Artificial Intelligence

[basics]

Setekh,

Sorry about forgetting the "s" in the Laws but that is just an example of how fragile man can be. Yes, machines can and do outlive their makers but there's none yet that can out-think whoever takes over the mantle of control as that procedure is still in the hands of man. So, will an AI replace God? Maybe in the delusional minds of certain people but certainly not with God.

[swabian]

Consciousness is simply the state of knowing you exist.

How do you know you exist? By merely thinking about if you exist is the proof of your existence.

It really isn't that simple at all. Would i ramble like this if it were? You know me...

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh,

Sorry about forgetting the "s" in the Laws but that is just an example of how fragile man can be. Yes, machines can and do outlive their makers but there's none yet that can out-think whoever takes over the mantle of control as that procedure is still in the hands of man. So, will an AI replace God? Maybe in the delusional minds of certain people but certainly not with God.

There were no humans on this Earth at some point in time too. Doesn't mean there can't be or won't be a machine that can replace us. We did not talk about machines replacing god though.

[basics]

There were no humans on this Earth at some point in time too. Doesn't mean there can't be or won't be a machine that can replace us. We did not talk about machines replacing god though.

Setekh,

Only for five days for on the sixth day God made man. As God is in full control I don't see that happening.

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh,
Only for five days for on the sixth day God made man. As God is in full control I don't see that happening.

That's what you believe, not that it has any value in this discussion of course. So far, the entirety of your position is based on assumptions that has absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Stario]

Humans could be seen as extremely complex AI (well not technically AI but you know what I mean). Our brains calculate outcomes through complex algorithms.
Just as the human brain is able to collect data and learn throughout its life, I don't see why this same process could not be achieved or even surpassed by an complex AI brain that will probably be around for longer/would not be affected by disease (well at least not biological disease), & therefore could learn more throughout its lifetime (perhaps at this point terminology such as 'AI' might not be appropriate though).

I am already imagining Synthetics demonstrating/striking for equal rights. Or a Synth President elected by a Synth faction. HAHA....

On a separate note: I have actually wondered in the past whether there are other beings somewhere out-there in the universe that have already gone this way...is turning into a 'synth society' & abandoning biology entirely inevitable for all races that achieve a certain technological level/age.

[basics]

That's what you believe, not that it has any value in this discussion of course. So far, the entirety of your position is based on assumptions that has absolutely nothing to back it up.

Setekh,

Oh, everything has value my friend and I think what you are missing is the word " artificial. " You are the one making assumptions not me. To imagine that machines can take over the world will always come down to the person that programmed it and you are assuming that one day a machine will do that, that is improve upon itself by itself without man's input is stretching things a little too far. Of course there are guys striving to make this happen and in certain cases they are coming up with some astonishing rewards but every step of the way those rewards are the result of their brains not a machine's. Does anyone think that God is going to let His creation be taken over by machines? For value I think one should keep it as good fun, good entertainment value but a long way from reality.

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh,

Oh, everything has value my friend and I think what you are missing is the word " artificial. " You are the one making assumptions not me. To imagine that machines can take over the world will always come down to the person that programmed it and you are assuming that one day a machine will do that, that is improve upon itself by itself without man's input is stretching things a little too far. Of course there are guys striving to make this happen and in certain cases they are coming up with some astonishing rewards but every step of the way those rewards are the result of their brains not a machine's. Does anyone think that God is going to let His creation be taken over by machines? For value I think one should keep it as good fun, good entertainment value but a long way from reality.

No, I'm not assuming that it will happen. I didn't even comment on what will happen. So far, I only commented on what can happen. You're clearly confusing the two. Of all things, to say that you're not assuming anything is just fundamentally false since you have been unable to go beyond your assumptions. That's probably why you keep trying to push the goal post.

Also, nice logic there. God apparently won't let humanity fail. Does that extend to global warming or nuclear war?

[Muizer]

To imagine that machines can take over the world will always come down to the person that programmed it

Yes that's the knee-jerk Frankenstein response to the idea of AI: a "person" programming "an ai" as a complete being. But that is not how AI is developing, as I've tried to explain (though that seems to have fallen on deaf ears completely). AI's developed "as beings" will indeed be highly limited by their creators' design for them. An emerging AI will be a form of symbiosis between many components that each by themselves were designed to carry out a very limited task. But, because everything is connected to everything else, their decisions may seemingly portray a "being" with a "life" of its own. In my example of the fridge, it may be designed to keep it stocked to the needs of its owner, but if it starts taking info about supply into account, it could be that shortages will be anticipated long in advance and priorities applied to distribution to the point where you run out of milk even though the shop next door still has milk left. It will seem as if your fridge is telling you: sorry man, I know you want milk and there's still milk in store, but other people need it more".

[basics]

Muizer,

Yes but the fridge has to be programmed by a human to do such things.

Setekh,

The thing is that I realised long time ago that Star Trek and The Terminator are only the imagination of people whose job is to entertain you. If ever they were to come true, I won't be around to see it, nor would I assume you'll be either. Now as for the global warming debate that's up in the air as some experts have pointed out. Nuclear war only a lunatic would start which is why North Korea and Iran will come to the table eventually.

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh,

The thing is that I realised long time ago that Star Trek and The Terminator are only the imagination of people whose job is to entertain you. If ever they were to come true, I won't be around to see it, nor would I assume you'll be either. Now as for the global warming debate that's up in the air as some experts have pointed out. Nuclear war only a lunatic would start which is why North Korea and Iran will come to the table eventually.

How is what you say sensible in any language or planet? There is absolutely no coherence, or linearity for that matter. Saying that we won't be around to see if anything bad happens in a global scale is no valid argument, nor that it's valid to cite Star Trek (not sure why you'd cite a universe where Earth becomes a paradise) or Terminator as an example. No, global warming is not up in the air as no real expert points that out. There is consensus among experts that it's a reality. Saying that such bad scenarios are less likely doesn't even address what I said. You don't know where you were going with it, don't you?

[basics]

How is what you say sensible in any language or planet? There is absolutely no coherence, or linearity for that matter. Saying that we won't be around to see if anything bad happens in a global scale is no valid argument, nor that it's valid to cite Star Trek (not sure why you'd cite a universe where Earth becomes a paradise) or Terminator as an example. No, global warming is not up in the air as no real expert points that out. There is consensus among experts that it's a reality. Saying that such bad scenarios are less likely doesn't even address what I said. You don't know where you were going with it, don't you?

Setekh,

I cited them because in the case of one our imaginations are set flowing through the imagination of the guy who made the series even though there's not a jot of evidence life exists anywhere else. The other is a bit closer to home because we do have robotical technology all around us and there's no doubt there will be a lot more to come but the idea that machines could become like humans, even replacing humans by taking over the earth is just imagination running riot.

As for global warming there are plenty of scientists who disagree.

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh,

I cited them because in the case of one our imaginations are set flowing through the imagination of the guy who made the series even though there's not a jot of evidence life exists anywhere else. The other is a bit closer to home because we do have robotical technology all around us and there's no doubt there will be a lot more to come but the idea that machines could become like humans, even replacing humans by taking over the earth is just imagination running riot.

As for global warming there are plenty of scientists who disagree.

There is a reason why you're running away from discussing the actual topic as you're unable to substantiate your position. All your earlier assumptions remains to be nothing more than assumptions. You have been unable to substantiate them to provide a reasoning as well as you failed to address any holes punched in your position.

There are many people that believe in many unsubstantiated things. Doesn't make those things any more real.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

What is it supposed to be, why should it be realized, how are the ethical questions surrounding it to be parameterized.

The main argument of concern about it seems to be that an AI might "learn to feel", might "outgrow" us (as a human species). Why is that?

AI basically just means "learning, adaptive algorithms", which is already realized, btw. There is absolutely no need for it to have consciousness and self-awareness, like humans experience it. It is and will be a product that serves a purpose, just like a toaster does. They are potentially nothing more than another array of levers and tools available for us to pull, push and use however we see fit.

Which kind of future software requires real self-awareness and consciousness? None! The potential i see for those two dimensions is research, research and more research. Otherwise, outside of an isolated experimental frame, there is virtually no industrialisable application for feeling, self-conscious artificial creatures.

I'd furthermore argue, that to install sentient, artificial beings as slaves is exactly the same as abusing sentient biological creatures. It would be simply cruel and inefficient. Assuming there was any reason to give them a consciousness at all.

A consciousness isn't needed to process complex data, it might actually be in the way of that very purpose. Yes, maybe even human consciousness is overrated. However this may be, we have inherited this biological status quo (state of being) and we can't change it any time soon, even after the "AI-revolution". So, to hell with all those fears that AI may threaten the human being in and of itself. It could only do so, if we explicitly and deliberately created it to do just this. Which would be, outside of an isolated laboratory, all kinds of insane.



The actual problem with AI - how i see it - is that it's going to overthrow our current economical order. So let's discuss about this, i suggest.

Not sure why you make it sounds insane about someone or some entity potentially making an ai be able to to reach/simulate that of a human conscious. It's an interesting goal and can be a rational one. I would totally want a bad mothering robot friend that doesn't have the mental captivity of a basketball. Hell, im still hoping before I died that I can bang robot chick if not me then my bastards would probably go to town on them.
Anyway there are reason to give them consciousness like for science or companionship for the obvious ones.


That said, I am quite worry about ai advancements in the jobs section. If companies go full auto on these low-mid tier jobs , I cannot see a way to uphold the economy system we have now. I assume people like your average McDonald worker or your office worker would not able to get jobs that are not fully automate due to other mcdonald and office workers trying to get in while the other population the ones who are even more experience trying to apply to said jobs.
They should apply welfare but will that system sustenance itself, let alone be able to sustenance one life or ones family?
If it goes real bad, I cannot see, bar going a complete change and idea on how we see economy and money, how this would work out for the vast majority of the population.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Setekh,

I cited them because in the case of one our imaginations are set flowing through the imagination of the guy who made the series even though there's not a jot of evidence life exists anywhere else. The other is a bit closer to home because we do have robotical technology all around us and there's no doubt there will be a lot more to come but the idea that machines could become like humans, even replacing humans by taking over the earth is just imagination running riot.

As for global warming there are plenty of scientists who disagree.

Europeans used to believe that the atlantic ocean was the edge of the world with gigantic sea monsters inhabiting the place, turns out there was a whole huge continent with a completely different culture inhabiting the place, with empires stretching for thousands of square kilometers.

It wouldn't be so far fetched to entertain the thought that in this vast universe it makes no sense for us to be alone, what's the point of the rest of the space that with our current technology we need millions/billions of earth years to travel across, if the only habitable planet is tiny earth?

Did god decide to create a gazillion of empty star systems just so we can have nice starry skies during the night hours?

[basics]

Emperor Arcturus Mengsk,

Basically yes, because when Jesus Christ comes back everything is to be burnt up as a scroll to be replaced by a new heaven and earth. As there won't be any night and day there won't be any need for other lighting because as in Genesis God will be the light again. Just on the AI thing Genesis tells us that when God finished His creating work, everything according to its kind, that was it, so whatever man might try to achieve with AI it will all go the same way. This is God's world.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Night is simply a big ass shadow like the shadow you see of yourself on the floor when you walk with the sun on your back. It's not some kind of magical construct

asdaskldjas I can't help it but going off topic your you sir! I'll stop

[swabian]

Not sure why you make it sounds insane about someone or some entity potentially making an ai be able to to reach/simulate that of a human conscious.

I of course implied that the AI would have a significant degree of control in such a scenario and i think that emerges in the context i construed (which i did very sloppily and carelessly, but the basis stands, i think).

In short: why would anyone create a superior, conscious, intelligent being with the ability to control all vital functions of modern human civilisation? There is no guarantee at all, that it [the AI] would empathize with us, even (and maybe especially), if it understands us down to the last neuron.

It's a kind of naive mommy's boy assumption, that we'd be provided for, if only the AI is "smart" enough. The primitive, infantile formula of "the smarter the kinder" is as astoundingly common as it is delusional.

[Aexodus]

The smartest animals on Earth are consistently more carniverous. Why would AI be any different.

[swabian]

The smartest animals on Earth are consistently more carniverous. Why would AI be any different.

Because it doesn't eat meat.