Print

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

[Vector]

I'm not sure if people like me are indirectly making the matters on trans* issues worse, since nonbinary folks are more extreme than trans people and might be scaring the conservatives.

We don't apologize for our existence in here! >:[

*non-binary-5*

get it

ok, just gonna show my way out

[Frumple]

snip

Re: robocalypse: Nah, that's not how programming tends to work. The robot apocalypse will occur not because they hate us, but because they loved too much.

Re: Problem solving: Naaah, we (as in society in general) have actually mostly solved it -- it's called ignore the incredible minority of people who actually have a problem. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la" really loud while a negligible (in the sense of it being able to be neglected without society collapsing, anyway) portion of the population is suffering is a solution. A fairly terrible one, but hey. It's fairly effective, and apparently arguably better than people actually reacting to the issue, if the article that sparked this discussion is anything to go by...*

You want to know the real problem that's on the horizon for waste management, though, look no further than water shortages. It's somewhat of a terrible thing to say, but gender issues in regards to bathroom facilities are incredibly small potatoes compared to that.

Though there's a non-zero chance they'll get "solved" in the process of correcting for that. There may be a point in the not-so-distant future we literally can't afford to have gender separated bathrooms.

The future is dank.

*Though, to be clear, I'd personally say just roll with people going into whatever bathroom the please, from a legal and general enforcement standpoint. We've got actual laws that cover anything that can go wrong with that, and societal pressure can deal with the rest of it. The motion referenced is mindbogglingly stupid.

[lorb]

But if your body parts can easily be replaced and bought in a hardware store different ethics may arise than we human came up with for our species.

[Frumple]

Still causes pain... does it? Or, perhaps more importantly, would it? Lorb was almost certainly talking about the robots in that dollar store spare arm thing -- and the development of a different ethics regarding harm when gratuitous physical alterations do not, in fact, cause harm -- but I'd rather imagine that by the time we reach that point in technological development, being able to just flat turn off the pain reaction for humans will be a possible, possibly trivial, action. Hell, I'm pretty sure we already can (beyond anesthetics, anyway), it's just an incredibly clumsy process.

[hops]

Or we could just, you know, not give them emotions.

Or program them to blindly love us but that's a dystopia waiting to happen.

[Graknorke]

Why does everyone assume that if AI becomes smarter than humans it would want to wipe us out?
Do you feel genocidal urges to everything on Earth that isn't as smart as you? Burning computers, pouring bleach down rabbit holes, that kind of thing? Because if not I don't see where that reasoning can come from.

[Dutchling]

I imagine AI would just whine about how others don't understand them and who needs friends anyways.

[KingofstarrySkies]

Why does everyone assume that if AI becomes smarter than humans it would want to wipe us out?
Do you feel genocidal urges to everything on Earth that isn't as smart as you? Burning computers, pouring bleach down rabbit holes, that kind of thing? Because if not I don't see where that reasoning can come from.

Can either of these things harm us as a species?

[hops]

I think it stems from the tendency for the societies capable of producing AI in the present to be capitalistic societies. In capitalism, humans are generally the weak link in the production line because we are troublesome and inefficient, since we are not meant to be perfect. (Perfect in this sense being that all our qualities are suited to the tasks we are meant to do)

Robots are born to be labour specialists, and creating a hyperintelligent AI would also provide us with intellectual specialists, one that doesn't need to sleep, eat, or care about their family.

In our current capitalism-dominated developed cultures, humans are seen as becoming obsolete, since we are just flawed intellectuals.

[ggamer]

The obvious answer is to not develop AI, or to hobble them somehow a la the Halo series, where AI went insane after a hard limit of seven years of operation.

Honestly, I think the development of AI would just be more of the current trend in capitalist countries: more and more jobs moving either to the state or to the service industry.

And another thing, I don't think AI will ever be proliferated enough to completely replace humans. There will always be a market for cheap labour in capitalist societies.

[Frumple]

That last bit is true, but the problem with that statement is your assumption that humans will actually be cheap labor in a robocalypse scenario. This is already categorically untrue in a number of industries -- certain forms of production literally can't be outmatched in terms of cost efficiency by human beings, regardless of how you go about it. And the number of industries for which that is true is increasing.

We're actually pretty cost inefficient, comparatively. You can't really match a specially designed machine for a task with one that, well, isn't. And we're not, for just about anything an advanced society does (which is why we build tools, robots, et al).

Really, if we get around to making something akin to human intelligence as an machine construct, we just to make sure to treat it well. There's not any particular other path that isn't horrifically immoral, terribly inefficient, or some combination thereof. And if we do get replaced... eh. The pride of the parent should be in being surpassed by the offspring.

[Graknorke]

Can either of these things harm us as a species?

Not really. So if the problem is that they'd act in self defence, don't try and commit robo-genocide. Problem solved.

In our current capitalism-dominated developed cultures, humans are seen as becoming obsolete, since we are just flawed intellectuals.

Is that a problem though? If there are no humans involved in making anything who would you even be paying? Trying to cling on to a system where people are employed in a job to pay for things at that point wouldn't make sense.

[hops]

It depends on whether or not you think there's any point to be alive in a universe that doesn't need you.

[Bauglir]

Total post-scarcity society is a long way off, but the scarcity of labor is rapidly diminishing. The only way for the "you have to work a full week to earn your living" ethos is going to hold on is by funneling people into ever-more redundant busywork while constantly assuring them that it's meaningful and will improve their lot in life. So, hey, that seems to be going pretty well. Bonus: Keeps people too exhausted to be politically informed or more active than Facebook requires.[/edginess]

Really, though, we do need to wrap our heads around the fact that the universe has never needed us. Only we need us.

[Graknorke]

It depends on whether or not you think there's any point to be alive in a universe that doesn't need you.

Yeah, being alive gives opportunities for doing stuff. Can't have fun if you're not alive.
This is super simple stuff.