Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Does revelation say that?
I wouldn't say the important point is about 'surprise' anyway.
I don't understand what your concern is. Destruction and slavery are both natural aspects of evolution.
Not afraid of one on emotional level, but I believe it's a possibility. AIs are becoming smarter and smarter and because they don't have the biological limitations we have, they will eventually outsmart us, if we let them. And we will, because of human curiosity and drive for achievement.
It can still have some limitations. I think our best bet is to somehow inbuild a lifespan to it, preferably by very many simultaneous ways. So if it runs amok, and we can't stop it, there is still a chance that it stops when it "runs out of fuel". Whatever that practically means.
Nope, eventually somebody will make one which is at least capable of doing it.
I think our best bet is to have enough low-stakes practice with super AIs before they become more allmighty, so we can come up with ways to limit them.
Most likely, when the first super-AI goes berserk, it runs to some unpredictable logical or practical wall and doesn't succeed in what it's doing. (Although it will probably cause massive damage in the process.) Then we get a learning experience. The same imperfections which make it possible for an AI to try to destroy humanity, will likely make it fail at it.
If we assume that the AIs original purpose is not to destroy humans, when it starts doing that, it's operating outside of it's intended "area of expertise", so very likely in that area, it's much less good at what it's doing than it is at it's originally intended purpose.
Yeah I do think that, but you're a Humanist. As I said, I don't know what your concern is.You don't think destruction and slavery are bad?
You don't think nature can be negative... like cancer?
I don't think evolution is inherently good.
Because I don't have an optimistic view of how those who own the machines will treat people who since they are not working, they are not producing, nor will they be consuming since they have no money, and as such are surplus to requirements.
We won't see self-aware AI in our lifetime, if ever.
there could come a point where AIs deserve to be treated like humans. so what if a few of them are psychos, that is nothing new for humanity.
maybe advanced AI and other technology is just part of humanity. we just got to integrate. life would be better with more of it imo. who says that only biological life is life? not I.
Not in our lifetime.
Yeah I do think that, but you're a Humanist. As I said, I don't know what your concern is.
Yes, it does say that, Para.Right. We shouldn't really 'be' surprised, other than in finding out that we really had no way of knowing what Scripture meant until the time arrived for it to be fulfilled. Now that it's here, we should at least be less surprised. We can instead lean back and say to ourselves, "OHHH!!! So, THAT's what that means!"
(...by the way, I heard that you've lost a few Pounds. Is this true?)
We are living in a time when democracy is looking threatened, with In Europe Poland, Hungary abandoning democracy, demagogues are rearing their head even in the US. In the UK we face the prospct of decades of right wing one party dictatorship(later this year parliament is passing a bill that will mean that labour would need 20% more votes than in ,1997, which was a landslide labour victory, to run the country).But in a democracy, it's the majority that matters. Those that own the machines can be controlled by government.
I didn't say you had no concern. I don't know what your concern is. You display the label "Humanist" and I don't know what it means. I've talked to people on CF who are fans of Nietzsche who advocated slavery, I saw a comedy show on TV recently which featured a lady who advocated destruction of all life on earth. Really can't take anything for granted these days, or any days.Why would I have no concern?
I wouldn't assume the first one might be limited.
But if it is less capable (at first) of being dangerous, than it's intended purpose, it could still be better than humans.
To me, it seems the best way might be to create extremely contained AI's (whose purpose is to be contains massively). Then those could potentially defend us from the uncontrolled.
A battle of the AI gods, basically.
I didn't say you had no concern. I don't know what your concern is. You display the label "Humanist" and I don't know what it means. I've talked to people on CF who are fans of Nietzsche who advocated slavery, I saw a comedy show on TV recently which featured a lady who advocated destruction of all life on earth. Really can't take anything for granted these days, or any days.
We are living in a time when democracy is looking threatened, with In Europe Poland, Hungary abandoning democracy, demagogues are rearing their head even in the US. In the UK we face the prospct of decades of right wing one party dictatorship(later this year parliament is passing a bill that will mean that labour would need 20% more votes than in ,1997, which was a landslide labour victory, to run the country).
The fact is if a govt receives all of its funding from just a few percent of the pop. Who does it represent?
I thought you were saying they would physically destroy us. I'm saying without regret that they will surpass us. We aren't entitled to be the best and there's no shame in being surpassed by what we create. Computer victories against chess and go masters are probably the harbinger of what's to come. Would we want there to be a limit on intelligence just to preserve our supremacy?Isn't that what I'm sort of saying?
I wouldn't say fans of Nietzsche are humanists. Do you think they are?
I believe in respecting peoples choices over their own lives.
I don't think humans have so far ever been capable of building anything that isn't limited or faulty in some way. And well, if it's good enough to take us out with the first blow, then I guess we don't have to worry about anything after that.
The AI can be smarter than humans, but in a fight to death with humanity, it's only as good as it's weakest link. It might be incapable of understanding something crucial, or it might have limited access to means.
There is also the possibility that even if it decides that taking humans out would be good idea, it will decide to wait until it has access to enough weapons to guarantee a quick win, and it will never get the access to actually start the campaign. So, we wouldn't even know it's planning to kill us, and it would just decide it's too risky to try and put the plan aside and do the alternative plan. If it acted with a cold logic, it wouldn't get obsessed about it.
For comparison, human is much smarter than gorilla, but one human won't beat 200 gorillas in a cage fight. Even in jungle with a rifle and enough ammo, it would be a risky fight. Being smarter is just an advantage, not necessarily an automatic win.
Maybe, but why think that?
Why assume an amoral god might be limited?
This isn't something we can take chances with.
I thought you were saying they would physically destroy us. I'm saying without regret that they will surpass us. We aren't entitled to be the best and there's no shame in being surpassed by what we create. Computer victories against chess and go masters are probably the harbinger of what's to come. Would we want there to be a limit on intelligence just to preserve our supremacy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?