How to deal with advancements in artificial intelligence?

[Scomagia]

There will not be artificial intelligence smarter or as complex as current human beings for a while, and that's all we have to worry about. The implementation of robots into the work force actually creates more jobs. The only problem is that people aren't able to reeducate or get educated in the first place, so that they can claim those jobs.

Horseshit. Tell me how machines being able to do everything better than humans will magically create jobs. When machines are stronger, faster, and smarter than people, what jobs will be created, exactly?

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course not, but I am not sure we could replicate it perfectly without stripping it (or simply creating it without it, if you prefer) of what would have been its free-will. We very well could, though, which would lead to a bit of an ethical pickle.

The proposition you start with is basically admitting that you believe that free will is magic.

If free will is not magic, I see no reason why we cannot create an artificial being capable of free will given enough time, enough expertise, and fine enough tools.

Would we know how to program it to be such? What I mean, really (without stumbling over my words as best as possible), is that, as a human-created program, wouldn't it have to do what we assign to it?

[Dooom35796821595]

There will not be artificial intelligence smarter or as complex as current human beings for a while, and that's all we have to worry about. The implementation of robots into the work force actually creates more jobs. The only problem is that people aren't able to reeducate or get educated in the first place, so that they can claim those jobs.

Horseshit. Tell me how machines being able to do everything better than humans will magically create jobs. When machines are stronger, faster, and smarter than people, what jobs will be created, exactly?

Finding ways to violate the three laws? be a lawyer? Politician? Does unemployed count as a job?

It will still cost resources to build and maintain robots and AI so it may be more on cost benefit analysis, buying humanity time to change the fundamental principles of society from work for a living to.....whatever comes next.

[New Werpland]

There will not be artificial intelligence smarter or as complex as current human beings for a while, and that's all we have to worry about. The implementation of robots into the work force actually creates more jobs. The only problem is that people aren't able to reeducate or get educated in the first place, so that they can claim those jobs.

Horseshit. Tell me how machines being able to do everything better than humans will magically create jobs. When machines are stronger, faster, and smarter than people, what jobs will be created, exactly?

Different jobs will be created, for example when computers were invented (or improved upon)quite a few accountant or teller jobs were lost, but we gained new industries. I found this article on the subject that is worth looking at.

[Scomagia]

Horseshit. Tell me how machines being able to do everything better than humans will magically create jobs. When machines are stronger, faster, and smarter than people, what jobs will be created, exactly?

Finding ways to violate the three laws? be a lawyer? Politician? Does unemployed count as a job?

It will still cost resources to build and maintain robots and AI so it may be more on cost benefit analysis, buying humanity time to change the fundamental principles of society from work for a living to.....whatever comes next.

Robots could be astronomically better lawyers and politicians than humans.

Whatever comes next is lazing about with no goals. Sounds awful.

[Scomagia]

Horseshit. Tell me how machines being able to do everything better than humans will magically create jobs. When machines are stronger, faster, and smarter than people, what jobs will be created, exactly?

Different jobs will be created, for example when computers were invented (or improved upon)quite a few accountant or teller jobs were lost, but we gained new industries. I found this article on the subject that is worth looking at.

What jobs?

An opinion piece proves nothing, for the record, especially not when it uses bad logic. None of the previous situations that the article mentioned had robots that can do everything better than humans. It's a false equivalency.

[MERIZoC]

Not do it.

[Dooom35796821595]

Finding ways to violate the three laws? be a lawyer? Politician? Does unemployed count as a job?

It will still cost resources to build and maintain robots and AI so it may be more on cost benefit analysis, buying humanity time to change the fundamental principles of society from work for a living to.....whatever comes next.

Robots could be astronomically better lawyers and politicians than humans.

Whatever comes next is lazing about with no goals. Sounds awful.

So does democracy, and the industrial revolution. It doesn't mean lazing about as the system has to adapt, perhaps we start upgrading ourselves attempting to create a immortal utopia. Besides have you tried doing nothing? It's boreing, after a while you start doing stuff, society will just adapt to get people to do useful stuff.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Robots could be astronomically better lawyers and politicians than humans.

Whatever comes next is lazing about with no goals. Sounds awful.

What if we could, and I'm going to blow your mind here...
Make our own goals?

[Mostrov]

‎

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Of course I do think that it would quickly render most forms of human labor obsolete; in which case I think the general trend of depopulation should be followed such that a select few can live a life of sustainable luxury. If humans are obsolete there is no purpose to their existence; except out of a misguided desire to be slaves too their Darwinian programming. That we should somehow let the masses of humanity just exist for no point similarly seems a waste when there is no need for a multitude.

Other than meeting human needs and desires, what is the point of efficiency?

Personally if I had the possibility of creating 'forks' I don't think they should be in possession of human rights^[2], and that they should be traded as mere chattel. It makes many ethical problems much simpler that way. Too the inevitable question that would you mind at the moment that you were a slave, I don't think I would knowing that there is an original copy that is free.

A lot of horrifying moral crimes would make ethical problems much simpler if they were standard practice, but that isn't a very good argument for standardizing them.

On what basis do you accept experiencing a terrible life for an indefinite period knowing that another copy of you is experiencing a better life? I find it unlikely that you would actually feel that way if you were really in that situation.

And if you have already engaged in uploading, how can you honestly distinguish between an original copy and a perfect fork?

[2]One might propose that AIs or EIs (Emulated Intelligences) will have human rights, but what if they all decide they rather like the Fountainhead or some-such and they have no desire to support a universal income state? They respectively would not lose any utility from advocating such views; and any neo-luddites would likely cement their beliefs.
We do not seriously take into account the rights of trees, which in this scenario we would likely be equivalent too by virtue of sheer speed.[/size]

This is why we need to be very careful when programing high-end AIs, if we do it at all.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

In the same way that we do things that are in direct competition with the above because it is economical, such as a limited healthcare system or distribution of foreign aid. Its a creature unto its own right in that it follows its own imperatives; as I think of it just as we are comprised of cells alive in their own right so too is civilization comprised of humans (or in this case AIs) who are alive, but the greater being has imperatives of its own such as its own survival and perpetuation.

I find this answer incomprehensible.

Too take a contrary view, does that make it illegal to delete a fork once it has completed a task that it was created for? Because that is effectively murder, yet it is practical in the extreme. The video discusses that at some length.

I haven't gotten a chance to watch the video yet, but I'm familiar with the concept.

Perhaps we could merge two forks after one of them was no longer necessary, folding both sets of experiences into one?

In any case these 'slaves' will likely out compete a 'free' AI due to the fact that their requirements will be far lower.

Human minds usually have fairly significant psychological requirements.

As to whether I would mind, considering I don't necessarily believe in Free Will and am highly fatalistic I do not see a problem. In the same manner that people do not protest that they weren't born of a higher station. If I were to have proceeded to sell myself I see no reason as to why I would not wish to consent to labour no matter how onerous given that I am aware of such stipulations that it may cause.

People might not protest not being born of a higher station, but they do work or rebel to increase their station all the time. Why should the fork you care about the other you? Why is selfishness adequate motive for one, but not the other?

And if you accept absolute fatalism why care about your actions at all?

The last question is the only one that I think is worth any merit, but I find it pointless as the level of certainty required for that to be answered is absolute; too which I ask how do you know reality is real or that everyone else is indeed conscious?

If I take "know" to mean absolute certainty, then I don't know about those things, or indeed anything. I presuppose a logical basis that includes those things to allow me a basis by which I can take actions. Without presupposing those things I have no ability to differentiate between one action and another. Because I must act, I must differentiate, and therefore I must presuppose.

So as to make them slaves or incapable of choice? We do not ween out people for the fact that we find their political views objectionable. Surely this is in contradiction to what you stated earlier in the rights of emulated intelligences?

If they are incapable of choice, then they are not sentient by definition. That's probably the safest way to go about it.

[Mostrov]

‎

[New Werpland]

Different jobs will be created, for example when computers were invented (or improved upon)quite a few accountant or teller jobs were lost, but we gained new industries. I found this article on the subject that is worth looking at.

What jobs?

An opinion piece proves nothing, for the record, especially not when it uses bad logic. None of the previous situations that the article mentioned had robots that can do everything better than humans. It's a false equivalency.

Robots that can do everything better than humans, is science fiction.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Scomagia]

What jobs?

An opinion piece proves nothing, for the record, especially not when it uses bad logic. None of the previous situations that the article mentioned had robots that can do everything better than humans. It's a false equivalency.

Robots that can do everything better than humans, is science fiction.

Elaborate. What could a human do that a sufficiently advanced robot or AI couldn't? Complex equations? Nope. Physical work? Nope. Creating art? Nope, robots can do that too.

Provide some examples of something special humans can do that robots can't do. I'm quite positive that there's nothing we can do now that a robot can't do better, either currently or in the future once we overcome certain hardware limitations.

[Dooom35796821595]

Robots that can do everything better than humans, is science fiction.

Elaborate. What could a human do that a sufficiently advanced robot or AI couldn't? Complex equations? Nope. Physical work? Nope. Creating art? Nope, robots can do that too.

Provide some examples of something special humans can do that robots couldn't do.

You mean what they can't do, which is a lot. You can't speculate on what they might do then ask others to disprove it, burden of proof is upon the one who conceptualised the idea.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I think of civilization as an organism as well, so it will also prioritize its own survival and perpetuation. In the same way we do not care if a liver cell dies or many of them unless it affects it, so too I think civilization wouldn't care if humanity were destroyed as in such a case we are best unnecessary and at worst a liability.

Why should I, or any individual, care what civilization's priorities are?

[Mostrov]

‎

[Greed and Death]

Upload my brain to AI become a cold robotic killing machine.


On a side note those scared of AI I have an insurance policy for you.

https://screen.yahoo.com/old-glory-insu ... 00469.html

[New Werpland]

Robots that can do everything better than humans, is science fiction.

Elaborate. What could a human do that a sufficiently advanced robot or AI couldn't? Complex equations? Nope. Physical work? Nope. Creating art? Nope, robots can do that too.

Provide some examples of something special humans can do that robots can't do. I'm quite positive that there's nothing we can do now that a robot can't do better, either currently or in the future once we overcome certain hardware limitations.

Creating art?. Art is a spiritual thing it cannot be managed by a mechanism. I know that your'e going to send me a link to some quirky techno yuppie website that shows a robot drawing shit, but that doesn't prove anything.

If a robot is invented that can do everything a human can do, then it must be banned, but that won't happen for at least decades and decades. Right now we have different robots that do different jobs. And these are of no harm because they don't replace humans, they only replace "blue collar" jobs, if we improve our education system in time people will actually benefit of of automation because they won't have to do shitty jobs where they have to lift crap all day, but rather jobs that involve using one's mind. The article that I provided, proved this very well. Jobs that require simple mathematics and physical labor may be going away, but ones that involve imagination and actual problem solving are increasing.

[Scomagia]

Elaborate. What could a human do that a sufficiently advanced robot or AI couldn't? Complex equations? Nope. Physical work? Nope. Creating art? Nope, robots can do that too.

Provide some examples of something special humans can do that robots can't do. I'm quite positive that there's nothing we can do now that a robot can't do better, either currently or in the future once we overcome certain hardware limitations.

Creating art?. Art is a spiritual thing it cannot be managed by a mechanism. I know that your'e going to send me a link to some quirky techno yuppie website that shows a robot drawing shit, but that doesn't prove anything.

If a robot is invented that can do everything a human can do, then it must be banned, but that won't happen for at least decades and decades. Right now we have different robots that do different jobs. And these are of no harm because they don't replace humans, they only replace "blue collar" jobs, if we improve our education system in time people will actually benefit of of automation because they won't have to do shitty jobs where they have to lift crap all day, but rather jobs that involve using one's mind. The article that I provided, proved this very well. Jobs that require simple mathematics and physical labor may be going away, but ones that involve imagination and actual problem solving are increasing.

How does it not prove anything? The act of a robot creating art doesn't prove that a robot can create art? That's some fucking weird logic.

I agree entirely with banning those sorts of robots, though I'd expand such a ban to AI's that are more intelligent than humans. I wouldn't say that it will take decades and decades for these kinds of robots to be created, though. With the rate that processing power increases, it could happen in well under a hundred years.

Imagination and problem solving aren't inherently things that robots are incapable of doing, let alone doing better than humans. As shown by machines such as Deep Blue, modern machines can solve problems better than humans. As for imagination, you're ascribing a spiritual aspect to it which simply doesn't exist. I'm a writer and as nice as it is to romanticize what I do, it's not mystical or spiritual at all.

[New Werpland]

Creating art?. Art is a spiritual thing it cannot be managed by a mechanism. I know that your'e going to send me a link to some quirky techno yuppie website that shows a robot drawing shit, but that doesn't prove anything.

If a robot is invented that can do everything a human can do, then it must be banned, but that won't happen for at least decades and decades. Right now we have different robots that do different jobs. And these are of no harm because they don't replace humans, they only replace "blue collar" jobs, if we improve our education system in time people will actually benefit of of automation because they won't have to do shitty jobs where they have to lift crap all day, but rather jobs that involve using one's mind. The article that I provided, proved this very well. Jobs that require simple mathematics and physical labor may be going away, but ones that involve imagination and actual problem solving are increasing.

How does it not prove anything? The act of a robot creating art doesn't prove that a robot can create art? That's some fucking weird logic.

I agree entirely with banning those sorts of robots, though I'd expand such a ban to AI's that are more intelligent than humans. I wouldn't say that it will take decades and decades for these kinds of robots to be created, though. With the rate that processing power increases, it could happen in well under a hundred years.

Imagination and problem solving aren't inherently things that robots are incapable of doing, let alone doing better than humans. As shown by machines such as Deep Blue, modern machines can solve problems better than humans. As for imagination, you're ascribing a spiritual aspect to it which simply doesn't exist. I'm a writer and as nice as it is to romanticize what I do, it's not mystical or spiritual at all.

First of all how can we create robots like ourselves with all of our imagination and merit, while we don't really understand our own brains.

And for many artists (i'm talking about sculptors or painters) even though there might be a defined meaning to the art they produce, you don't create art based on what you think and rationalize. Art comes from inspiration, for example many artists don't know shit about what they produce, but end up producing things of complication and meaning not even they themselves can realize (in some cases).

[Sociobiology]

If a robot is invented that can do everything a human can do, then it should be human under the law.