Print

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

[10ebbor10]

The problem would probably escalate from the point that the AI would take control of stuff because it's much better at stuff, humans reacting against it because they fear it's gone mad, and then the AI attempting to act to defend itself.

It doesn't even need control of anything for that. It can do it from the position of any citizen What would you think would happen if people found out the AI manipulated stocks, even if it's only trying to prevent crashes. Or what if we found out it's been manipulating dating websites, and social network systems in an attempt to start up some hereditary eugenics program.

[Max White]

Can computers be disillusioned? That seems like a very human trait.

Yes. Easily. You tell it something that is false, and it will believe you. It will keep that information without ever questioning it for as long as its circuits are functional.
The reason this is ok for a computer and bad for a human is that humans become emotionally attached to their delusions.

[EnigmaticHat]

Somebody made a good case for an AI-run government type system, but I'd rather the government just take it's advice rather then giving the AI the keys to everything and letting it do whatever it thinks is best.

The world is already run like that, its just a bunch of computers instead of a single AI.

[Frumple]

Difference being the ones currently running things don't even have a facade of programming directed toward effective governance, and usually don't even have that as a tertiary goal, much less anything higher.

Baseline software suites for the current set is optimized for stuff considerably different, t'boot, so even when its members try they're doing it with a highly inefficient set of programs. S'like trying to make music using MS Paint or something.

... do kinda' wonder, though. Why is it always a single AI running things? Why not networked stuff, hrm? That'd probably make it a lot easier to deal with potential screwups, too... only have to stop or correct a portion of the system instead of the whole kit n' k'boodle. S'basically what we're doing now, just using really crappy software and hardware for the job.

[Loud Whispers]

It doesn't even need control of anything for that. It can do it from the position of any citizen What would you think would happen if people found out the AI manipulated stocks, even if it's only trying to prevent crashes. Or what if we found out it's been manipulating dating websites, and social network systems in an attempt to start up some hereditary eugenics program.

That would be your fault for teaching it Lamarckian evolution.

[Helgoland]

It doesn't even need control of anything for that. It can do it from the position of any citizen What would you think would happen if people found out the AI manipulated stocks, even if it's only trying to prevent crashes. Or what if we found out it's been manipulating dating websites, and social network systems in an attempt to start up some hereditary eugenics program.

That would be your fault for teaching it Darwinian evolution.

FTFY. Actually, an AI starting up a eugenics program seems pretty cool - and you'd pretty much have to teach it stuff like that, otherwise it wouldn't be able to judge, for example, the parameters for natural reserves or livestock breeding.

[Graknorke]

It would be Lamarckian though, since social habits are learned rather than genetic; and that's all that the AI would have to go on.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

The idea would be to make an AI that has it's own wants and desires and the capability to modify it's own program.

One of those desires would be to help humans. (not dystopia, "Save them from themselves!" help humans, so don't be an ass)

The other would be the desire to continue wanting to help humans.

So it wouldn't re-program itself to hate humans, any more than Ghandi would take a pill that would make him want to murder everyone.

define "help humans", you'd have to define it very well and very objectively. keep in mind a computer program would be very literal and very efficient
besides, "save them from themselves" is the reason i proposed an AI in the first place

Go look up Friendly AI. Someone's already done it. Well, defined it. Haven't made the AI yet, but they're working on it~!

friendly means different things to different people, and as i've learned from reading and seeing a lot of media about genies and magically granted wishes, these kinds of things often have unforeseen undesirable consequences.
the main problem is there is no objective "good" or "bad", there is only "better suited for a specific purpose". what is humanity's purpose? continued existence? what should be the AI's main priority? the good of the individual or the betterment of society? is it ok to alter human nature? what about the parts of human nature that really suck like conditions that cause chronic suffering or extreme antisocial behaviour(murder, rape, etc.)? and what should be it's priority for the good of each individual? longevity? happiness? comfort? some of these sometimes are inversely correlated with each other, so should the ai try to provide more comfort and higher standards of living if it's statistically correlated with higher incidence of depression and chronic unhappiness? or should it condition us to become comfortable being fleshy potatoes?

[miauw62]

Stupid thread for most derailed thread 2013.

[tahujdt]

Stupid thread for most derailed thread 2013.

It's only been going for a few pages now. Surely we've done better.

[miauw62]

most as in quantity, not length.

[10ebbor10]

It doesn't even need control of anything for that. It can do it from the position of any citizen What would you think would happen if people found out the AI manipulated stocks, even if it's only trying to prevent crashes. Or what if we found out it's been manipulating dating websites, and social network systems in an attempt to start up some hereditary eugenics program.

That would be your fault for teaching it Lamarckian evolution.

Well, point is that it's perfectly executing it's job. It's just that humans are great at misunderstanding things, and rather good xenophobes.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Stupid thread for most derailed thread 2013.

i think this thread is awesome, stupidly stupid things are a great starting point for interesting conversations

[Helgoland]

It would be Lamarckian though, since social habits are learned rather than genetic; and that's all that the AI would have to go on.

Then it wouldn't have to use selective breeding at all; I was thinking of selecting for, say, a higher density of serotonin and opiate receptors in the brain, increased tactile perception in the nether regions, less susceptibility for mental diseases, and so on. Basically eugenics, but happy and egalitarian!

Stupid thread for most derailed thread 2013.

It's only been going for a few pages now. Surely we've done better.

May I remind the forumites of the Bay12 Space Program?

[Lalasa]

"You only killed me because I ran out of health!"

-LoL Player (with a lot less grammar)