Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

What if it was a case of a Friendly AI enforcing decisions through linked robots? This being an AI with the best interests of humanity in mind, a mind of it's own that isn't any more locked to it's programming than a human, though like a human would not desire to change it's programming to become more murderous, and understands and acknowledge human diversity, desire for autonomy and individualism, and to be useful.

That wasn't an attempt to guide you to the "correct" answer, that was me defining what I would consider a Friendly AI to be. Anything else would either not be an AI, or not be Friendly...


In case it wasn't clear, this was to Salmon God re: a ruler that he might be willing to accept?

[Frumple]

Madre de dios... alex, to that first one, I'm guessing you mean in conceptual space? Because we have plenty of examples of folks gunning for and getting leadership positions in the states and otherwise explicitly to do stuff even they recognize is morally bankrupt and/or illegal. We definitely have people in power trying to do bad per se. And that's not even considering the ones that are simply giving the short shift to anyone not of their own in-group!

[SalmonGod]

Their power is still limited though, we don't elect kings. They generally have to go through popular referendums to change their level of power.

Nah... it creeps in in subtle ways over long periods of time.  Like the law Obama pushed through that allows government agencies to not only deny a Freedom of Information Act request, but to deny the existence of the documents in question when doing so.  Or laws are written for one purpose, but vague terminology is left in to make them available for another purpose.  After that other purpose is deemed legal thanks to vague terminology, it gets its own law to solidify it.  Things like that accumulate over time.  Precedents build up as powerful people get away with more blatantly illegal things.  People grow accustomed to news of people locked up for obviously political reasons.

And then we get to the point we're at today, which in my opinion is a cyberpunk dystopia without the special effects.

What if it was a case of a Friendly AI enforcing decisions through linked robots? This being an AI with the best interests of humanity in mind, a mind of it's own that isn't any more locked to it's programming than a human, though like a human would not desire to change it's programming to become more murderous, and understands and acknowledge human diversity, desire for autonomy and individualism, and to be useful.

That wasn't an attempt to guide you to the "correct" answer, that was me defining what I would consider a Friendly AI to be. Anything else would either not be an AI, or not be Friendly...


In case it wasn't clear, this was to Salmon God re: a ruler that he might be willing to accept?

I'd have to see an AI that's truly capable of empathizing with human experience, or else it won't really understand what's beneficial for us.

[Devling]

Allow me to type on my magic writing machine, and talk to you across miles and terrain.
With the energy I got from all this abundant food, which includes fruits and vegetables at any time of the year.
While listen to jesters at my beck and call, dancing in the background while I take the time to type this message.

Oh yeah, totally a cyberpunk dystopia.

[SalmonGod]

And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.

[alexandertnt]

I dont possibly see how we live in a dystopia at all. Quality of life is higher than it has ever been, you have access to free education regardless of your economic status, same with health (at least here in Australia. Also most of Europe, and a bunch of other countries). Technology is constantly improving, doing things from sending people to the moon right through to curing deseases that previously ravaged mankind. Hell, we can have this conversation due to the technological marvel that is the internet. It is basically changing the way the world works, and has been a platform for sucessful protests as well.

I am saying this as as someone who is far from wealthy.

It's hardly perfect, and why I continue to support changes to improve it. Some people get unlucky (and this needs to be fixed), parts of the world are in (relatively) pretty bad shape. Obesity is a problem (ironically due to the over availability food). But it seems pretty damn good in comparison to basically any other point in human history, and seems to be continuing to improve.

Things like the nasty laws you mentioned also get strucken down over time, even in unexpected, highly autocratic countries. Its not just always bad ontop of bad.

Also in an anarchist society, what is to stop your neighbour from burning large quantities of coal? How do you address such an issue? Unfortunetely there is a non-insignificant number of people who do not believe that the ecosystem is vunerable. Want to stop ecological destruction? They don't, and they have people fully willing to work for them as their own choice that dont either.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, the problem with an anarchistic society is that it can't take on any medium-longterm largescale problems. Especially if those require a small sacrifice upfront to prevent a larger problem later on.

It's the traditionall prisoner dillema all over again.

Don't worry though, nature suffers from the same problem.

[Devling]

Often times leaders enact plans that are unpopular with the majority, even though it will be beneficial in the future.
After all, it doesn't help me now.

[PanH]

alex : dystopia has nothing to do about quality of life. It's more about oppression, freedom, etc (look at Brave New World). You can also look at some middle east countries which are autoritarian and use the oil money as a way to bribe the population.

Also in an anarchist society, what is to stop your neighbour from burning large quantities of coal? How do you address such an issue? Unfortunetely there is a non-insignificant number of people who do not believe that the ecosystem is vunerable. Want to stop ecological destruction? They don't, and they have people fully willing to work for them as their own choice that dont either.

The same as today ? Nothing ??

Yeah, the problem with an anarchistic society is that it can't take on any medium-longterm largescale problems. Especially if those require a small sacrifice upfront to prevent a larger problem later on.

It's the traditionall prisoner dillema all over again.

Don't worry though, nature suffers from the same problem.

This issue is already here, with politicians not wanting to take long term decisions that could hurt their popularity, and thus their chance of being reelected.

[Devling]

There ARE laws protecting the environment.
They might not be many, or effective, and that's a whole other thing, but they exist.
Quality of life can also easily be tied to freedom or lack of oppression.
My quality of life would be shittier if I couldn't view what I want, or say what I want (within reason).

[Euld]

And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.

Quoting and reposting because I'm not quite sure if anyone read this.  Like actually read this.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, the problem with an anarchistic society is that it can't take on any medium-longterm largescale problems. Especially if those require a small sacrifice upfront to prevent a larger problem later on.

It's the traditionall prisoner dillema all over again.

Don't worry though, nature suffers from the same problem.

This issue is already here, with politicians not wanting to take long term decisions that could hurt their popularity, and thus their chance of being reelected.

The advantage of Today's system is that you only need to get more than 50% of the population to support one descision, rather than all of them*, which you would need to do in anarchaica.

*Okay, what's one coal burner going to do. Well, point is that people are less prone to undertake action when their neighbour doesn't do it either.

And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.

Quoting and reposting because I'm not quite sure if anyone read this.  Like actually read this.

That's just the USA though. Rest of the world's a far nicer place.

[PanH]

And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.

Quoting and reposting because I'm not quite sure if anyone read this.  Like actually read this.

That's just the USA though. Rest of the world's a far nicer place.

It exists also in Europe. It's maybe less spread, but it definitively exists.

Quality of life can also easily be tied to freedom or lack of oppression.
My quality of life would be shittier if I couldn't view what I want, or say what I want (within reason).

If you consider that your freedom is limited by your possibilites (quality of life, propriety), then the major part of Earth is indeed a dystopia, and only rich people are free.

[Putnam]

It exists also in Europe. It's maybe less spread, but it definitively exists.

And from what I've heard, it's worse in Japan.

[SalmonGod]

My quality of life would be shittier if I couldn't view what I want, or say what I want (within reason).

And you may be legally guaranteed to view or say whatever you want.  That doesn't mean some person in a position of authority whose name you may never know can't punish you anyway with some completely unrelated laws that are left intentionally vague for that purpose, with the aid of a surveillance state that is guaranteed to have something on you even if you're a saint.  Take an honest look at information activism, and what people dedicated to that cause who operate in the open have to put up with.

As for the rest of the "do we live in cyberpunk" debate, I'll just leave this here.  If this state of things doesn't drip with all of the political themes classically present in cyberpunk literature... well... you've obviously never read Gibson.