test fails, the resulting data is transferred to our universe. It is then used to find out why the test was unsuccessful.
Application: F188/U-6784-DE/ATE01
"The execution of the test is not permitted. This decision shall be effective immediately."
— O5-Council, O4-Council
7. Our future
Whether it will be possible to develop a BCIAS is not yet known to us humans. However, the Foundation's scientists, researchers and engineers are working diligently and tirelessly on the project, and are convinced that they will succeed in making the Foundation an organization that can effectively and accurately contain anomalous objects, so that the public and the rest of the world can live in peace and the objects not disturb the normality of everyday life. Such a future would truly be a world free of anomalies and the uncontrollable.
For such a future, we secure. For such a future, we contain. For such a future, we protect. We are the SCP Foundation, and we are the necessary black of this pure, innocent world.
— Signed - Research Unit 188
German Branch of the SCP Foundation
31.10.2017