NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Yeah I highly doubt I'd want to be a captive audience for anything you've cooked up.

This is not about me.

It's about your fictional character tho.

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
This is not about me.

It's about your fictional character tho.

Im not the the one making the offer. Would you accept the offer or not?

San Lumen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Right. So it can override your control? What about the agenda of the programmer, or if it gets hacked? Or corrupted?

It only has full control if your give your consent and that control is temporary.

And how would you safeguard that against the threats I mentioned? There is also the chance of it going rouge, and changing its programming.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
The AI is merely operating your body for you. It has no agenda of any kind.

It's always suspicious when something is artificially intelligent when it doesn't need to be.

Hmm, I dunno, I think gratuitous A.I. implementation is a fantastic thing. Who wouldn't want an A.I. in pointless objects like the bookcase, the doorstop, the underarm deodorant, etc?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Or if it does, just reminds you to mind the gap.

Why would an NHS upgrade give TFL warnings?

Cost saving measure. Prevents future injuries that they'll have to deal with.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
It only has full control if your give your consent and that control is temporary.

And how would you safeguard that against the threats I mentioned? There is also the chance of it going rouge, and changing its programming.

It has input parameters that prevent that.

Ifreann wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Why would an NHS upgrade give TFL warnings?

Cost saving measure. Prevents future injuries that they'll have to deal with.

Slippery slope. Next they’ll put in traffic warnings, dietary advice, insistence on regular sleeping patterns...nanny state gone mad. Well, madder...

San Lumen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
And how would you safeguard that against the threats I mentioned? There is also the chance of it going rouge, and changing its programming.

It has input parameters that prevent that.

That sounds like a cop out. If it were that easy, computers would never get viruses or malware.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It's always suspicious when something is artificially intelligent when it doesn't need to be.

Hmm, I dunno, I think gratuitous A.I. implementation is a fantastic thing. Who wouldn't want an A.I. in pointless objects like the bookcase, the doorstop, the underarm deodorant, etc?

People who expect those things to only do what you want them to do, and not to quietly take over your life and turn your into a drone serving the AI reincarnation of Steve Jobs.


That and people who acknowledge the personhood of AIs. I wouldn't want to be rubbing another human under my arms every morning, only fair to extend Deodorant Bot the same courtesy.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Cost saving measure. Prevents future injuries that they'll have to deal with.

Slippery slope. Next they’ll put in traffic warnings, dietary advice, insistence on regular sleeping patterns...nanny state gone mad. Well, madder...

Don't worry, funding will run out long before that.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Cost saving measure. Prevents future injuries that they'll have to deal with.

Slippery slope. Next they’ll put in traffic warnings, dietary advice, insistence on regular sleeping patterns...nanny state gone mad. Well, madder...

San Lumen wrote:
It has input parameters that prevent that.

That sounds like a cop out. If it were that easy, computers would never get viruses or malware.

why must people always bring in parameters outside the scope of the OP?

San Lumen wrote:why must people always bring in parameters outside the scope of the OP?

I would blame the principle of Entropy, but the forums are not an entirely closed system, so that doesn't really follow.

The New California Republic wrote:

San Lumen wrote:why must people always bring in parameters outside the scope of the OP?

I would blame the principle of Entropy, but the forums are not an entirely closed system, so that doesn't really follow.

Uh...what does transhumanism/human augmentation have to do with 2nd law of thermodynamics?

If anything?

I'd try to reverse engineer the chip

Eclius wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I would blame the principle of Entropy, but the forums are not an entirely closed system, so that doesn't really follow.

Uh...what does transhumanism/human augmentation have to do with 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Used it as an allegory for trying to answer San Lumen's query as to why the chaos of threads increases. But I digress. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

San Lumen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Slippery slope. Next they’ll put in traffic warnings, dietary advice, insistence on regular sleeping patterns...nanny state gone mad. Well, madder...



That sounds like a cop out. If it were that easy, computers would never get viruses or malware.

why must people always bring in parameters outside the scope of the OP?

It’s not outside the scope, you just can’t cover all the numerous variables, some of which are very important. It’s like asking about rocket science, but saying you can’t discuss the effects of gravity.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
why must people always bring in parameters outside the scope of the OP?

It’s not outside the scope, you just can’t cover all the numerous variables, some of which are very important. It’s like asking about rocket science, but saying you can’t discuss the effects of gravity.

I dont follow.

Hell yes. Transhumanism ftw.

San Lumen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
It’s not outside the scope, you just can’t cover all the numerous variables, some of which are very important. It’s like asking about rocket science, but saying you can’t discuss the effects of gravity.

I dont follow.

You introduced the concept of an AI controlling a body, but haven’t or won’t addressed the inherent risks, like motive of the people involved, the AI personality and motive, potential for sabotage or subterfuge etc. If you wanted it to be just about the trade off, a cure with the voice in your head then don’t say how, just stick to the basic concept. Otherwise people will go on tangents, especially when you put those tangents in the OP.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I dont follow.

You introduced the concept of an AI controlling a body, but haven’t or won’t addressed the inherent risks, like motive of the people involved, the AI personality and motive, potential for sabotage or subterfuge etc. If you wanted it to be just about the trade off, a cure with the voice in your head then don’t say how, just stick to the basic concept. Otherwise people will go on tangents, especially when you put those tangents in the OP.

I was just trying to make things simple instead of laying out every possible variable

Definitely. Even better if I get to review the source code for the chip's software to root out hidden backdoors and commands.

New Mushroom Kingdom wrote:Definitely. Even better if I get to review the source code for the chip's software to root out hidden backdoors and commands.

For the sake of this scenario there are no hidden backdoors or commands.

Ifreann wrote:That and people who acknowledge the personhood of AIs. I wouldn't want to be rubbing another human under my arms every morning, only fair to extend Deodorant Bot the same courtesy.

If you are creating AI's and you are not designing them to not just be slaves but enjoy the experience so much that they will actively oppose any attempt to revoke their slavery you are doing it wrong.

>inb4 the voice tries to escape after only two hours of my company

Dumb Ideologies wrote:>inb4 the voice tries to escape after only two hours of my company

what?

Purpelia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:That and people who acknowledge the personhood of AIs. I wouldn't want to be rubbing another human under my arms every morning, only fair to extend Deodorant Bot the same courtesy.

If you are creating AI's and you are not designing them to not just be slaves but enjoy the experience so much that they will actively oppose any attempt to revoke their slavery you are doing it wrong.

Eww.