|
| Thread: Singularity |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 16, 2009 07:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that I think this "singularity" doesn't necessarily mean we have to understand humans and combat all diseases, not sure why many people think that. It's just about creating something more capable than us at designing "the next" something. When that's the case, we can retire. 
I think you know the Frankenstein novel (or at least the movie) quite well). Even if we will be at it trying however many years in the future, I'd say, chances are
a) we will have a couple of failures with desastrous consequeces there and
b) if we indeed create something more capable than us at designing the "next something", this next something will be about destruction.
Now, the question is this: why should we create something that is "better" than us or creates something better than us, when all we want is to augment or better OURSELVES? Wouldn't is make more sense then to indeed understand humans and combat all deseases? Isn't that in fact a necessary prerequisite, even IF we want to create something better? After all, we'd have to know what NOT to include.
In any case I do NOT think we have to play god any try to create something at this stage - children tend to come after their parents more often than not, and it might just be the better to try and hone what is there instead of creating competitors in the failure department.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2009 05:44 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 17:47, 16 Jun 2009.
|
@TheDeath
You make me a bit scared. 
Quote:
whatever WE create
Whatever we create is flawed because we are flawed and imperfect. Thus it is most unlikely it could ever be treated similar to a human. The hammer example of Mvass is rather picturesque. Though if I'm right you weren't talking about hammers.
You also sound a bit as if you hated all mankind. (no offense)
Reading more of your posts:Quote:
I think that appreciating only things with a soul shows our true nature, that we are much more tyrannical or selfish than God. Like I have said before superiority is not the same as tyranny: one has servants, the other slaves. Souls are unique to humans, but God still loves us even if we are different (how He created us anyway, but we "create" AIs too). It would only show that, if God were like us, He would have made us slaves (maybe the angels too though I'm not sure).
People dare to call God unjust and unloving, but humans would likely want to enslave AIs, or a different creation than them. Who's the unloving tyrant here? Makes me sick.
I feel more and more likely to discuss all this 'AI rights' stuff with you in a thread dedicated to it. Send an IM if you are in.
I'm sorry to off this bit, it is only because I didn't want to off much - discussing those things here.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2009 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you know the Frankenstein novel (or at least the movie) quite well). Even if we will be at it trying however many years in the future, I'd say, chances are
a) we will have a couple of failures with desastrous consequeces there and
b) if we indeed create something more capable than us at designing the "next something", this next something will be about destruction.
It makes no sense to assume they would be more destructive than humans, I mean in design at least. Humans aren't exactly the angels around.
Quote:
Now, the question is this: why should we create something that is "better" than us or creates something better than us, when all we want is to augment or better OURSELVES? Wouldn't is make more sense then to indeed understand humans and combat all deseases? Isn't that in fact a necessary prerequisite, even IF we want to create something better? After all, we'd have to know what NOT to include.
In any case I do NOT think we have to play god any try to create something at this stage - children tend to come after their parents more often than not, and it might just be the better to try and hone what is there instead of creating competitors in the failure department.
Oh, many AI researches (some I know myself) are not interested in themselves that much but either pure scientific curiosity (of an AI) or that the AI would turn out benevolent: this doesn't mean a slave, but in the same way some of us (few) humans treat animals well (in short: superiority, protecting the weak, not tyranny). This can turn out, first of all.
Secondly, your attitude sounds a bit selfish (on the species level). Obviously I do not deny the fact that many are selfish (again on species level) but others are not -- and it is (usually) these 'others' that go into AI research anyway. Some people like to help animals for the sake of it (and even endangering their own selves), not just "for the betterment of humanity" selfish attitude.
We can only hope and assume AIs will be the same -- and they will (probably) teach the others a lesson.
Quote:
Whatever we create is flawed because we are flawed and imperfect. Thus it is most unlikely it could ever be treated similar to a human. The hammer example of Mvass is rather picturesque. Though if I'm right you weren't talking about hammers.
We already "create" children, even though we do not understand most of the structure (of DNA and whatever). We don't have to fully understand AIs, because we can learn the behavior of a few things and then mass them up, not know precisely every last one of them. (example: if you have 1 transistor, you are guaranteed, given the tools, to create a CPU -- that is, just 1 transistor needed for knowledge, not 1 billion as you find in current CPUs, you don't have to "keep count" of the complexity). Furthermore, a neural network learns by examples, not by programming it. That is easy to do: we already teach our 'children' (which is a form of very advanced neural network).
Take an example: nowadays we use computers to make most calculations, we just need to know the theory, not do complicated arithmetic anymore -- which makes it easier for us to design different algorithms than it was before computers were fast enough to have such "computer algebra system" programs.
Same here. We may be imperfect, but we augment that by making the process easier for us (and more perfect: look at a CD pressed at a factory how precise it is, no human back in the day could ever make those holes even if he had infinite time).
Quote:
You also sound a bit as if you hated all mankind. (no offense)
I do not hate materialistic things, as in humans as a species in the physical sense. I hate ideologies. And I hate the current flow of thinking humans are into, the selfishness.
Why I support this so much? Ironically it's not mostly because of AIs. It's because it will change us -- for the better. Or wipe us, which again isn't such a bad thing if we are so selfish. Obviously if we expect AIs to be better than us, they would be reasonable about it and realize not all humans are "teh bastards" like we use to call other things that annoy us, since they won't be as retarded.
If they turn out retarded and wipe us all (not just the selfish ones)... well, it would be like nothing happened anyway, a retarded species (as a whole, not individually) got replaced by another retarded species.
Also I don't think it's that off topic. After all that's what the singularity is about: we design something which will be better at us than designing. At this stage, the human involvement drops to 0. That's why it is called a 'singularity' or a 'turning point' because then, it becomes negative (AIs start to design it, which isn't the same as neither AIs nor humans designing it, which would be 0 --> that's why it's negative).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2009 08:54 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
(It replies for TheDeath only, you may skip and probably still understand the thread, if you'd like)
I think you are right that it's not off topic. Then okay:
Quote:
We already "create" children
I hope you weren't serious.
It is not our creation. If it was, then we created ourselves which makes no sense in any ideology/theory/philosophy I ever heard of.
Let me put it this way: "Children just happen." I mean they... well, they are created by God. Even evolution makes more sense than self-creating. I get your point I think, but your point is "wrong"/flawed/completely "WTF?!".
To create something, in human sense, is a deliberate and conscious process. Accidents happen, but they are called: accidents. I can't imagine a man and a women "creating children". "Making love" probably. And I like that expression, I think it is descriptive.
An other nuance on children
My geography teacher, who taught biology as well said once:
Quote:
After learning embryology and how sensitive and sophisticated the growth of the embryo is, I was really amazed and surprised that healthy children are still born.
And an other favourite quote of mine, this one from an anatomy-teacher at my university:
Quote:
By the way, the human body is surprisingly perfect.
And I think she isn't Christian (though I don't know her).
So I say: No, we don't create children. And I sincerely hope we NEVER ever will.
Quote:
We may be imperfect, but we augment that ...
In my opinion the human development has an asymptote. We simply can't exit being humans, having certain borders "burnt" into us. You can't leave the material world for instance. (And from what little I understand physics energy and matter are "equal" -in some twisted way I never want to understand for the sake of my sanity ) This is my opinion. We "evolve" but... you know the old paradox of Artemis the nimble: he covers half of the remaining distance with every step. Will he Ever reach the finish?
Quote:
I do not hate materialistic things, as in humans as a species in the physical sense. I hate ideologies. And I hate the current flow of thinking humans are into, the selfishness.
I didn't mean that "You also sound a bit as if you hated big walking bio-chemical systems." Or did I
I have said you sounded like hating mankind. By that I meant humanity, not man-kind, or man-ling or whatever.
And you still sound so. And I know this feeling. I am disgusted by many things. If you happened to read my post in the Pepsi and Blizzard thread, you will have an impression. But I learnt to "let it go". Sometimes I'm still mad at the world, but it is just in vain. Hatred improves nothing. A cliché but true. I know you are not an immature zealous teen, don't get me wrong.
So back on to this:Quote:
I do not hate materialistic things, as in humans as a species in the physical sense. I hate ideologies.
I think, you can't divide a (hu)man into "body" and "spirit" (ideology). The two is one. Your body without your Self, is not you. Your Self without a body is not you either. A simple example: your corpse is not you, a book you wrote, is not you either. One can't exist without the other in this (material) world. So it is a bit strange to say you don't hate this part or that of mankind. I don't say that if you disagree one or two (or one billion) ideas of someone you hate them. But dividing it the way you did is just unnecessary in my opinion.
Quote:
Or wipe us, which again isn't such a bad thing [...] well, it would be like nothing happened anyway,
By sounding like hating all mankind I meant that and that kind of approach. It is quite... nihilist.
Why are you so much aginst mankind? Really, I'm interested. Besides all of us are loathsome and disgusting. Why do you think it (our extermination) -at worst- won't matter anyway? Why would it be good?
I think I can't understand this because I can't understand your "animist" approach of crafted things. (I don't have a better/more proper word then animist, sorry ) So shall we start discussing that matter? I remember we touched that when we first met in the OSM
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2009 10:15 PM |
|
|
I hope you weren't serious.
It is not our creation. If it was, then we created ourselves which makes no sense in any ideology/theory/philosophy I ever heard of.
Let me put it this way: "Children just happen." I mean they... well, they are created by God. Even evolution makes more sense than self-creating. I get your point I think, but your point is "wrong"/flawed/completely "WTF?!".
By 'create' I mean, obviously, an arrangement of stuff together. Obviously we can't create anything, even science tells us that.
Quote:
To create something, in human sense, is a deliberate and conscious process. Accidents happen, but they are called: accidents. I can't imagine a man and a women "creating children". "Making love" probably. And I like that expression, I think it is descriptive.
Artificial insemination?
Quote:
My geography teacher, who taught biology as well said once:
Quote:
After learning embryology and how sensitive and sophisticated the growth of the embryo is, I was really amazed and surprised that healthy children are still born.
And an other favourite quote of mine, this one from an anatomy-teacher at my university:
Quote:
By the way, the human body is surprisingly perfect.
And I think she isn't Christian (though I don't know her).
Yes, the body is amazingly perfect and has a very good error correcting mechanism.
But so is a simple CD (simple because we already have Blu-Rays and going to holographic disks), or a flash disk. The 'feature' size is extremely small.
Then what do we mean by perfect? Do we mean precise? Or good at something?
The human body, while extremely variable/adjustable, isn't immune or invulnerable. And my point was, that we don't have to understand all the precision. All we need to understand are the basic building blocks, in this case, DNA.
Quote:
So I say: No, we don't create children. And I sincerely hope we NEVER ever will.
So you're against cloning even if it had a certain purpose?
By the way I am totally against treating clones as slaves, or harvesting their organisms. Same reason as for AIs.
Quote:
In my opinion the human development has an asymptote. We simply can't exit being humans, having certain borders "burnt" into us. You can't leave the material world for instance. (And from what little I understand physics energy and matter are "equal" -in some twisted way I never want to understand for the sake of my sanity)
Energy is part of this world, you can view matter as tightly packed energy.
Quote:
I didn't mean that "You also sound a bit as if you hated big walking bio-chemical systems." Or did I
I have said you sounded like hating mankind. By that I meant humanity, not man-kind, or man-ling or whatever.
And you still sound so. And I know this feeling. I am disgusted by many things. If you happened to read my post in the Pepsi and Blizzard thread, you will have an impression. But I learnt to "let it go". Sometimes I'm still mad at the world, but it is just in vain. Hatred improves nothing. A cliché but true. I know you are not an immature zealous teen, don't get me wrong.
I have a passionate hatred (that is, not getting mad) for anything that abuses its position. Mankind included. Why would I make an exception?
Simply put, I do not hate humans for what they are, but what they DO -- and by this I mean how they abuse the world around them to their liking.
If you would be tortured and skinned alive, for instance, and abuse their position with tyranny by AIs... you tell me you wouldn't hate them with a passion?
Quote:
I think, you can't divide a (hu)man into "body" and "spirit" (ideology). The two is one. Your body without your Self, is not you. Your Self without a body is not you either. A simple example: your corpse is not you, a book you wrote, is not you either. One can't exist without the other in this (material) world. So it is a bit strange to say you don't hate this part or that of mankind. I don't say that if you disagree one or two (or one billion) ideas of someone you hate them. But dividing it the way you did is just unnecessary in my opinion.
Here's what: if a human would transfer his thoughts into a robot somehow, I would hate the robot in an equal way.
Actually not at first, because we were here long before them, but undoubtely very soon I would.
Quote:
By sounding like hating all mankind I meant that and that kind of approach. It is quite... nihilist.
Why are you so much aginst mankind? Really, I'm interested. Besides all of us are loathsome and disgusting. Why do you think it (our extermination) -at worst- won't matter anyway? Why would it be good?
I think I can't understand this because I can't understand your "animist" approach of crafted things. (I don't have a better/more proper word then animist, sorry) So shall we start discussing that matter? I remember we touched that when we first met in the OSM
I don't understand why would this line of thinking pose problems.
If you say that humans get replaced by aliens which do the same things and call it "meh" (not "bad", but "as if nothing happened")... how is that "anti-humanity"? If they do the same things, isn't this the logical conclusion?
So this is a case of "either you love humans, or you are against them"? What if I don't care about the fact that they ARE human at all but only about what they do? (and such thing would apply to everything if it did the same thing)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 22:55, 16 Jun 2009.
|
@TheDeath
Sewing up the lines:
Quote:
Artificial insemination?
You score. I forgot about that. I became... a bit confused for now. Let's get back to it later on.
Quote:
you tell me you wouldn't hate them with a passion?
Hope I never get in such situation. Hope no one ever will (again...). though I don't tell I wouldn't. Still I state hatred is bad. However we might ponder on "God hates sin", but I am not going to, yet.
Let's get rid of the "get rid of humanity" thing for now, and move onto your views on AIs. Detail them please.
Quote:
So this is a case of "either you love humans, or you are against them"?
Yes and no, but more yes then no. I usually have a black&white world view, but in my opinion dispersing them can cause grey to be seen by the shallow observer. So discuss it later please if you agree.
Matter of definitions: from now on, by the word perfect I mean flawlessness. The total lack of flaws. It is very ideal and hard, because who tells what is a flaw? If you read >perfect< in my further posts in this thread, I mean it ideally, until I say otherwise.
I await your response, but tomorrow Good night.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hope I never get in such situation. Hope no one ever will (again...). though I don't tell I wouldn't. Still I state hatred is bad. However we might ponder on "God hates sin", but I am not going to, yet.
Hate is a motivation. It defines your characters and your views. Like I said I'm not talking about normal hate or angry hate or whatever -- but about hate with a passion (probably not a good word). The latter has nothing to do with getting mad or anger at all.
Quote:
Let's get rid of the "get rid of humanity" thing for now, and move onto your views on AIs. Detail them please.
Matter of fact I do not even care that much about AIs than on our changing behavior. The reason is simple: it is obvious that we (again, as a whole) will only change our bastard and tyrannical attitudes if something happens because we wouldn't do it ourselves, through our own will. I've always been of the opinion that humans know just one language, the others are meaningless on the large scale. That language is force.
An AI, or aliens, or whatever-insert-other-species-here, would make us rethink. If it is AI it's much better in my opinion because they can be designed (aliens are unpredictable). It is also because we EXPECT to make them slaves (with aliens it's a different question), so as to show our true tyrannical colors.
So the reason I am "pro" AIs has not as much to do with the fact that I simply like them as with the fact that, the way I see it, is the only way to ever change humans. For better -- can't be for worse, at least I hope so.
When I say "humans" I mean as a whole, usually those have power anyway, not any individual or anything. Like saying humans are greedy for instance, doesn't mean I say that I am greedy or that everyone is greedy, but as a whole!
Quote:
Yes and no, but more yes then no. I usually have a black&white world view, but in my opinion dispersing them can cause grey to be seen by the shallow observer. So discuss it later please if you agree.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by here, but again, I am neutral towards what things or people ARE, but not towards what they DO. It also depends on intent of course (I wouldn't punish a kid who had no idea what he was doing the same as a murder).
Simply put, if humans start to do X, but I find that X is bad in aliens, why would I say it's good in humans' case? Because they're human? This would make me judge by what they are, and also favoritism, which I hate as well.
Anyhow, even in religious case with souls, why should we just rule out tyrannical and treat things without a supposed soul as slaves or how we please?
Isn't that akin to a tyrant who uses his power against the weak, or to a certain favorite Nazi leader who thought he was superior? (not in my definition: that makes him a tyrant)
If anything having a soul should give us reason to appreciate things without one, to show that we are there superior to protect them because they are inferior. Isn't this what God did? If He had the same selfish attitudes as humans, He would have made us slaves, since He is obviously superior. But He didn't, and I find it sick that people can even call God unjust or unloving -- what the hell do they know anyway? Have they ever looked in a mirror?
Superiority is defined by how you treat the inferior ones, not by how you exploit them. And certainly not by how important you think you are and everything inferior is "just filth". I'm glad that God is more loving than that. Humans, unfortunately, seem to be arrogant.
Quote:
Matter of definitions: from now on, by the word perfect I mean flawlessness. The total lack of flaws. It is very ideal and hard, because who tells what is a flaw? If you read >perfect< in my further posts in this thread, I mean it ideally, until I say otherwise.
Biological organisms are imperfect of course, so I'm not sure what you mean by it. (for the record, the reason they're imperfect may also be related to mutations/diseases etc...). To have something flawless you need something to compare it to, some ideal or goal. What is flawless in a biological organism? Its abilities are amazing, but nothing about being able to deal with any situation.
Quote:
I await your response, but tomorrow Good night.
Good night. It's 1:21 AM here but it's not the first time I'm a vampire lol. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 03:39 AM |
|
|
@ Gavin and The Death
If an engineer builds a machine that produces Cheetos, and then leaves it in the care of an underpaid worker, and the underpaid worker pushes a button labeled "make Cheetos now", and the machine makes a batch of Cheetos, is it really fair to say that the underpaid worker created the Cheetos? I say, NO. The worker had control of when the Cheetos were created, but he could not control what the machine made or how. He does not understand how the machine does its work. The engineer is responsible for the creation of Cheetos, he is the one that designed the system, and, appropriately, he gets a bigger paycheck.
Making children is the same thing. Having sex is like pushing a button. Women have control of when children are made, but they cannot decide to make kittens instead. They do not decide how their body will perform this miracle and they do not understand how the system works. The creation of babies is the fault of the one who designed the system; be it God or Random Natural Selection, the principle is the same. We are not in control. Artificial insemination is not really that much different from having sex. It's the same effect once the fertilized egg gets inside a working womb.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 04:48 AM |
|
|
Isn't that already what I said? That we have the 'machine' (aka the body) but don't know how it works yet, but still use it?
My point was that, in response to the fact that we know limited stuff, we do use and make with them. To make an AI, aside from engineering/technical difficulties, one does not need to know how each and every neuron (or artificial neuron anyway) operates at every second -- or how to make complex calculations. We can do those with the aid of today's computers (using software like computer algebra systems), or with simple extrapolation on a single neuron.
That is to say also, on the fetus conception analogy, it also starts from a very primitive situation, at fertillization. Therefore, I think it's obvious, one does not need to look necessarily at a full-sized human to draw conclusions, because the information, or the basic building blocks, are in much smaller shape (but still complex as hell).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 08:31 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 08:32, 17 Jun 2009.
|
There is a concept underlying certain parts of our debate which must be made clear.
Emergent property. Noun. A property resulting from the complex interactions of simple elements. // "the whole is greater then the sum of its parts." // For example, an ant can move a small object. 1000 ants can not only move 1000 objects, but they can also build a nest which allows them to store food and reproduce. Therefore, an ant colony has emergent property of being able to store food and reproduce.
If you are not familiar with this concept please look it up to avoid confusion.
Who here believes that sentience is an emergent property of neurons? That is to say, sentience occurs when you have enough neurons interacting in complex ways.
I do not believe that neurons have this emergent property. I believe sentience is the result of something other than complex interactions between neurons.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 12:24 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
Firstly:
I left out last night that , Yes, I am against cloning, even if whatever "good" it might do. I sometimes even have problems with anatomy (dissecting). I mean, ... we want to save human lives and we think it is a highly superior goal. But I think there is a line -as everywhere. When health should lose it's value to something else. I just don't know which side anatomy is, but for me, cloning is the "over" side. I am also against the maniac desire to find out the workings of the human intellect. It is ... madness. To find out "who we are". I am 100% sure that less can be more in many cases, including knowledge.
Secondly: I know Perfect things don't exist in the material universe. I have my own silly idea about how it is perfect because it is imperfect, but I won't bother you with that. The body is far from "flawless", but is is 'almost'. "It is surprisingly not a stack of crap; even more."
Quote:
humans know just one language, ... That language is force.
I think I agree with you. Ady -you might have heard of this Hungarian poet- wrote a poem: "We need Mohács". Being Romanina you may know that Mohács was an utter defeat somewhere in our history. In this poem -they say- Ady points out that Hungarians only work under pressure, if they are forced. If we look at the Bible, in that you see many stories when God made good use of some well aimed slaps to direct people. Not because he is sadist, but it was necessary.
But it is not that polar [I need a better dictionary...^^] It can happen that I misunderstood you, but it seems that by force, you mean "brutal force" or "do or die" kind of force. I think it more gentle force can do as well. However I can be wrong. I always was a pacifist and I like to be naive.
Quote:
An AI, or aliens, or whatever-insert-other-species-here, would make us rethink. If it is AI it's much better in my opinion because
So you practically see no difference between something born (eg alien or giant mushroom-men) and something crafted=AI? First I wanted to say sg. alive and sg. not alive but I had to rethink. As I see your point is that AIs could be regarded as alive. (correct me if I failed to understand you)
Let's investigate some possible scenarios:
1, Crazy professor Eugene Mumble manages to "clone" humans. We here face the problem that cloning is not photocopying. It is making a whole organ(ism) out from a body cell (somatic cell) instead of two gametes (eg. sperm+ovum). So one of the real problems of cloning nowadays -as I know- is that a somatic cell usually has mutations in it. So they take cells from newborns. Also they need undifferentiated cells= pluripotent cells, that can evolve in different ways. But let's imagine they solve all those problems. Let's have two clones: one is "made" from a 'baby-cell' of baby Joe. The other clone is "made" from the twenty-something years old Joe. Joe clone A (JCA) would probably be much like a twin of Joe. Might be raised like an ordinary kid. If they solved all problems around loning, he would be exactly like Joe, in the beginning, but would become different, because of small mutations, and I think their immune system would differ a bit too. JCA was made from a very young, pluripotent somatic cell. That cell was able to 'produce' a whole human. so we could see that cell as a zygote, which makes the "creation" of JCA practically no different than artificial insemination. Thus, I don't see any reason for JCA to be created via cloning. The only reason could be for him to be a creepy organ-storage. And if Joe sufferes a heart attack, JCA's heart would be perfect, but 1: JCA heart probably would get a heart attack too in Joe's heart-attack-potent body 2:JCA would die. If Joe needs cure for cancer, then JCA bears the genetic predesposition too, cancer would come back. OR JCA might had some mutations that would make it risky to implant anything from JCA to Joe. See, there's no reason to create JCA. To create just an organ, proobably, but that might be in vain too.
JCB would be even more useless, as ha would be a baby in a 20-year-old body. I might look like a 20-year-old body, or look like a baby body, but still with 20-y-o cells. (see: pre-ovums are "created" around the birth of a girl, and pre-sperms around the birth of a boy. A zygote is this way not exposed to many mutations and other problems, somatic cells must go through) So JCB would be in bug trouble, and I still don't see any reason for him to be "made". He won't be better for organ supply than JCA.
Who talked about cloning anyway? Aren't we talking about AIs? A clone would be probably the most "perfect" AI, don't you think? We would now what to expect from it, how it work (at least we would think we knew). But it won't be AI, as it would be a human. (if we twist it, a human is AI, but let's not twist it)
Scenario 2: Robots
Robots nowadays get frightfully close to intelligent and "real". Who knows, one day terminators might be born. but I can't imagine that. Today, nanotechnology is the best.[irony] Even toilet paper is made by nanotechnology. [/irony] What most people seems not to notice, that life is the best nanotechnology ever. In a living organism, every cell is a distinct work-place. In every cell there is a vast number of procedures and complex chemical reactors are replaced by mere molecules. I understand that they make insulin and antibiotics with bacteria, but they simply can't design a cell.
You are probably more into the computing evolution then me. Then you know how computers shrink and shrink. If we look around, we shall notice that is we want to create something at least as potent as humans, we need to condense the systems condense at least as much. So a robot might really be around human measures (height etc, probably shape as well, at least at the beginning). To do that, we would need to make a hammer with but a hammer. I don't think we can "overcome" ourselves, that we suddenly can *ding* to level 2. We can research what we can today, because all what we needed was made for us. We are given the "ready" knowledge by the thousands of years of humanity. From the wheel, through the hammer to the chip. We still need to at least touch the surface of those. If no one knew how exactly to create a chip, there won't be any more computers even if programmers wrote all the fancy software. even if they had a programme to make chips.
Thinking of it, the border of the universe is not the law of thermodynamics or the law of Conservation of mass or the law of light-speed, but the law of Murphy. No kidding. Everything goes wrong. It sounds funny yes, but we all experience it. We don't know much more of gravitation then what we experience of it. "Things keep falling back, thus things are supposed to do so."
As a programmer or informatican (I don't know your field precisely) you must have had many problems with written programmes that just wouldn't do what you wanted. We can make better scripting language, better use of information and better anything, but it still won't be enough to bring life to the monster of Frankenstein.
But let's see. There is the robot that can go with whatever energy, and has whatever computing system (40 terraHz CPU and 5 terrabyte RAM). I shall call him Pentium6 (P6). P6 grows aware of itself. And so... it might freeze at the moment. I just can't imagine how it would sense and comprehend this world.
For it to do anything, to be an AI, it would need some software, yes? I think you are aware of what complex a human is. A human is so complex it can't comprehend itself. The robot should however. Because it would be able to access it's memory and know what algorithms it has to/can work with. However I'm not aware of how computing works, and how those tiny bits of plastic and metal and metalloid can result in Heroes5
So we have the AI. But what? It does what we told it, it can do. It is capable of nothing else. My computer can't display the surface of a programme that is not installed on it. A robot won't be able to do differently. As a human can't either. We can't fly, we can't do photosynthesis, we can't digest stones and we can't read minds, remember everything that happened to us AND comprehend all those memories in the same time. I saw a show on spectrum or nat.geo. about a man who could remember every letter of any book he ever read and what page it was on. Indeed: he couldn't forget. But he couldn't give those data a meaning.
Governing that, I don't believe we are able to create something "better" then us. You see, it is self-contradiction. I can not create something that is more clever than me.
Quote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by here, but again, I am neutral towards what things or people ARE, but not towards what they DO
Simply put, if humans start to do X, but I find that X is bad in aliens, why would I say it's good in humans' case? Because they're human? This would make me judge by what they are, and also favoritism, which I hate as well.
That is a wise thing. And I think similarly, and the Bible says similarly. (note: the Bible does not say the very same, there are some... "additions")
Quote:
I find it sick that people can even call God unjust or unloving -- what the hell do they know anyway? Have they ever looked in a mirror?
You have found out something that is valuable in my opinion. Blaming God is a very dim thing. and you described it in a great way.
Quote:
I'm glad that God is more loving than that. Humans, unfortunately, seem to be arrogant.
Wise again. When I wrote the "why do you hate humans, besides that all of us are loathsome..." I did mean it. We are. Still -God knows why- God loves us. Though I must say, that humans are not only disgusting in nature. They can overcome certain flaws pretty surprisingly well, in certain conditions. People CAN be selfless, and the good thing in selflessness, that it still feels good for you if you do it in the right way. "It is better to give then to get." Something this world would like to erase and prove wrong. Just to avoid hypocrisy: I am not such a selfless man, and I often find it hard to give. But I would like to improve.
Quote:
Quote:
So this is a case of "either you love humans, or you are against them"?
Yes and no, but more yes then no.
Well, of course you can't say that: this man is against humanity, that man loves humanity;and there is no 3rd option. I re-read your question, now I understand it more.
Quote:
What if I don't care about the fact that they ARE human at all but only about what they do? (and such thing would apply to everything if it did the same thing)
That sounds much like you would like to act as God. Not in his all-powerful feature, but in his all-knowing and just feature. I think I need to disillusion you.
You simply are unable to do so. You can try, and I think it is worth to try, but you are human. Your perception will cheat you.
But still, there are two choices if we continue this idea: you either are against someone, or you are for someone. To love someone is not necessarily to agree with them, so you can love him and be "against" him the same time. Eg. you love Joe. What does that mean? What does love mean? I can't give you a definition. The Bible doesn't define it if I'm right. It gives love attributes. And teaches to love rather with acts than with words. And we have an astonishing "example". The death of Jesus. That is his love. Not only his kind words, or his wonders and healings. He died for all humans. God gave himself this much. I fail to comprehend it, but this is what I know about love. So you love Joe. You would for him -let's say- do what God did for us. Then what would make you stop loving him? Would anything stop that? But still you can tell: "Joe, what you just did makes me disgusted. You should correct it." Are you against him? Probably. You see, this matter is more complex than is might look first, but it probably more simply then what it looks second.
It is an other theory of mine: The amazingness of the universe is how ridiculously simple and how ludicrously complex it is in the very same time.
Yeah, I'm crazy
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:17, 17 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Firstly:
I left out last night that , Yes, I am against cloning, even if whatever "good" it might do. I sometimes even have problems with anatomy (dissecting). I mean, ... we want to save human lives and we think it is a highly superior goal. But I think there is a line -as everywhere. When health should lose it's value to something else. I just don't know which side anatomy is, but for me, cloning is the "over" side. I am also against the maniac desire to find out the workings of the human intellect. It is ... madness. To find out "who we are". I am 100% sure that less can be more in many cases, including knowledge.
I am against diessection or harvesting clone organs. (same reason as for AIs). If we decide to make clones, I will have a problem not with the clones, but because we want to make them slaves, or their organs to our purposes.
Quote:
Secondly: I know Perfect things don't exist in the material universe. I have my own silly idea about how it is perfect because it is imperfect, but I won't bother you with that. The body is far from "flawless", but is is 'almost'. "It is surprisingly not a stack of crap; even more."
No I meant, if the body was so perfect, why do we need sometimes to "help" it, like when we get cut deeply or something and we need to press on the wound or it will never cauterize?
Quote:
I think I agree with you. Ady -you might have heard of this Hungarian poet- wrote a poem: "We need Mohács". Being Romanina you may know that Mohács was an utter defeat somewhere in our history. In this poem -they say- Ady points out that Hungarians only work under pressure, if they are forced. If we look at the Bible, in that you see many stories when God made good use of some well aimed slaps to direct people. Not because he is sadist, but it was necessary.
But it is not that polar [I need a better dictionary...^^] It can happen that I misunderstood you, but it seems that by force, you mean "brutal force" or "do or die" kind of force. I think it more gentle force can do as well. However I can be wrong. I always was a pacifist and I like to be naive.
No I meant all force, and the analogy with God slap is very good. Humans (Again: as a whole, not individuals) need a slap, they can't be reasoned with.
Quote:
So you practically see no difference between something born (eg alien or giant mushroom-men) and something crafted=AI? First I wanted to say sg. alive and sg. not alive but I had to rethink. As I see your point is that AIs could be regarded as alive. (correct me if I failed to understand you)
But my point was that it doesn't matter!
Let's make this easy. Tyrants are known to abuse their power, or think that they are above others. Are we tyrants? Obviously.
Why? Well you said so yourself: if you think AIs are not alive, then basically that would lead to "it's ok to enslave them, after all"
What if God thought the same? What if His angels thought the same? e.g: "It's ok to enslave humans, I am above them anyway."
I think we would find such a God terribly tyrannical, yet when we are the ones in the 'above' place to something else, we think it's ok. Probably if we were gods we would want to enslave our creations (or AIs). Hypocritical much?
How can people dare to call God unloving or unjust is beyond me.
Quote:
1, Crazy professor Eugene Mumble manages to "clone" humans. We here face the problem that cloning is not photocopying. It is making a whole organ(ism) out from a body cell (somatic cell) instead of two gametes (eg. sperm+ovum). So one of the real problems of cloning nowadays -as I know- is that a somatic cell usually has mutations in it. So they take cells from newborns. Also they need undifferentiated cells= pluripotent cells, that can evolve in different ways. But let's imagine they solve all those problems. Let's have two clones: one is "made" from a 'baby-cell' of baby Joe. The other clone is "made" from the twenty-something years old Joe. Joe clone A (JCA) would probably be much like a twin of Joe. Might be raised like an ordinary kid. If they solved all problems around loning, he would be exactly like Joe, in the beginning, but would become different, because of small mutations, and I think their immune system would differ a bit too. JCA was made from a very young, pluripotent somatic cell. That cell was able to 'produce' a whole human. so we could see that cell as a zygote, which makes the "creation" of JCA practically no different than artificial insemination. Thus, I don't see any reason for JCA to be created via cloning. The only reason could be for him to be a creepy organ-storage. And if Joe sufferes a heart attack, JCA's heart would be perfect, but 1: JCA heart probably would get a heart attack too in Joe's heart-attack-potent body 2:JCA would die. If Joe needs cure for cancer, then JCA bears the genetic predesposition too, cancer would come back. OR JCA might had some mutations that would make it risky to implant anything from JCA to Joe. See, there's no reason to create JCA. To create just an organ, proobably, but that might be in vain too.
JCB would be even more useless, as ha would be a baby in a 20-year-old body. I might look like a 20-year-old body, or look like a baby body, but still with 20-y-o cells. (see: pre-ovums are "created" around the birth of a girl, and pre-sperms around the birth of a boy. A zygote is this way not exposed to many mutations and other problems, somatic cells must go through) So JCB would be in bug trouble, and I still don't see any reason for him to be "made". He won't be better for organ supply than JCA.
Wait, you're talking about a *reason* to make AIs or clones? I'm talking how we would treat them if they were. And you see, it ain't nice, it's tyrannical.
In the clone example, I would be TOTALLY against any form of abuse towards the clone compared to the real Joe. If they would want to harvest organs from the clone, I would be totally against that.
The reason I want AIs (and expect them, even if I didn't want them) is because, again, it's more about how it will change us and show our true colors, than it is about for the sake of making AIs.
Also clones aren't identical at all, because some twins have the same DNA (so they technically are clones) even though they aren't the same. What's the same is just the body. The brain/mind is not. It would be like buying two identical harddisks, but writing DIFFERENT data on them. Can you say they are the same even though they are the very same 'model' and product?
Quote:
But it won't be AI, as it would be a human. (if we twist it, a human is AI, but let's not twist it)
So what? That is my whole point.
God isn't human. Therefore, God enslaves/kills humans. Angels aren't human, does that mean they should enslave us?
So AIs or aliens aren't humans. So what? Does that mean we should enslave them?
I guess it's pretty easy to see, which one is the tyrannical species (if we consider Angels a "special" species).
It won't be human. Good. Depending on viewpoint, it may not be alive. But who cares? Are we tyrants who think that everything below us is disposable?
There is a movie, AI, directed by Steven Spielberg. Same reasoning applied. I don't know about you, but it gave me impressions of a racism movie -- but this was worse, since it was speciesism.
Quote:
Scenario 2: Robots
Robots nowadays get frightfully close to intelligent and "real". Who knows, one day terminators might be born. but I can't imagine that. Today, nanotechnology is the best.[irony] Even toilet paper is made by nanotechnology. [/irony] What most people seems not to notice, that life is the best nanotechnology ever.
Again, Galev, I'm not necessarily talking about how great they will be. They may not be able to excel at a lot of things (especially art probably), but if they have enough force, we might listen (since it's the only language we can understand) and change our tyrannical viewpoints. I cannot stress this enough.
This isn't about AIs mostly. It's about how humans abuse everything below them. I don't think that, by this logic, we're created "in God's image" at all, He doesn't seem to abuse us, since we are below Him.
Quote:
As a programmer or informatican (I don't know your field precisely) you must have had many problems with written programmes that just wouldn't do what you wanted. We can make better scripting language, better use of information and better anything, but it still won't be enough to bring life to the monster of Frankenstein.
But let's see. There is the robot that can go with whatever energy, and has whatever computing system (40 terraHz CPU and 5 terrabyte RAM). I shall call him Pentium6 (P6). P6 grows aware of itself. And so... it might freeze at the moment. I just can't imagine how it would sense and comprehend this world.
Again, I am not debating about this because it might be unknown territory for me (it's also philosophy).
Quote:
For it to do anything, to be an AI, it would need some software, yes? I think you are aware of what complex a human is. A human is so complex it can't comprehend itself. The robot should however. Because it would be able to access it's memory and know what algorithms it has to/can work with. However I'm not aware of how computing works, and how those tiny bits of plastic and metal and metalloid can result in Heroes5
Well you should think less in 'physics' terms (e.g: plastic) and more in information theory. It doesn't matter that it is plastics -- if it can satisfy certain rules established by information theory (again: just a thought experiment), then it is able to process any information and convert it into anything, given the proper algorithms.
The problem with AIs is precisely this: how to make it self-write its algorithms? There are already many such apps but none can do so indefinitely and sustaining and best of all 'understanding' what it does. That is hardest and it's why we turned to neural networks. (simulations of human neurons).
In this case software will be needed, but only to model the behavior of these neurons. The neurons themselves, and what data they store and process, will be "programmed" completely by the AIs themselves -- or rather, by examples/sensory info we give them. (that's how, e.g: your cellphone can "learn" or understand to recognize your voice, in vocal commands: you are teaching its neural networks/neurons, or rather, "programming it the easy way" like organisms learn).
See, you could program a special mathematical algorithm that would no doubt be much better than a neural network (that's why computers are much better at us at doing specific tasks and PRECISELY), but you will have a hard time programming it to your voice. Neural networks are like making this programming task easier (i.e by 'learning through examples') so you can either easily modify it, or THEY (the AIs) can self-modify it. If it's easy, they can also self-modify easier.
Quote:
Governing that, I don't believe we are able to create something "better" then us. You see, it is self-contradiction. I can not create something that is more clever than me.
You may be, for instance, can we create something better than us at computing Pi?
We did, because you have to understand information theory. It is not about "how much data you have to process" because in this case, you need infinite data (for Pi). It is about HOW that data is stored. In this case, it is stored in an algorithm. This algorithm is enough information to compute Pi -- of course, no one said it would take finite time to do so, but it does represent Pi. That what information theory is about.
If you have information about a single neuron, you do not have to understand all the others at the same time, and what they position is. That is just data, but the "initial" information (a building block, like a neuron) is the essential part.
In case of Pi, it is the algorithm. In AI case, it can be a single neuron.
Quote:
People CAN be selfless, and the good thing in selflessness, that it still feels good for you if you do it in the right way. "It is better to give then to get." Something this world would like to erase and prove wrong. Just to avoid hypocrisy: I am not such a selfless man, and I often find it hard to give. But I would like to improve.
I know, I did say, that many people are good. I'm not blaming the every individual. When i say "humans" I mean on the large scale -- i.e if you take a look from a bigger picture and see what is happening, it is that we would enslave AIs. Sure there would be people protesting against this, but it seems they are always behind -- because this is something crucial difference: they have reason, and speak in reason. The others, the "bad" ones, speak in force. Contradicting, but force is capable of dominion when the other entity doesn't speak its language.
That is why, when I say human attitudes disgust me, is when I say that on the large scale or big picture, humans are tyrannical. I am most certainly not convicting people who are against it in the same way. (so if anyone says that I am also calling myself a tyrant, you got it all wrong).
What about animal abuse? On the bigger picture, it's not like we're going to stop anytime soon. Even though there are people who protest against it (kudos to them), I'm still saying that 'humans' as a whole are tyrants. I'm not blaming individuals, but on the whole. I'm not blaming me. I'm not blaming you (most likely). I'm not blaming those who protest. I'm not blaming those who do nothing regarding it (but don't abuse them either). I'm blaming those who do -- and they, it seems, drag the full picture. Because they have this language force, and the others have reason. Unfortunately, force rules over reason if they can't understand each other. They don't have to understand our language, but we have to speak in their language, or they won't listen.  (sorry for metaphor)
Same with AIs. Or rather, same with EVERYTHING we deem is 'below' us. Tyrants we are. It is times like these that make me wish that Angels treated those bastards the same way we treat things below us. You know, karma and all that. I don't like the eye-for-an-eye approach, but this has gone too far IMO.
Quote:
That sounds much like you would like to act as God. Not in his all-powerful feature, but in his all-knowing and just feature. I think I need to disillusion you.
You simply are unable to do so. You can try, and I think it is worth to try, but you are human. Your perception will cheat you.
But still, there are two choices if we continue this idea: you either are against someone, or you are for someone. To love someone is not necessarily to agree with them, so you can love him and be "against" him the same time. Eg. you love Joe. What does that mean? What does love mean? I can't give you a definition. The Bible doesn't define it if I'm right. It gives love attributes. And teaches to love rather with acts than with words. And we have an astonishing "example". The death of Jesus. That is his love. Not only his kind words, or his wonders and healings. He died for all humans. God gave himself this much. I fail to comprehend it, but this is what I know about love. So you love Joe. You would for him -let's say- do what God did for us. Then what would make you stop loving him? Would anything stop that? But still you can tell: "Joe, what you just did makes me disgusted. You should correct it." Are you against him? Probably. You see, this matter is more complex than is might look first, but it probably more simply then what it looks second.
This isn't necessarily a case of pro- or anti- something. I love certain people/behaviors, but that depends on my subjective definition. That is not to say, that those that I don't love I hate. However, those that I hate, I have the reasons above to do so.
There are three ways here, in my opinion, it's not just love/hate or good/evil but love/ignore/hate or good/neutral/evil. I have no problem with the neutral ones.
Now on the subject of "If I were a mini-God" here's something: I am not forcing people to love AIs, if they came to be, or to do X or whatever. Or to love aliens. I want to prevent them from exploiting their tryrannical behaviors. From this logic, I am not going to take them by hand and tell them to do something. I am, rather, going to put a "brick wall" when they want to pass through it with force. If they want to break it, all the more reasons that they are likely to use force to obtain their tyrannical goals instead of listening.
Simply put, even if we were more 'special' than AIs, how are we supposed to be special if we treat the 'non-special' like filth? Like I have said, superiority is defined by how you treat the servants or inferior ones, not by how awesome you THINK you are.
What made Jesus/God special? The fact that, despite his powers, he did not use them against those 'less special' than him (in this case, humans).
Likewise, arguments like "humans are special, they deserve to enslave or rule over X (in a tyrannical way)" are contradictory and sick.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 12:44 AM |
|
|
@TheDeath
It is good to talk to someone who listens and try to understand you
Quote:
Wait, you're talking about a *reason* to make AIs or clones?
Yes I was of course. So I did it in a way you understood. It is good to know. Why did I so? For the sake of logic: If I see no reason to create an AI, I will not create an AI. If I don't create an AI, it will not do anything for sure. If it does nothing it matters little what it would or would not do. And that is where I was aiming: If the object of a discussion doesn't exist, the discussion is in vain. I know it is quite an indirect or "unfair" approach. But this way I can counter any of your arguments Only joking whit that last sentence. But seriously, there is nothing to discuss, AIs won't wipe us as far as I see. Nor will we treat them badly.
Quote:
You may be, for instance, can we create something better than us at computing Pi?
You score again. I learn from our discussions which gives a good reason to go on with them. Well, that is why people discuss things: to learn by sharing, isn't it?
In general to the plot: Usually, if I don't react to something I agree with it. I agree with your views on tyranny for example. I understand you want/would like someone to "teach humanity a lesson". You stressed it enough
Now onto the "dangerous" waters
Quote:
What if God thought the same? What if His angels thought the same? e.g: "It's ok to enslave humans, I am above them anyway."
The funny thing is that we most probably wouldn't even notice we were enslaved. He could make us a way that we wouldn't ever think of rebellion. But he didn't. He knows why.
Quote:
How can people dare to call God unloving or unjust is beyond me.
A mystery to many believers. I understood it from a sort story of Wilhelm Busch, a late evangelist priest, who lived through the 2nd World War. I received a collection of his preaches and stories for Christmas. A great present it was...
Quote:
Humans (Again: as a whole, not individuals) need a slap, they can't be reasoned with.
They can be reasoned with. Not easily but not impossible.
Also it is an interesting thing to think of humankind as a "whole". I am against individualism, but we are individuals. I think it is too much of a generalization to think of humanity as whole. We are not bees or ants. We don't have a "superior mind" that controls us as a flock or swarm. I know you don't tell every human is a tyrant the same way. but it is still similar to generalization. Thinking of "The Humans". As if they were like a race in warcraft. A big cosmic hand orders us around and a "master plan" unfolds... I don't think there is "collective responsibility" if you are talking about something similar.
Quote:
Tyrants we are. It is times like these that make me wish that Angels treated those bastards the same way we treat things below us. You know, karma and all that. I don't like the eye-for-an-eye approach, but this has gone too far IMO.
I have heard about karma yes. It is the idea that you are repaid what you deserve. Good things for goodness and bad things for nastiness. I'm glad karma doesn't exist.
However I agree it shows much of superiority how you treat the inferior.
Quote:
I know, I did say, that many people are good.
Woah... We will have hard things to come from now on. The reason why I'm glad there's no karma is that humans are not good. No one. See, that is the whole point. Throughout the Bible, from the first sin. It is hard to understand sin. As far as I know, a sin is disobedience to God. And not much matter what way you don't obey, it is a sin. If you imagine it for a while, the all-powerful creator and the minuscule dot a human is. The difference is not as much as between 1 and infinite, is it much more. So you stand before this God. Disobedience suddenly seems stupid. Not to mention he is not only all-powerful, but graceful and loving.
I could cite many verses from the Bible to highlight that every man are sinners, but I quote only one:
Quote:
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Quote:
it's not just love/hate or good/evil but love/ignore/hate or good/neutral/evil. I have no problem with the neutral ones.
In many very important cases this theory of "neutral" is not sound/viable. For example there was an interesting psychological experiment which studied the reactions of babies to face expressions. The smile returned a smile etc. But the "indifferent" face returned cry. They wanted to use indifferent face as control group, but they discovered something important. A face can't be "neutral". Ignoring is said to be worse than hatred. Were you ever ignored by anyone?
Also with choices: The very important choice is God or not? Many people like to choose not to make a choice at all. But they are fooled. Not choosing God is equal with denying him.
However there are things that doesn't matter too much. For example: if you eat pork or not. It is detailed in the letter to Romans, chapter 14. We could call these things "neutral". But I don't believe in neutrality too much.
Quote:
What made Jesus/God special? The fact that, despite his powers, he did not use them against those 'less special' than him
You -in my opinion- have a good sense of it. This is grace, I think. He could, and with a reason, damn us all. But he decided he didn't. Not because we are worthy of it, but because he decided it is good that way. It is grace: totally "unfair"
Sorry if I offed too much.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 01:52 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:53, 18 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
It is good to talk to someone who listens and try to understand you
Thank you, I was getting the impression that everyone hates me, at least at the OSM
Quote:
Yes I was of course. So I did it in a way you understood. It is good to know. Why did I so? For the sake of logic: If I see no reason to create an AI, I will not create an AI. If I don't create an AI, it will not do anything for sure. If it does nothing it matters little what it would or would not do. And that is where I was aiming: If the object of a discussion doesn't exist, the discussion is in vain. I know it is quite an indirect or "unfair" approach. But this way I can counter any of your arguments Only joking whit that last sentence. But seriously, there is nothing to discuss, AIs won't wipe us as far as I see. Nor will we treat them badly.
All scenarios in SF are based on fear, of being threatened, not on being malevolent. AIs simply "wipe us" (just let's use that term) because we would wipe them if they tried to enslave us. It's a double-edged sword, and it is us who want to do it first, because we create them -- they are 'children' at beginning!
Making AIs has reasons: first, just for pure curiosity (much more than clones). Second, they will be able to do some things much more efficiently, just like computers today can do calculations more efficiently. (not in a slave kind of way -- but in cooperating, like (some) humans do.) Third, I think that AIs are much more important by the change they bring to our mentalities rather than just for their own sake.
For instance, like the coming of Jesus -- it wasn't as important as the (supposed) change it was supposed to bring to humans and forgiveness of our sins.
I don't compare AIs with Jesus because I think that, obviously, AIs won't teach us with love like Jesus did, but we will find out ourselves. Many people are not aware of speciesism simply because they have comfortable, or bad, lives and they are selfish enough to ignore.
See what I'm saying? That's why the "coming" of AIs is going to be an important step. Because then we would start to realize our faults, our flaws, and that we as a species, are not the KingPin of the Universe. Nor is our "special gift" supposed to be exploited on the weaker. Sometimes I think that we just terribly lack responsibility to do with what we have been given.
Quote:
In general to the plot: Usually, if I don't react to something I agree with it. I agree with your views on tyranny for example. I understand you want/would like someone to "teach humanity a lesson". You stressed it enough
Now onto the "dangerous" waters
Ah ok fair point. I thought you still thought I was talking about me worshipping AIs as some kind of gods when in fact it is the change in humanity I'm focusing on
Quote:
The funny thing is that we most probably wouldn't even notice we were enslaved. He could make us a way that we wouldn't ever think of rebellion. But he didn't. He knows why.
Exactly. Because He is an example of what love is. Mind you, many humans are capable of such love. But many... let's say, they are irresponsible with their "special gifts" and totally ungrateful. (assuming religion)
Quote:
They can be reasoned with. Not easily but not impossible.
Also it is an interesting thing to think of humankind as a "whole". I am against individualism, but we are individuals. I think it is too much of a generalization to think of humanity as whole. We are not bees or ants. We don't have a "superior mind" that controls us as a flock or swarm. I know you don't tell every human is a tyrant the same way. but it is still similar to generalization. Thinking of "The Humans". As if they were like a race in warcraft. A big cosmic hand orders us around and a "master plan" unfolds... I don't think there is "collective responsibility" if you are talking about something similar.
For the race in warcraft analogy, it is pretty close. You see, in the game, you don't exactly see the outcome of an individual. You just brew units and attack -- and that's just a tiny dot in the entire campaign/mission/war/whatever. The individual here doesn't have the power to make big changes. That's what I am looking at: those that do the change that is observed from afar.
From my own experience, I have learned that a kind human will make a much smaller presence in this regard. Suppose you are an alien and look at the Earth in 1945. What will you notice? Will you notice the love some individual shares with his friends? No, you will probably notice a nuke. That's the big footprint. Obviously, I'm not condemning the person who shared his love above -- but I'm condemning the overall view.
It is always those "like a warcraft race" that make the biggest visible crap noticed from "above". (please note, all of this is metaphorical).
Quote:
I have heard about karma yes. It is the idea that you are repaid what you deserve. Good things for goodness and bad things for nastiness. I'm glad karma doesn't exist.
However I agree it shows much of superiority how you treat the inferior.
Think of a King. A King has servants. A tyrant has slaves. Servant does not have a negative connotation or association. Slave does.
Quote:
Woah... We will have hard things to come from now on. The reason why I'm glad there's no karma is that humans are not good. No one. See, that is the whole point. Throughout the Bible, from the first sin. It is hard to understand sin. As far as I know, a sin is disobedience to God. And not much matter what way you don't obey, it is a sin. If you imagine it for a while, the all-powerful creator and the minuscule dot a human is. The difference is not as much as between 1 and infinite, is it much more. So you stand before this God. Disobedience suddenly seems stupid. Not to mention he is not only all-powerful, but graceful and loving.
I know much about how sin and forgiveness works but that wasn't my point.
Why do we have police? To STOP, not KILL, those that break the law. Similar here, I would be stopping the tyrants, not punishing them -- or rather, I would talk in their language so they can understand (force).
If someone sees an unprotected place, he will most likely go into and "do something bad". If he sees it protected with a wall, there's something stopping him: force. He could try to break it -- at which point he will get punished. But the rest -- that's left to God to decide. I'm not God and I won't judge them. I can only judge actions -- which I want to stop.
Quote:
In many very important cases this theory of "neutral" is not sound/viable. For example there was an interesting psychological experiment which studied the reactions of babies to face expressions. The smile returned a smile etc. But the "indifferent" face returned cry. They wanted to use indifferent face as control group, but they discovered something important. A face can't be "neutral". Ignoring is said to be worse than hatred. Were you ever ignored by anyone?
Also with choices: The very important choice is God or not? Many people like to choose not to make a choice at all. But they are fooled. Not choosing God is equal with denying him.
This is complicated, and my 2 cents on it.
Not choosing God, or ignoring Him, is like denying Him, yes. Because He won't be able to help you (you don't want!) so you are on your own. While this can be much easily "turn around" the situation (because such a person has usually a much smaller "dirty" conscience (by dirty I mean full of sin)). Such a person would acknowledge aid from God much easier than someone who hates God, obviously, if they were ever to in a given situation.
Also thanks for your posts here, learned a great deal about Christianity
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 02:50 AM |
|
|
threadkill
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 10:55 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 11:33, 18 Jun 2009.
|
@ TheDeath and Galiv
Do us all a favor please?
Get a room.
EDITED: (used to be @ TheDeath and JJ)
In any case, if you're going to make gargantuan posts like that, you could at least find some space in there to answer my question!
(Sentience = Emergent Property: Yes or No?)
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 11:02 AM |
|
|
|
You could at least get the names right, for heaven's sake. What's the matter with you?
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 11:09 AM |
|
|
I got TheDeath's name right, and I've never seen anyone get reprimanded for calling you JJ before.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 11:11 AM |
|
|
*rubs temples*
It's galev that's talking this much, rarensu...
Check the names, man, the NAMES!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 11:32 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 11:35, 18 Jun 2009.
|
OOO
Total oops. I have no idea how I saw JJ instead of Galiv TWICE.
Probably the lack of avatar.
Apologies, JJ. Thanks, DG.
Amended statement is now:
"@ TheDeath and Galiv
Do us all a favor please?
Get a room."
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
| |
|
|
