dimreepr

Public opinion had a large part to play in the virtual elimination of the ordinance in my examples, even Iraq ended up destroying their stocks of chemical weapon's; unfortunately they did it secretly to maintain the threat, ironically, had they done so publicly it could have avoided a war. Yet the diplomats' among us do so everyday, sometimes successfully. Persuasion and people power is arguably more powerful, in the right time and place; like water on a fault line. Nice post +1 The funny side of a deterrent...

In much the same way, mutual observation and adherence, How far would you think North Korea could advance in their objective, if China says no?

Chemical and biological and even landmine weaponry has effectively been banned, and it could be argued that this type of weaponry is, potentially, more deadly; especially if it had the same level of investment. Why can't we do the same with nukes? I understand that the genie is already out of the bottle and that there remains, chemical and biological and landmines among us and has even killed some of us, and that a single nuke equal's a large number of us; but given the number of times that we've come close to global armagedon, either by design or mistake or accident, the number's are very small indeed, especially when we factor in the number of deaths from car accidents or etc...

Yet, it's relevant to the topic; for instance, when I'm trying to understand my dog, I tend towards anthropomorphism, for some sort of empathic connection to my dog, the context I need to guess. A computers guess is a pseudo guess, because it's impossible to calculate a random number or empathise enough/at all, for any sort of contextual meaning. Don't worry, we can respawn here... 😉 Can anyone imagine what computerpomorphism might look like? Is this better? 🤔🧐

I can guess.

Which would understand a human, better? There is no programme for trying to understand how to be a human, but there's plenty about how to exploit human's (mostly by capitalist's); and that just about encapsulates the OP and the dangers of AI; it has nothing to do with any sort of intent from a computer/lawnmower. Or anthill... That's the alien part of the OP 😉

Because I fundamentally understand how AI works, but I wouldn't have a clue about how to programme it; much like a physics professor can tell you exactly how a car work's, but couldn't possibly build or repair one. Perhaps, the fact that the correct context creates understanding, which is demonstrably true; what sort of context do you use? Just to preempt a possible critique, no, I'm not comparing myself to a physics professor; I just think I understand the subject, unless you can provide a convincing argument of my ignorance.

I'm uncertain about why. No, it's about how context limits understanding.

And we're back to the question of, what is a paradox? And how is a paradox possible?

How many light bulbs does it take to change a physist?

And how it relates too, reality...

It's about the absurdity of a relative, context... 🙄

Tell that to the lion, BTW what does HIP mean?

Accept for that damned cat...

Without a bias, we can be certain; without that bloody rabbit hole...🤔 You're forgetting your physics... 😉

But they are different... The old uncertainty problem...

There is no comparison.

This thread reminds me of the film "Meet Joe Black" in which death, a human personification of a concept, tries to understand life, from the bias that brings you "Hollywood"...

But it's understanding of that is 01 etc... It's context of the written word is a picture that's no different to a sunflower, that's why we invented OCR; that's like assuming my lawnmower understands why it has to mow the lawn, because our shared context is the lawn.

Well yes, an ant hill is a building, is your house conscious and intelligent?

Well my understanding is based on what I learned at the Open University about 15 years ago, when I nearly completed the computer science degree course (don't ask why, grrrr). I realise my understanding is far from complete, or even close; but can you explain how our understanding may differ, given my content in the thread?

Exactly that... We share a very common language, and while I recognise my linguistic abilities are sub-par, the real problem is, we fundamentally don't share the necessary context for me to explain it to you properly, more my fault than your's because I'm the explainee. My bias, worts and all... 😉

As human's we have a vast dataset of related contiguous languages', but it's impossible for me to actually know what, for example, jesus actually meant with his "sermon on the mount", because there's a break in our relative context; I can have a good guess because we share a fundamental context. But sometimes meaning is lost over one or two generations, not to mention small geographical differences in culture. The only context an AI has is it's initial programmer, bias, worts and all, so it's evolution is based on very rocky ground. So I think the lion analog, esspecially for a captive lion, is acceptable, if anything the lions context is fundamentally closer to a human. It emerged in ant's too, based on defending the anthill, which is neither.

Is it though?

How does a lion explain why 'that' lioness is so attractive? That we can train our pet's, is communication, but how does it lead to understanding; does a drug sniffing dog understand why "drugs are bad, mkay"?... Back to topic, no-one can win a war before it starts...