dimreepr

Because the alien part of this is nonsense, it's like preparing to fight a ghost. But if you want to see what a world with G.A.I. could look like, facebook et al is a very good metaphor; human intelligence is responsible for the algorithm, another good metaphor, is "Mickies Fantasia" he set the brooms a task that he didn't think through. The computer doesn't care, it has no purpose other than what we give it. The fantastic part is that it can develop a consciousness that we'd recognise. If you've never been thirsty enough to drink from an animal trough, you'll never know how sweet that water is...

It's a bit deeper than that and it's not really science fiction, in the same sense as a warp drive. For instance, can you have fun if you don't work to earn it?

War's sound like too much work, if it's waged by machinery... Ditto parties...

Nevertheless it does raise an interesting question, worth discussing; assuming general AI is by no means impossible. If we manage to create a G.A.I. we're essentially creating our twin, and who wouldn't send their twin to work their shift? Even a scientist would rather think about the problem than scrub the dishes. The question being, what would our world look like if no-one had to work?

SSShhh, are you trying to start a fight? There's a lot of Asimov fan's in these here parts... 😉🖖

I'm sure they must have been transcibed, sorry no time to look, be worth starting with a q' @ the BBC; my summary of his position on the q of control is, it's not a q of control it's a q of setting the objectives correctly before we turn it on; for me, it's akin to Asimov's <edit (I was forgeting his zeroth law)> 3 4 laws of robotics, but written in the form of an argument, rather than an order, trickier than it sound's to the point that we don't know how to write it, yet; but then we don't know how to build it, yet.

In this series of Reith Lectures by Prof Stewart Russell (well worth a listen) in which he covers that and many other apsects of AI in reasonable and entertaining depth.

Well, beyond expectations is a reasonable definition of fantastic and "beyond different to human intelligence" is a given; If A.I. every causes us a problem, it's because we made a mistake in setting it's objectives, not because of some prescient decision from the A.I.. I was pondering the chance of us developing the technologies to invent anti-gravity, but then I realised that's like trying to invent an artificial left; right?

But your topic is about what will be, not what has been; for instance, 50 years ago the internet was not considered, specifically, to be impossible.

Because you're talking about the fantastic, that you have no control over, which for me, begs the question, what if you did have control? It < edit> He means it's a different type of intelligence, with different motivations; and a whole topic on its own...

This all begs the question, if you were supreme leader, what would you do?

Nope, I'm still discussing the arguments; the wrong is, you've run out of legitimate argument's.

It's not a judgement of you, it's an acceptance of us. "When the student is ready the teacher appears. When the student is truly ready, the teacher disappears." - Lao Tzu Everyone has something to teach just as everyone has something to learn.

Can anyone explain the neg rep on the above post? If it's wrong I'd love to know why, if it's an insult I'd love to know how, but if it's revenge, thanks.

If you want to see bias in action, try declaring yourself a socialist in certain parts of America... But I conform to the constitution... I'm not saying that I'm better than you, I'm saying that we're the same; I'm just lucky enough to see the path first; but if you consider me a "mad man in a parable", consider this, it may just mean you can't see the path.

That 'maybe' true for the severely mentally ill, but for the addicted, how can it be true? An addict is trying to make their life more comfortable and a tiny house is way more comfortable than the street, to have a drink.

The only real difference between those words is, how one's bias skews the meaning; for instance, in your case the word conform has negative connotation's, which means my entire post is read through that lense and that leads to misunderstanding; something I've suffered, in this thread if memory serves, and held up my hand's to, when my logic was shown to be skewed. That doesn't follow at all!!! You can't accidentally play golf, it's not like a snooker player who decides to play cross country snooker with a cue, is suddenly playing golf. how would you suggest they do that? Ban them from reading any golf related literature or just ban the book's or ban them from owning or using a golf club or just ban clubs???

Perhaps you can't see past my use of the word conform, I hesitate to ask again but please re-read my post, but for 'conform' read, attune or coordinate or harmonise or fit or integrate or seek company or etc... Too late to claim ambiguity in the topic title, for an athiest to not play golf, they first have to be taught what golf is. Some people like golf enough to comply with the rules, other people use the rules to force compliance. The only problem with that status quo, is when it's not fair...

In the context of your thread, it's a binary question, nature or nurture, unless of course there's a third state of being, or spiritual.

HISTORY supports it... If not, please explain why.

So what are you suggesting?

Just so we're clear and on topic, are you suggesting that we're taught to want company?

If you're trying be sarcastic, perhaps you could inclued an emoji 🙄, just so we're clear; and if you are being sarcastic, what's your point? If not, then can you please explain how it's not a fundamental reason for our evolution and continued existence? Or as John Donne would say "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, ..."

What makes you think that?

You're forgetting about the power of culture: 100 year's ago this type of debate would look VERY different. In today's culture, the most powerful belief is the media; almost everyone in the theater cheers when the hero "pops a cap in da bad guy's ass", we all believe he's the Good guy. Our need to conform is in our nature, what we believe and or question is our nuture, what we're taught is societal. The parable of the madman it's why a sudden cultural change is quite rare.