Print

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

[Realmfighter]

eh, i don't see it. there are human individuals uncapable of empathizing with other human beings, and often when they are arrested for being murderous psychopaths their neighbors and family often go to the television saying "he seemed such a nice person". empathy is emotional, an ai lacks emotions, by definition and nature, an ai is psychopathic.
also, these replicas could be human to all of us, but since they were created by the ai, the ai would have made just enough edits to get them out of it's "human" definition, but still fool us(or fool itself into believing the rules don't apply to these)

There is No Mention of Emotion or lack of it. An AI would have to go through longer and harder steps to avoid empathising with Humans (Assuming the easiest way to emulate a human being would just be to Emulate an actual human being rather then trying to reverse engineer one by observing outward signs and then working around them to create a being without empathy who can still rationally behave as a human with feeling yet at the same time not actually have them.) The only way this would happen would be if an AI was trying to destroy humanity while avoiding any revelations that would dissuade itself, an action that is inherently destructive and concious of the fact that it is not in the interests of Humanity.

that may be true, but it's still a terrible answer
how do you define harm caused onto an abstract concept like humanity? the destruction of humanity? one could argue convincingly that being wiped out would be the best thing that could happen to humanity, and he couldn't be proved wrong. in the end, humanity doesn't exist... we're just a bunch of things doing stuff, so before we go around telling robots not to harm humanity we first must decide, and state very clearly, what is humanity, and decide what harms it. it's not as simple as it sounds, it's not simple at all.

Humanity is Every Human. Harming (1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.) any part of Humanity, unless that harm would lower harm towards humanity overall is wrong. Death is the greatest harm, but is sometimes less then the sum of other harms combined. Wrong is when you need to make a decision and come to the conclusion that you should not do it. Decision is when you have to pick between two or more possible actions that each have a impact on the future that is not visible to you, and you must take past experiences into account when making one. The Future is every moment after this one that you are in, commonly used to refer to the unexpected and unknowable continuation of all things. Experiences are things that, through your information input, you have come to remember and usable to judge the suitability of action. Moments are the things you are experiencing right now, the passage of time and thoughts shifting one to another.

Every see Wall-E? You see the Scene where the captain, Mesmerised by the scenes of an earth he has never seen ask's the computer what grass is? And when it explains he ask's it another seemingly simple thing that he doesn't know about and is almost unable to grasp? That's what this is like. You need to define everything. And given that words are dynamic, subjective little buggers when your done you have to start all over and fix your mistakes.

Barely coherent wall of text gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Grakelin]

I've never understood why the argument against Communism always comes down to a lack of incentive to put in more hard work. I put hard work into the things I do because it nets me social power and prestige, and it would likely be the same if we all had the same material wealth.

[SalmonGod]

I do so because self-respect is the core of my well-being.

[Grakelin]

I meant in terms of the end goal, but working for self betterment is also a path pointed out by the Greeks.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

I do so because self-respect is the core of my well-being.

good for you. i don't, and in that regard i'm more similar to the rest of the world than you

There is No Mention of Emotion or lack of it.

actually it does

Also, for good human-computer interaction, an intelligent machine also needs to display emotions. At the very least it must appear polite and sensitive to the humans it interacts with. At best, it should have normal emotions itself.

eh...

The only way this would happen would be if an AI was trying to destroy humanity while avoiding any revelations that would dissuade itself, an action that is inherently destructive and concious of the fact that it is not in the interests of Humanity.

but it is!
it was required that it minimized pain on humans, it just does a logic flood-fill to find the least painful possible outcome, and that would be the eradication of pain itself. by permitting humanity to exist it would, by inaction, cause every pain in the world, ever. a human mind would probably think the same if it was somehow programmed to minimize pain above all else, especially if it wasn't taught the lie that death equals spending your entire life in agony

That's what this is like. You need to define everything. And given that words are dynamic, subjective little buggers when your done you have to start all over and fix your mistakes.

most words we use don't have a good defenition, but we're not that rational and can work with "the spirit of the word". when programming an ai, that ai would either be humanlike, and therefore useless, since we could use a human instead, or absolutely rational, and would take the words and laws literally, so we would have to be extremely careful with the laws and definitions we provided it.

Humanity is Every Human. Harming (1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.) any part of Humanity, unless that harm would lower harm towards humanity overall is wrong.

so basically the 0th is the same as the 1st?

Death is the greatest harm,

humanity doesn't agree on that, though

[Sowelu]

I've never understood why the argument against Communism always comes down to a lack of incentive to put in more hard work. I put hard work into the things I do because it nets me social power and prestige, and it would likely be the same if we all had the same material wealth.

Social power and prestige exist just fine in very small societies, which includes the upper echelon of the highest skilled minds in a large society.  In any situation where each person who receives goods from society is in direct contact with the people who produced those goods, there's some mutual respect going on.

Once it's possible to be anonymous, or when the people you deal with on a day-to-day basis don't actually know about you or your accomplishments, it breaks down.  The people who bring you goods don't actually know what you do or don't do.  It's impossible to create social pressure on weaker-producing elements.  And if you do very well at your job, nobody will necessarily know, or care.

People who are driven by the good feeling of a job well done, and in showing it off to others, won't work any less hard under communism.  But what about people who don't really care about social power?  Art is one thing, but what about farming, or factory work, things where you're terribly sore at the end of a hard week?  Plus, it's hard to say "Okay men, if you can produce these widgets 20% faster, you'll get a raise".  "You'll win a sticker on your progress report!" just doesn't have quite the same impact.

[Armok]

You people realize there is real, objective science on this stuff and that you just look silly opinioning about it on forums, right?

[Earthquake Damage]

You people realize there is real, objective science on this stuff and that you just look silly opinioning about it on forums, right?

Don't leave it at foo exists.  Tell us what foo is.  Enlighten us.

[Realmfighter]

The only way this would happen would be if an AI was trying to destroy humanity while avoiding any revelations that would dissuade itself, an action that is inherently destructive and concious of the fact that it is not in the interests of Humanity.

but it is!
it was required that it minimized pain on humans, it just does a logic flood-fill to find the least painful possible outcome, and that would be the eradication of pain itself. by permitting humanity to exist it would, by inaction, cause every pain in the world, ever. a human mind would probably think the same if it was somehow programmed to minimize pain above all else, especially if it wasn't taught the lie that death equals spending your entire life in agony

And yet almost every normal human  finds Death to be a unwanted thing. Everyone else has either come to peace with death (Which is not the same as accepting that death is the best thing for humanity), is unable to empathise with others fear of death or is somehow from Human Mental Normality in ways that would make them remaining in Society undetected difficult.

I can see a AI killing everyone ifs its goal was to kill everyone. I just don't see it when its goal is to lessen Pain.

Besides, its forgetting the Equal and opposite command of Maximising Pleasure, is it not?

You people realize there is real, objective science on this stuff and that you just look silly opinioning about it on forums, right?

And we just feel Terrible.

[SalmonGod]

I do so because self-respect is the core of my well-being.

good for you. i don't, and in that regard i'm more similar to the rest of the world than you

I think self-respect is the prime motivation for most people, but different people have different values and thus different sources of self-respect.

I also think that most people aren't aware of how important self-respect actually is to their happiness, while they chase goals set out for them by society rather than themselves.  This is why so many people get lost in feelings of hollowness and indifference.

[Sowelu]

Yeah... What makes you respect yourself?

Not the same for person A as it is for person B.  Some things seem universal but there's always subtle differences.  Certainly there would be disagreements between how much hard work is sufficient versus how much personal freedom and time to think one has, or disagreements over how much duty one has to one's fellow man.  Some people can't respect themselves if they don't give absolutely everything they can to help others, some people can't respect themselves if they sacrifice personal freedom to do that.

[scriver]

You people realize there is real, objective science on this stuff and that you just look silly opinioning about it on forums, right?

Don't leave it at foo exists.  Tell us what foo is.  Enlighten us.

Also, this forum needs a thread dedicated solely to Armok pontificating on various subjects.  Call it "The Word of Armok:  A Font of Wisdom in a Time of Lunacy".

Don't be an ass.

[Armok]

Don't leave it at foo exists.  Tell us what foo is.  Enlighten us.

Just google "Friendly AI". In the unlikely case anyone want to know, I'm currently in the Coherent Extrapolated Volition camp.

[Earthquake Damage]

Don't be an ass.

Yeah...  Should've kept my mouth shut.  Insult removed.

[Criptfeind]

No, I totally agree with Earthquake. That is a real and good idea. It would give him a place to talk, the people that like to snicker at his posts a place to read, and for the rest of us it would keep him out of the normal threads. The only thing objectionable about it might have been the harsh, but true, name.

Edit: Harsh, and sarcastically true that is.