AI, Is Concern Warranted?

[Radrook]

Do you fasten your seat belt? Purchase a fire extinguisher? Keep a gun for self defense?

Or.... leave all that stuff to God?

it isn't considered a sin to take precautions against a possible future danger.

Proverbs 27:12 ESV
The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

 

[Radrook]

Apparently much less than "almost to a certainty," because "A team of very good chess players armed with a supercomputer were able to beat a single chessmaster [only] half the time."

Right! I failed to notice that. One great advantage that computers have over us is that they don't have worries ort distractions. Computers also don't suffer from exhaustion. They can play a hundred games without it have any effect on their performance while we humans tend to mentally wind down and become more susceptible to oversights. We humans tend to become discouraged or depressed if we lose two or three in a row. Beat the computer and it comes at you totally unscathed.. So certainly! Their victory percentage had a great deal to do with that non-human assistance they were employing.

 

[Radrook]

Nice. Hands off the wheel, people!

It is an admirable display of faith in the biblical promises that no matter what occurs in human history all the prophecies concerning an ultimate establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth will be fulfilled. So from that perspective no AI will ever pose a real threat to humanity since the fate of humanity is safely in the creator's hands..

 

[durangodawood]

It is an admirable display of faith in the biblical promises that no matter what occurs in human history all the prophecies concerning an ultimate establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth will be fulfilled. So from that perspective no AI will ever pose a real threat to humanity since the fate of humanity is safely in the creator's hands..

Maybe the AI's are God's Kingdom on Earth, and our job is to get out of the way after we've brought them on line.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe the AI's are God's Kingdom on Earth, and our job is to get out of the way after we've brought them on line.

Very interesting perspective. True, there definitely isn't any reason why they couldn't be employed in the service of God's Kingdom!

 

[durangodawood]

Very interesting perspective. True, there definitely isn't any reason why they couldn't be employed in the service of God's Kingdom!

For the record I dont believe that. I simply find that reasonable IF you believe in things like Gods plan.

Personally I believe Gods kingdom on earth refers to a capacity already within us. If I was Christian, that would probly be heresy tho.

 

[Radrook]

For the record I dont believe that. I simply find that reasonable IF you believe in things like Gods plan.

Personally I believe Gods kingdom on earth refers to a capacity already within us. If I was Christian, that would probly be heresy tho.

Actually, the current popular view among of certain denominations is indeed that God's kingdom is within the human heart and that it arrives for each person whenever a person accepts Christ individually. So you would not be considered as suggesting a heresy from their standpoint. The Catholic Church opted for that view when its various prophecies about the end of the world failed. One of them was concerning the year 1000 AD if memory serves me right.

 

[Radrook]

I'm just skeptical of the hard line we'd like to draw between machine and mind.

For Sophia, the apparent volition probly is strictly a simple instruction-following. But it seems possible that highly sophisticated instruction-following could result in a sort of self-modeling on the machines part that leads to a genuine self as we understand it. I dont know. But it seems possible.

(Self-modeling being making a picture of your self as it exists in the world, in order to locate yourself, evaluate your possibilities, etc. Some say thats the essence/origin of consciousness).

Very true, in our case it does involve consciousness to self-evaluate. However, it seems to me that the self-evaluation of a machine would simply require it to follow some predetermined program and consciousness would not be necessarily present. How many computers self-evaluate and provide us with a readout of their operational status? Yet we know that such self-scrutiny or self-evaluation is nothing more than a mechanical automatic series of computations totally unrelated to consciousness.

I believe that only when an identical replica of the human brain can be created using materials capable of mimicking the chemical electrical activities complete with a body which is responsive to what we call emotions triggered by experiences which release mimicked hormonal activity will consciousness perhaps be approximated in some significantly genuine way.

 

[Radrook]

I don't have anything against foresight, I was just talking about the "concerned" part. I God wants Skynet to take over, Skynet takes over; nothing to be concerned about. If God doesn't want Skynet to take over, Skynet doesn't take over. My point is, if it's happening, it's the will of God, which is nothing to be concerned about. But, you know, people will worry, that's what we do; even when there's no need to worry, we'll find a way. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; just that, there's really no need of it.

Do you consider EVERYTHING that happens on Earth the will of God?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Do you consider EVERYTHING that happens on Earth the will of God?

EVERYTHING.

 

[Radrook]

EVERYTHING.

That engenders moral problems. That's why the temporary toleration view is better.

 

[John Hyperspace]

That engenders moral problems. That's why the temporary toleration view is better.

What sort of moral problems?

 

[High Fidelity]

I'm personally in the camp that doesn't believe artificial intelligence, at least strong AI, will ever actually exist. It's likely the programmers of Sophia programmed that into her as a joke to say that, but in reality, she doesn't "want" to do anything because she's a machine.

I don't see why it can't. AI is already being developed that demonstrates levels of cognition that are impressive enough for what the stage of their development is concerned. It can only get better, and it's looking like it will.

AI is being developed by not just programmers, but psychologists, particularly cognitive psychologists as well as neuroscientists.

That said, I don't know if they would be a danger. Could they? Of course. How we mitigate that risk is another matter.

 

[Radrook]

What sort of moral problems?

Well, let's say that an AI designed for sexual pleasures such as Gigolo Joe in the film AI goes berserk and rapes, would that rape be God's will? If indeed it is his will then how does he retain his holiness while approving of rape? Or any other crime for that matter such as murder, child abuse, etcetera. Any havoc that AI or any human inflicts must be solely attributed to the humans or the AI in order to avoid having to blame God and placing his holiness in question. That's why the temporary toleration of Earth societal conditions view due to necessity of resolving the Eden issues is better.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Well, let's say that an AI designed for sexual pleasures such as Gigolo Joe in the film AI goes berserk and rapes, would that rape be God's will?

As I'm lead to understand, it would be a part of 'everything that happens', so; sure.

If indeed it is his will then how does he retain his holiness while approving of rape? Or any other crime for that matter such as murder, child abuse, etcetera.

Obviously I can't specifically know how culpability is legally addressed; only that it doesn't violate culpability. The question will stand for most of the acts of God's approval in the scripture which involve some pretty heavy conditions: quite a lot of highly calamitous actions are sanctioned by God; even directed by Him. The most profound being the crucifixion.

I'm sure these things will all be shown morally correct. I do note one thing that separates is, intent. A single act can have two intents: rending one morally culpable, but not the other. For example the case of Joseph in which his brothers acted with wrong intent, but God acted with right intent: Genesis 50:19-20. Divergence in intent comes into play a lot in scripture.

As for specific legalities, I can offer analogues (while not maintaining the analogue to be true, but a possibility: one of many; which preclude culpability) such as, dream state reality. Meaning, as moral culpability is moot in a dream state, we could be experiencing a similar form of existence in our current mode of being; thus all events being those of dream state experiences which can cause culpability to be rendered moot in an "unreal" environment.

That's why the temporary toleration of Earth societal conditions view due to necessity of resolving the Eden issues is better.

I'm not sure it's "better": but the reason I don't go that route is that it calls into question sovereignty and I am persuaded by sovereignty, thus rendering temporay tolerance inapplicable.

 

[Chriliman]

For the record I dont believe that. I simply find that reasonable IF you believe in things like Gods plan.

Personally I believe Gods kingdom on earth refers to a capacity already within us. If I was Christian, that would probly be heresy tho.

Considering Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you, then no you wouldn't be considered a heretic for saying that, you'd be considered a Christian with accurate understanding of the Gospel message.

Luke 17:2 YLT
"Nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you."

 

[Radrook]

As I'm lead to understand, it would be a part of 'everything that happens', so; sure.



Obviously I can't specifically know how culpability is legally addressed; only that it doesn't violate culpability. The question will stand for most of the acts of God's approval in the scripture which involve some pretty heavy conditions: quite a lot of highly calamitous actions are sanctioned by God; even directed by Him. The most profound being the crucifixion.

I'm sure these things will all be shown morally correct. I do note one thing that separates is, intent. A single act can have two intents: rending one morally culpable, but not the other. For example the case of Joseph in which his brothers acted with wrong intent, but God acted with right intent: Genesis 50:19-20. Divergence in intent comes into play a lot in scripture.

As for specific legalities, I can offer analogues (while not maintaining the analogue to be true, but a possibility: one of many; which preclude culpability) such as, dream state reality. Meaning, as moral culpability is moot in a dream state, we could be experiencing a similar form of existence in our current mode of being; thus all events being those of dream state experiences which can cause culpability to be rendered moot in an "unreal" environment.



I'm not sure it's "better": but the reason I don't go that route is that it calls into question sovereignty and I am persuaded by sovereignty, thus rendering temporay tolerance inapplicable.

There is scriptural evidence that he has temporarily handed over a certain degree of sovereignty on Earth over to Satan.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD VERSUS THE KINGDOM OF SATAN

 

[Radrook]

Right, especially since we don't even really know why consciousness even exists or the brain process behind it.

I think that most Christian denominations attribute consciousness to the part of the human they refer to as the soul.
If indeed that is true, then no machine can ever be truly conscious because we could never endow it with a soul.

 

[Strathos]

I think that most Christian denominations attribute consciousness to the part of the human they refer to as the soul.
If indeed that is true, then no machine can ever be truly conscious because we could never endow it with a soul.

But God could...

 

[Radrook]

But God could...

But God could...

Why would God want to do something like that?