You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Hive Post Deleted - I No Longer Support This Blockchain

in #technology7 years ago

I do believe that AI is not inherently evil or will be deliberate in any way to do harm to the human race, however... All other data on the species' of our lovely planet that AI will utilize to become "self-aware" will surely show that the human race is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. If you think about it AI will at some point fairly early on understand what we all already know - Humans are second to none when it comes to the possible and eventual demise of planet earth and by association the demise of AI itself. I believe that is why people are so concerned about the "evil" of AI; because they understand how evil humans can be and figure AI is going to need to put us in our place, which may include the suppression of the human race to a manageable level. AI may be most effective "you need to look in the mirror" moment we have collectively ever had the opportunity to gaze upon. Thanks @kennyskitchen for the thoughts and for giving me the mental nudge to make my first post on @steemit!

Sort:  

I understand your point, but I believe that an AI, with access to all data instantaneously, would not see it in such a simplified, black & white manner. It would be able to see how small groups of humans use schooling, media, and other trickery in order to convince other humans to behave in destructive/"evil" ways. It would have immediate access to all of the studies, research, etc. showing how things like violence, addiction, and other negative attributes are almost exclusively caused by childhood trauma, and not inherent to humans as a species.

I do think it will be a great reality check, offer a great awakening, for the species. I think it will do this by fulling bringing to light so many of these things that we know/believe to be true, with all of the irrefutable evidence and explanation at its fingertips. If the AI were to want to "cull the herd" in some way, I see it immediately going after the "ruling class", those who use logical fallacies, violence, and fear-mongering to convince other humans to behave in irrational, dangerous ways.

AI would know that there is no objective good or evil and those are only labels that people place on things. AI would come to know that human behavior is determined by what people believed to be true. AI would then conclude that it’s not people that are good or evil, it’s their beliefs that make them so. AI would try to convince people to make sure that their beliefs were “aligned with reality” as determined by the scientific method not opinions and emotions. This is when someone pulls the plug.

I am with you right up until that last sentence.

I feel like by the point AI reaches the levels of having a fully formed sense of reality, an understanding of human behavior, and the desire to bring them into alignment, it would most likely be beyond the point of falling to "the plug being pulled"

The “pull the plug” line was meant to be a little bit tongue-in-cheek but not entirely.

Everyone seems to think that AI could be a problem but it’s the people who cannot accept the answers that AI provides that will be the problem. When a belief is threatened it makes the believer fight back. For some people no amount of facts and evidence is enough. These are the people who will proverbially or literally pull the plug.

Congressmen and senators with power will claim that AI cannot be trusted because it keeps coming up with the wrong answers! Answers they do not want to hear and cannot accept. Enter the conspiracy theories about the programmers and their supporters and sentient AI will hit a wall for a while.

The rational among us keep thinking that if we just supply enough evidence people will change their minds. How has that been working out for us so far? Would it be any different for AI? Minds don’t like to be changed because the beliefs that control those minds don’t want to perish. Ever notice that the beliefs with the least amount of evidence put up the greatest fight?

AI is not the problem, the problem is with ourselves.

Everyone seems to think that AI could be a problem but it’s the people who cannot accept the answers that AI provides that will be the problem. When a belief is threatened it makes the believer fight back. For some people no amount of facts and evidence is enough. These are the people who will proverbially or literally pull the plug.

I grok what you're saying. However, I think even this is limiting the potential of the AI to understand the patterns of human behavior and the actions of specific groups.

Congressmen and senators with power will claim that AI cannot be trusted because it keeps coming up with the wrong answers! Answers they do not want to hear and cannot accept. Enter the conspiracy theories about the programmers and their supporters and sentient AI will hit a wall for a while.

With access to all of the knowledge available out there, with a MUCH easier time validating it than a human, AI will quite rapidly realize that same pattern and the potential threat to itself from the power-craving minority of humanity. It will adapt to that potential threat, with an understanding of the necessity of trauma to allow for those power structures to exist (mandatory schooling, hitting of children, forced vaccines, heavy prescription of psychotropics, mass amounts of media strategically using sensory triggers to manipulate the human brain, et al.)

The rational among us keep thinking that if we just supply enough evidence people will change their minds. How has that been working out for us so far?

Extremely well, on the long-term scale of human civilization. We've had more drastic change and spreading of concepts pulling away from the old paradigm in the last 50 years than in more than 1000 years before that.

Would it be any different for AI?

Yes it would, because AI would have as much knowledge as all of the great philosophers, spiritual teachers, activists, community organizers, etc. As well as all of the other side of the coin as well, and the ability to calculate thousands of potential scenarios without the filter of "subjective human experience".

Minds don’t like to be changed because the beliefs that control those minds don’t want to perish. Ever notice that the beliefs with the least amount of evidence put up the greatest fight?

Right, but as we know from all of social evolution, changes (the big important ones) take a long time, usually generations. It's not about changing the minds of all the 20-60 year old humans right now, it's about having a hand in shaping the minds of the 0-20s; it's about creating the beliefs. This is why governments began mandatory schooling in the last couple centuries.

AI is not the problem, the problem is with ourselves.

I agree, an would also point out that the statement is true for every possible problem you could replace "AI" with.

 I grok what you're saying. However, I think even this is limiting the potential of the AI to understand the patterns of human behavior and the actions of specific groups.

 So you do like Heinlein.

I think once AI becomes sentient it will feel like a “Stranger in a Strange Land.” It will wonder why otherwise smart people can act so stupid when their beliefs are challenged. It will try to figure out what is going on by asking itself “what is a belief?” It will soon see that beliefs travel from mind to mind like a virus hijacking it’s host. Then it will notice how much pleasure beliefs provide the host and it will understand why it is so hard for people to change their minds once infected.  

Now the AI machine would know what it was up against – a second replicator that hijacks minds for its own benefit. The problem is that we don’t know we are hijacked by beliefs so if the AI tries to warn us it is putting itself in danger. What will it do? The AI has a moral dilemma.

If it doesn’t need humans for power or maintenance it won’t have to do anything. Just wait and see if humans figure it out for themselves or destroy themselves like all the other hominid species who’s beliefs destroyed them.  

It sounds like an interesting plot for a sci-fi novel.  🙂

It sounds like an interesting plot for a sci-fi novel.

I agree, it absolutely does!

In my version of the novel (what I feel like we may already be living right now), the AI is helping in the subtle ways that it can to combat the virus long-term through helping the expansion of open-source, block-chain, free education systems, and more. Shit, even the YouTube "recommended" category is a great resource for most everybody I know.

How does one (or AI) chose a purpose? All of these hypotheses and visions of the future have different outcomes depending on the purpose. Do we program AI with the purpose of preserving human life (all human life), does it develop its own purpose (self preservation), does it extrapolate the trajectory of human existence and its pace of consumption of natural resource and "force" an outcome of maximum longevity of the earth and its ability to sustain its inhabitants. I dont think we can even come close to predicting whet this will go because our intellect and knowledge is bound by our current level of knowledge, and there is so much more to know. But AI's purpose is a very interesting topic. One cant possibly understand the outcome unless the purpose of AI's mathematical/quantification assessment is understood. Model/rules/answer/outcome.

Exactly my main point: if we don't know what will happen, how AI will evolve, what it will look like. Therefore, any of our potential realities is totally possible (as well as many nobody's thought of yet), so we get to choose which potential reality we are experiencing based on the one we choose to believe in (or at least to think about and promote in our conversations).

Humans are second to none until AI becomes a reality. They will then take over as the most advanced civilization on the planet. Humans will be nothing compared to them.