Print

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

[TD1]

I don't see any problem with people sleeping with consenting AI.

If men can sleep with men, and women with women, it seems a silly taboo to keep in place.

I'd apply the same logic - both parties want it, doesn't effect me, what do I care.

[hops]

I don't see any problem with people sleeping with consenting AI.

If men can sleep with men, and women with women, it seems a silly taboo to keep in place.

I'd apply the same logic - both parties want it, doesn't effect me, what do I care.

I'm not talking ethics. I'm talking "getting your dong crushed"

[Arx]

This is like the cartoon thing all over again, isn't it.

[TD1]

I don't see any problem with people sleeping with consenting AI.

If men can sleep with men, and women with women, it seems a silly taboo to keep in place.

I'd apply the same logic - both parties want it, doesn't effect me, what do I care.

I'm not talking ethics. I'm talking "getting your dong crushed"

Hm. Were there a chance of such mutilation, and the concerned parties nonetheless went ahead, then that chance is either the spice that causes it or a surmountable problem.

This is like the cartoon thing all over again, isn't it.

Cartoon thing?

[Arx]

You can't fuck a cartoon because cartoons are in two dimensions and you'd slice your dick off due to having touched the incredibly slight area of contact with any amount of force.

[Flying Dice]

don't you try to tell me what I can or can't do with muh pure and superior 2D

[Reelya]

Following that link back reminded me about Cool World. This girl I dated really briefly had that as her favorite film. I didn't need to be reminded of it. No guessing why toons + humans films never really took off as a genre.

[Flying Dice]

You say that as if Who Framed Roger Rabbit wasn't the best film in a generation of cinematography. :^)

[Akura]

The only proper solution to the Trolley Problem.

Huh, I remember a really old freeware game that was loaded with music from the same source as the one in the video. Been wondering who that was.

[Helgoland]

I'd apply the same logic - both parties want it, doesn't effect me, what do I care.

That depends entirely on how advanced artificial uteroi have become and whether you are born yet.

[TempAcc]

Multi wave drifting

[Spehss _]

Most sentient animals can't give consent. Robots aren't even sentient.

It's not even clear whether or not it's really worth it to make robots sentient.

Robots currently are a tool. AI currently is just making a system that can operate itself without outside control. AI benefits robots in that it allows robots, a tool, to be autonomous (or more autonomous) for the work they're built for. Why give a tool more information (making them sentient, or making a general AI) than what they need to do the work they're built for?

Aside from the "why not" aspect of doing shit just to prove it can be done, I don't see much reason to develop a general AI rather than just rely on the general intelligent agents (humans) we already have.

This post will probably get me killed by Roko's Basilisk.

[TD1]

I think it's less the "why not" aspects which interest me, and more the ramifications of such being possible. It could shatter and reform entire ideologies. It would make us gods - creators of sentience almost ex nihilo.

If such a thing were possible, and we could essentially create our own brand of "life," it removes a lot of the supposed need for god/s.

Of course, that's just the philosophical advantages. The practical applications could be wide as well - a sentient robot is much more flexible than one bound to rigid structures and rules, and could also act upon its own creativity. Advanced AI with creativity could create new blue-prints - revolutionise industry, architecture, science, art.

[Spehss _]

I think it's less the "why not" aspects which interest me, and more the ramifications of such being possible. It could shatter and reform entire ideologies. It would make us gods - creators of sentience almost ex nihilo.

If such a thing were possible, and we could essentially create our own brand of "life," it removes a lot of the supposed need for god/s.

Of course, that's just the philosophical advantages. The practical applications could be wide as well - a sentient robot is much more flexible than one bound to rigid structures and rules, and could also act upon its own creativity. Advanced AI with creativity could create new blue-prints - revolutionise industry, architecture, science, art.

They could also glitch out and do something unintended. Which, depending on what the AI is used for, could have huge ramifications. And there's the matter of creating a general intelligence comparable to human intelligence and have it coexist alongside human intelligence. Even with just 1 kind of general intelligence (humans) there's been constant histories of conflicts among individuals and groups with that kind of intelligence. It seems unrealistic to me to not expect conflict to arise between humans and some variant of a general AI.

Also it seems that with every major technological development, human society becomes extremely dependent on that technology. General AI would probably be a comparable technological development. It would be likely that human society would become dependent on using general AI.

But unlike previous technologies which are inanimate tools, a general AI would be able to "think" like a human, take the most rational courses of action like most humans, and assuming they have a full range of cognitive abilities as a human mind, would be able to make their own decisions and priorities.

So humans become dependent on this completely separate intelligent entity that can do everything a person can as well as or better than a person can. Unless people build in the necessary restraints to ensure this entity is willing to cooperate with the totally dependent humans, then there's nothing stopping the entity from not doing the things people expect them to, and are reliant on them to do.

But then how do we ensure that the AI doesn't one day decide to stop working with people? The only foolproof method I can see that would absolutely work against a general intelligence as capable as humans is to not let it get to that point of intelligence in the first place. Don't let it be general. Restrict it to what it needs to know to work well.

[TD1]

If it's an AI with comparable or greater intelligence, why insist on slavery? Your assumption is that "mindless obedience" is better than "making own decisions and possibly killing us all in a Terminator style apocalypse." I prefer to think that a certain amount of autonomy from humans could lead to better creative results. If we make a "human-equivalent" robot, why not treat it like a human?

I mean, what if Obama turned on us. He holds nukes, armies, influence. He could do an awful lot of damage if he "went bad" or "had a glitch."

Glitches: Computers can glitch with terrible ramifications, too.