A proposition on (free) will

I have a proposition on what might constitute (what might appear as free) will. It is a complex set of "high order" rules where by an entity operate or which govern the entity's operation.
This is an intuitive definition of will in the sense that people tend to use the word in contexts which apply to the above definition. It is most clear with computer programs where people can talk about the computers "will" when it does something (it should not). But it can also be seen e.g. when animals or plants are discussed: "The flower wants to have much sun", or rain. Or "the moskito wants to suck blood".

Now, I would like to propose that we should look for these high order rules and see if they can be built in to a program to emulate will.

These higher order rules can probably be associated to different orders of logic or Russells type theory.

Another key aspect of these rules is that they should have a connection to senses and actuators. That is key for interaction.

This might be a bit behavioristic. But one can view mind as an hirarcical entity consisting of entities which can be probed from the outside, but when viewed internally no mind process can be found. The entities them selves consist of further new entities which cannot internally be associated to a cognitive process bytes can perform one as a whole. This is some kind of emerging phenomenon model. Ideas similar to these, but expressed differently were also presented here.

About machine learning

It has recently, in so many places, been suggested that "AI" poses the single largest threat to humanity. To me, this claim is just uninformed and rediculus. Some arguments against:

1. It has been stated that we will not be able to predict the evolution of AI. And it will grow in intellegence exponentially and BAM out-smart and kill us all. But looking at history this kind of prediction has been made lots of times befor with different technical advancememts. To error. I see no reason to beleive this piece of tech will be any more disruptive in that sense.

2. AI is, also amongst highly educated people, vastly miss-understood. In its current incarnation, it is a set of tools to solve detailed technical problems. No where is there any will or intention. AI people still say (and so do I)they do not even understand will.

3. They keep saying we will have an escalation of ai evolving it self away from us slow biologically evolved beings. And finally erasing us. But if an ai is intelligent enough, and the above is a problem, why would it want to have it self superseded by a smarter ai? Won't that feel like for us and the level 1 ai?

Rehammar's law

I just read about Godwin's law. I think I can make a generalisation: If the number of entries in a discussion thread on the internet (or some where else) goes to infinity, every statement that can be made, will be made. This is just due to that people tend to make all sorts of weird connections and sooner or later, every statement will be made. Woilla - Rehammar's law.