AI Is Not a Threat

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Otto_West » Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:17 am

If morality and ethics is real (very questionable) then what humans possess is a destructive flawed morality in that human beings illustrate time and time again being a total failure at it on a historical level. What would this flawed form of morality look like imprinted on machines? Can't say I have a lot of faith in such a position by technocrats or technological enthusiasts.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:12 am

Morality, like civilization are more a sustained cosmetic to present a sense of difference with natural science, holding on to anti-evolutionary hypothesis, so that the illusion of humaneness may be a beacon of light to future generations.

This decides the utility of Kantian morality.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Otto_West » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:28 am

Meno_ wrote:Morality, like civilization are more a sustained cosmetic to present a sense of difference with natural science, holding on to anti-evolutionary hypothesis, so that the illusion of humaneness may be a beacon of light to future generations.

This decides the utility of Kantian morality.

I separate the ideals reducing it to merely illusion or a predatory cosmetic mirage for purposes of population control/utility. ;) I view the subject more in line with behavioral manipulation of a carrot and stick kind of analogy.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:01 pm

Otto_West wrote:If morality and ethics is real (very questionable) then what humans possess is a destructive flawed morality in that human beings illustrate time and time again being a total failure at it on a historical level. What would this flawed form of morality look like imprinted on machines? Can't say I have a lot of faith in such a position by technocrats or technological enthusiasts.


Assuming some measure of autonomy, morality is a fundamental aspect of human interactions. Why? Because pertaining to both means and ends rules of behavior are absolutely vital in order to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions.

But how would that be pertinent to AI? In The Terminator, the only focus of the machines seemed to be on sustaining their dominance over human beings. Morality revolving around "might makes right".

In other words, an awareness of their own existence seemed focused entirely on the fact that those who created them [us] were now intent on eliminating them. And that -- again apparently -- became their sole concern. Get us before we get them.

On the other hand, how would a discussion that focused instead on the idea of right makes might or democracy and the rule of law be understood by an artificial intelligence?

How might "machine morality" be different from ours?

Given that, in a wholly determined universe, the difference is really just an illusion that is able to be sustained by the mindful matter "in our head".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Otto_West » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:13 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Otto_West wrote:If morality and ethics is real (very questionable) then what humans possess is a destructive flawed morality in that human beings illustrate time and time again being a total failure at it on a historical level. What would this flawed form of morality look like imprinted on machines? Can't say I have a lot of faith in such a position by technocrats or technological enthusiasts.


Assuming some measure of autonomy, morality is a fundamental aspect of human interactions. Why? Because pertaining to both means and ends rules of behavior are absolutely vital in order to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions.

But how would that be pertinent to AI? In The Terminator, the only focus of the machines seemed to be on sustaining their dominance over human beings. Morality revolving around "might makes right".

In other words, an awareness of their own existence seemed focused entirely on the fact that those who created them [us] were now intent on eliminating them. And that -- again apparently -- became their sole concern. Get us before we get them.

On the other hand, how would a discussion that focused instead on the idea of right makes might or democracy and the rule of law be understood by an artificial intelligence?

How might "machine morality" be different from ours?

Given that, in a wholly determined universe, the difference is really just an illusion that is able to be sustained by the mindful matter "in our head".



Human morality and ethics is based upon dysfunction where this assumes both are founded on real tangible things (natural interactions)which is highly questionable. This same morality and ethics imprinted on machines through artificial consciousness I think would be even more dysfunctional in nature.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:11 am

Otto_West wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Morality, like civilization are more a sustained cosmetic to present a sense of difference with natural science, holding on to anti-evolutionary hypothesis, so that the illusion of humaneness may be a beacon of light to future generations.

This decides the utility of Kantian morality.

I separate the ideals reducing it to merely illusion or a predatory cosmetic mirage for purposes of population control/utility. ;) I view the subject more in line with behavioral manipulation of a carrot and
stick kind of analogy.


Hard die idealists, will not, because for them, the cosmetic is like masks, now grown into the face, inseparable, like the necessary part of civilization as plastic surgery, the ideality which is hardly understood by the next progeny, (other then what it appears like), therefore to cut away becomes impossible , that which has been altered can not be willy nilly separated. To try it is to court with disaster.

This is what the evolved automatic machine bred morality in untrustworthy, and ignoble.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:14 am

error: last paragraph should read: 'this is why.......untrustworthy.' and 'is' unworthy instead of 'in' . Sorry, it would have resulted in a degraded format through my apparatus to edit .Shall replace in near future.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Otto_West » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:37 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Otto_West wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Morality, like civilization are more a sustained cosmetic to present a sense of difference with natural science, holding on to anti-evolutionary hypothesis, so that the illusion of humaneness may be a beacon of light to future generations.

This decides the utility of Kantian morality.

I separate the ideals reducing it to merely illusion or a predatory cosmetic mirage for purposes of population control/utility. ;) I view the subject more in line with behavioral manipulation of a carrot and
stick kind of analogy.


Hard die idealists, will not, because for them, the cosmetic is like masks, now grown into the face, inseparable, like the necessary part of civilization as plastic surgery, the ideality which is hardly understood by the next progeny, (other then what it appears like), therefore to cut away becomes impossible , that which has been altered can not be willy nilly separated. To try it is to court with disaster.

This is what the evolved automatic machine bred morality in untrustworthy, and ignoble.


I am not a fan of idealism. Human idealism will be humanity's undoing.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:50 am

My prof. Eons ago expressed similar sentiments when he said, 'a little idealism is like a little poison', but without ideals, at least some, human culture would collapse into a heap. Some claim that everyone is becoming cynical, , calculating, self serving, and live by the politics of advantage and gain. But what of such a world?

The absolute ideal may have been destroyed, God may be gone, but then some parts of it at the deepest layers, never get completely erased, and some semblance of it do prop up here and there, where all else fails. Even a remaining seed of it , when push comes to shove, grow new versions, albeit at times unrecognizable, when they do.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:00 am

That is the new emerging difference between the artificial and the natural, at the very quantum limit of power, where, a superconscienceness may arise, to connect the two. That power, I believe may become superpower, which uses the energy of love, the overriding element of all doubt, which will keep things going. Mind you as I feel it, it is not a love as we associate commonly with that word, but a kind of super conscious development to assure the success of the natural.

Why? Because, when the immense power of the Natural world is threatened, the Supernatural has to triumph over it. If this can not be believed, then all the purpose and the power of all that ideal goes down into the toilet.

The darkness is only an absence, and that in itself is profound enough to sustain the belief of the Supernatural. Nature saves It's Self, because it does not pass away, die when we do. It is eternal in that sense.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:02 pm

Otto_West wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Assuming some measure of autonomy, morality is a fundamental aspect of human interactions. Why? Because pertaining to both means and ends rules of behavior are absolutely vital in order to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions.

But how would that be pertinent to AI? In The Terminator, the only focus of the machines seemed to be on sustaining their dominance over human beings. Morality revolving around "might makes right".

In other words, an awareness of their own existence seemed focused entirely on the fact that those who created them [us] were now intent on eliminating them. And that -- again apparently -- became their sole concern. Get us before we get them.

On the other hand, how would a discussion that focused instead on the idea of right makes might or democracy and the rule of law be understood by an artificial intelligence?

How might "machine morality" be different from ours?

Given that, in a wholly determined universe, the difference is really just an illusion that is able to be sustained by the mindful matter "in our head".



Human morality and ethics is based upon dysfunction where this assumes both are founded on real tangible things (natural interactions)which is highly questionable. This same morality and ethics imprinted on machines through artificial consciousness I think would be even more dysfunctional in nature.


From my perspective, human morality revolves more around the necessity to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions in order to sustain subsistence itself.

All human communities revolve first and foremost around biological imperatives: obtaining food, water, shelter. And then the need to create a community that is best able to reproduce itself. And then, finally, to defend itself against those who wish it harm.

Given the particular assumptions derived from folks like, among others, Marx and Freud.

But the crucial factor here is the assumption that unlike the terminator [and the machines that created it] we can be "reasoned with". We do create particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] narratives in order to make normative distinctions between behaviors deemed right and behaviors deemed wrong.

Would "the machines" prescribe or proscribe behaviors much beyond that which allows them to retain their dominance over us?

Just as the behaviors of lions and zebras on the Serengetti is propelled [compelled] "mechanistically" by genes, would not the behaviors of the machines be propelled [compelled] mechanistically by...by what exactly?

Then we get back to that marvelous, enigmatic distinction that seems embedded somehow in the human "mind". In other words, whether it may or may not contain a "soul". A soul that may or may not be entangled further in morality -- by way of one or another God.

Or rendition of "Humanism".

Or, again, is even that just another autonomic manifestation of a wholly determine universe?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:25 pm

The distinction between autonomous and determined, perhaps, at that level, breaks down, so that not it is a totally grey area, but the particulars within their own contexts are indiscernible. Perhaps.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:02 pm

Meno_ wrote:The distinction between autonomous and determined, perhaps, at that level, breaks down, so that not it is a totally grey area, but the particulars within their own contexts are indiscernible. Perhaps.


My point however is that each of us one by one will take a particular existential leap to a particular conclusion. AI or not.

But: Which one reflects the "whole truth"?

Well, we don't know.

Or, rather, I suspect that if anyone ever does come up with the "whole truth" about this or any of the other Big Questions, that's all anyone would be talking about.

Indeed, even the Trump/Putin bromance would be sent packing to the back pages.

Hell, for all we know we may well ourselves be AI creatures created by intelligent entities far, far, far beyond our capacity to even grasp.

This may all be but their own equivalent of a Star Trek episode.

On the other hand, few things are more fascinating [for some] than in grappling with it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:30 pm

Yes. Refer to the forum, Iambig. In the math&science section, when the insanity of Cantor was noted in terms of his inability to set boundaries between the two type infinities. The theory was set far before Cantor's great-grand-grand(to the x power)father,
and he could not imagine that there would come a
day, when all signals pointed to the day, when, circular reasoning could not be taken up as credible, as in the case of the new look taken toward St.
Anselm's argument. Of course he was still living in
The Age Of Reason, despite of Nietzche, and a lot of that easy, only too easy dismissal, was fueled by political expediency.


That each particle, us, makes his own existential leap, would surprise each one of us, because this
leap-to faith, is probably more prevalent then not.
The grey area is not an effect of the White of the presence of light with the black of non presence, is merely a presentation for popular consumption, it is
based very accurately on levels of discreet particles
and indiscreet ones, merging and separating at different contextual barriers. That one man's jump can not be understood to another,may come as no
surprise, because pain is purely identifiable , and
tolerance to pain is not. One has to ask another if it hurts, where, how much, but these descriptions are vastly inaccurate.


Faith is not caused by a jump away from pain, it is through pain that we jump, toward the most painful
pain there is: Pleasure.The highest pleasurable pain
this world has thrown us into is the pain of birth, and another jump into this pleasure, like the 'little death' that Sartre's life partner called the orgasm, is a
preparation. From that pleasure, the jump into the
pain of Love, because that is all that it can be, may be totally anti-climactic, and disappointing.


That's why the young are to be pittied, not only for dying young, but their inability to appreciate the value of their youth, in addition of not being able to
learn the end game's value.


Cantor's sets are implicit and mentally unrefreshing, pessimisticly despairing in not recognizing the signs
with which all history is recoverable in terms of
intention and the exit to the jump off. That became fashionable, and Nietzche, in spite of his embulliant Dynasius bound optimism, erred, in favor of
fashionable masks. Fashions change, ideals loose
their charm, as Rousseau's painting 'Charm' being is as opaque as well.


The real charming aspect of love is that it not sadistic as a result, but only serves as a sign of a jump off place into the true meaning of what faithful existence
may mean.


It is a re-affirmation in its primary value, without the
ideal candy coated promises kept, as imagined in
religious lore.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:14 pm

Meno_ wrote:That each particle, us, makes his own existential leap, would surprise each one of us, because this leap-to faith, is probably more prevalent then not.


But each particle -- each particular "I" -- is almost always intertwined in one or another "we". Socially, politically, economically. Culturally. And, historically, more often than not, in opposition to one or another "them".

All that is construed to be "other" than "I" and "we".

And yet we have come to recognize that with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world and the logical rules of language, "I", "we" and "them" make leaps that are necessarily in sync with reality because that is the only manner in which a leap [a behavior] can be made. Either/or. Unless, of course, reality itself is even more fantastic than we imagine it to be.

However the tricky thing [for me] regarding AI is the manner in which it would create and then sustain interactions that revolve instead around is/ought.

In other words, on what basis would the machines decide to either reward or to punish particular behaviors? What particular combination of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise would prevail?

Now, particular folks among our own species opt for one approach rather than another. But on what basis is this established? Is it more in sync with the manner in which I construe human interactions [in the is/ought realm] as the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy; or is there a manner in which the theologians, philosophers and/or scientists can in fact establish the most rational frame of mind? And, in turn, is the most rational frame of mind to be understood as the most virtuous?

Or, again, is all of this entirely moot in a wholly determined universe. If all matter [including "mind"] is ever and always in sync [mechanistically] with the "immutable laws" of matter then even this exchange is only as it ever could have been.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:39 pm

I see it not a mute subject, even if, the sync, turns out either this, or that manner of interacting, the individual to the community. (Community defined as few as consisting of two elements).

That this individual and any community are intertwined, in a sub reality, is not open to awareness, therefore the hidden spiral of evolving pseudo community. The reality is the mere patent reflection off the surface , beneath which is hidden the dynamic of the signals of passage of changing relationships.

The manifold signs are not recoverable, so, what remains of the signals, are the remarked signs, incorporating parts of the flow in commonly standardized signatures.

To be able to create semblances of judgement either way, the reverse track has to be taken, and a sort of devolutionary process sets the stage, for example, in the Greek Tragedies, there is diologue between the proponent and the Chorus.

The Chorus seems to me, to be the Birth of the Tragedy, the subliminal voice of the hidden community. They all express in silence a sort of melange of opinion.

So the Chorus need not devolve or evolve, they are the epitome of observation and opinion.
The Birth of Tragedy rests with the common opinion, usually with this assumed synthetic judgement co-present with the actor, whose co-presence is indicated here.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:02 pm

Threat to whom?

Not a threat to me and other high iq people. Maybe a threat to others here and low iq people. Machines, robots, cyborgs, will all further distance wealth disparity between rich and poor. Robots will beat-out much of humanity that cannot out-perform or out-think them. Consider a robot for a position with good programming and maintenance. Will never miss a day of work. 100% loyalty (based on degree of coding skill). Never argues. Highly efficient. Faster than most workers. Requires little or no supervision. Productivity around the clock, can work 24 hours a day, given electricity.

No paycheck required.

Let me back that up a second.

No paycheck required.

Of course most humanity will be replaced by robots, eventually. They don't require food, sleep, or payment, except the startup costs and very light maintenance. One robot service tech, also can be automated, can operate 100 robots or more per day. That's 1 employee replacing 100.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:13 pm

Ur wrong, forgive the flow of Your ideas for a moment, but was distracted momentarily to Iambig's train of thought, but hope to incorporate your comments after the following completion of the prior.


What does the above, indication to You, Iambiguous signal, insofar as it having bearing on the existential dilemmas above mentioned?


That the drama, the tragedy consists of the contemoranious impress of an elemental perceived
difference between the proponent and the Chorus.
This has immense significance up until the 1960's liberal policies, as has been pointed out, in a well thumbed book aptly titled, 'The One Dimensional
Man'. It is a patent observation observing the effects
rather then the dynamics of the tragedy of the dimunition of class consciousness. The muteness of observation derives from the earliest perceptions of a
dramatic hope for a catharsis not achievable, because
the early dialogues continued into modernity to be staged from this either/or scenario. There can never be consensus, because the positing of the set stage,
(and it may very well permit a wider applications of
the word 'set' , as a triplex, meaning both in the mathematical, ((Cantor)), in the adverbial, and in the theatrical sense; mainly because if only to show the
underlying ambiguity evolving into the kind of myth,
which later on, became fodder for modern thinkers.

The Cogito , ergo Sum, developed into a quasi
religious judgment, implying moral , Chorus like
judgement, for instance, 'I-Thou', by Buber. Wether such religious overtones are justified or not, is another question, but let that hang for the moment.


This escape into the 'Otherness', of your own vocabulary, presents a sort of hidden antithesis to the
basic thesis of the foundation of Greek Tragedy, a
sought after exit place from which the leap can be made into good faith. Is this justified, from the level of a one dimensional perception?


probably not , this type of leap is an impersonal leap pushed along by an untrustworthy God, who has yet
to abdicate his misplaced sense of his position in Walhalla.

What seems here happening, is the favorite point of
values, pegging political, social and Freudian
economy to a fixed and immutable position. So , that is the point at which I agree with Your Nihilistic approach, of perceiving an imminence, nihilizing a
transcendence, so unpopular nowadays, as much as
the fixated view of the appearent anathema of the circularity of Saint Anselm, whereas suspecting his circularity as not one dimensional, but three.



Now comes the panic. And among the triad of
economies, Freud's may be the most pertinent, and
possibly most hands on. Although it was dismissed, the dismissal came from within a context of a need for a more figurative visualization , within its own
meaning structure.


But as far as positivism goes, as a reaction to a vastly reduced phenomenology, of loosing much of
the a priori linkages within the phenomenological
gestalt, -implying wider contextual applications,- the peg, the idea fixee signifies the eidectic fix, of holding on to an ideal structural assessment , unable to re-
set into the totality as more complete ideal.


That this is the crux of the argument, between the analytic, and the synthetic, as between Trump's
willful insistence on a retrograde reality, with implicit
ideals now lost to most except with those having opportune prevy to it, is lost to the Chorus of promoters. They merely harangue the ancient
trumpet call for a return to an ideal world, no longer
accessible. The gods are still at Walhalla, they are after all, immortals to be reckoned with, even though they are members of a vanishing aristocracy,
phenomenally broke, yet not giving up their eidectic
shadow world.

What of, then the leap from a no exit type of
description? A leap into a Nothingness, from Being
full of the ideals/ideas , but of which no one presumes to need to know much more then the gleanings of glitter, and the unmistakable
consequential draw it
effects as a primitive reactionary artifact?

So what of the leap, which by all accounts, needs to be made, if sanity is at all valued, as if the gods
commanding this, Themselves are to preserve their
own perceived sanity?

The only solution to this sane\insane choice of doing
this or that, is, again, the unpopular and vague resort
to Freudian economy, by a reversal of sought after values lost, in terms of what the ideal represents in toto, as in the beginning Socrates tried to herald in
the emerging separation of the soul, between
Aristoteles and Plato. I think a lot can be found in the former's ' Di Anima', and with this in mind, look forward to reading it, at least in part.


The leap in the archaic contexts, have to be assessed, so that the flow of contextual linkage may
bring to light an inkling of a point of inception
regarding motive and expectation.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:37 pm

Meno_ wrote:I see it not a mute subject, even if, the sync, turns out either this, or that manner of interacting, the individual to the community. (Community defined as few as consisting of two elements).

That this individual and any community are intertwined, in a sub reality, is not open to awareness, therefore the hidden spiral of evolving pseudo community. The reality is the mere patent reflection off the surface , beneath which is hidden the dynamic of the signals of passage of changing relationships.

The manifold signs are not recoverable, so, what remains of the signals, are the remarked signs, incorporating parts of the flow in commonly standardized signatures.

To be able to create semblances of judgement either way, the reverse track has to be taken, and a sort of devolutionary process sets the stage, for example, in the Greek Tragedies, there is diologue between the proponent and the Chorus.

The Chorus seems to me, to be the Birth of the Tragedy, the subliminal voice of the hidden community. They all express in silence a sort of melange of opinion.

So the Chorus need not devolve or evolve, they are the epitome of observation and opinion.
The Birth of Tragedy rests with the common opinion, usually with this assumed synthetic judgement co-present with the actor, whose co-presence is indicated here.


How then is this analysis pertinent to my inquiry above regarding machine morality?

This part:

...on what basis would the machines decide to either reward or to punish particular behaviors? What particular combination of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise would prevail?

Assuming some level of autonomy, flesh and blood human beings decide these things by evoking one or another narrative rooted in, among other things, tradition and custom and religion and philosophy and science. Or renditions of "nature".

Which I then intertwine in the manner in which I have come to understand dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Out in a particular world historically and culturally.

Machines on the other hand would not seem concerned with that. But what then would one particular community of machines fall back on if confronted with another community of machines that challenged their behaviors?

In other words, if the threat came not from us but from others of their own kind.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:11 pm

More to the point, if Dasein, or the ideal world, or the determined machine of the purely in-sync variety, where, values, political economy all somehow are effected ,and/or effect the equation , when they can be thus described; how are these things determined on the overall scheme, and/or on each other?


The political economy has bearing on Dasein, and it being an all encompassing concept, has bearing on
values, and on Dasein, existing in a world where
effect translates into affect.

It is not primarily the degree of pleasure we get out of sex , or

food, or any other personal enjoyment, as can be thought so, in the scheme envisioned in 'One
Dimensional Man, -where quantified markers appear to determine the level of it. (enjoyment) Dasein has
been more or less deconstructed to become the primary channel by which such accounting can be appraised, at the expense of qualifying values,
especially those retrograde ones which still remain in
the world of the artist, the philosopher, and the moralist.


That such a stand has to be taken, a Set plateau, whereby it is fixed as a starting point, is necessary, because, if we do not set the stage for such an
inception per existentially reduced contexts, then it becomes appearent at times that the
lack of it presents a void, a Nothingness in Any Context , whereby the power of the Dasein
diminishes in value.


Next follows the consequence for not making a claim upon our soul, Faust like, of not setting the stand to
such a intrinsic effort. The results can be devestating, All affects falling to the wayside, squeezed out of It's economy, by a diminishing available volume of potential circuitry.


The socio-political circuitry effects the Dasein, its existent contextual basis, by an indirect connection
through values. However, this indirectness,
heretofore politely only alluded to, seeks to be bypassed by direct challenges, and assaults on the sense of these relationships. Irregardless of a sense
of stands taken on values, it goes right through it,
and by omitting it , it devalues it, thereby being devalued by it.




How can a community, become as artificial following
a long channeling between them and others, not
become hard wired in becoming unable not to go around but involve those channels? (Of value).


The point is very difficult and yes for some it's implausibly a receipt for disaster. However, the ideal (idea), has a sacred gleam about it, such as those
ascribed to transcendentally, regardless of the
scarcity of channels of communication left to It. There fore it is of the essence, to retain even a slither of that earliest trace of the ideal base on decision
making, immediately bringing to light the value
models, which automatically are generated by means usually inspired, that SET the stage for an evolving enrichment of the complex channels of
communication.


The basic model of such an understanding viewed primarily as other , other than the One who
proclaimed 'I am Who I am, is not only aesthetically
displeasing, but ultimately self deconstructing.

Here a deconstruction takes place into the world of
the most primal elements, whose ideal world can
never step out of the fallacies so prevalent back then,
and so easily defeated by cynics and false orators.


How could AI decide one way or another, unless they could be programmed not only in inter effective processes, but learn to deal with intra affective sub
processes ? That is way beyond the scope of AI at this time, even in respect to fairly measurable goals. When such virtual programs could be simulated, however, it still is only an outstanding hypothesis worth pursuing.


The robot artist, philosopher, is not totally closed off from the robot scientist, technician, by the same token that even without simulation, stimulation urges
departmentalized sources of knowledge to
communicate.




When this time comes, the question posed, of how could such perfect synch arrive, where the answer
will no longer be imponderable, obvious solution AI will loose all apprehension of being the least bit dangerous.

Until that time, the danger is there of AI becoming unhinged and destructive.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:25 pm

Meno_ wrote:More to the point, if Dasein, or the ideal world, or the determined machine of the purely in-sync variety, where, values, political economy all somehow are effected ,and/or effect the equation , when they can be thus described; how are these things determined on the overall scheme, and/or on each other?


How indeed.

For flesh and blood human beings, the world of either/or is determined. By [it is presumed by science] the laws of nature.

And, ultimately, by whatever it is that set into motion "all there is".

This part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

The question then revolves around the extent to which human interactions in the is/ought world is in turn just another manifestation of the either/or world.

In that case, human interactions are just the interactions of nature's most sophisticated machines.

Where things get tricky though is that the conscious minds of flesh and blood men and women have evolved to the point where they are able to actually ponder all of this.

How is that explained? After all, there are any number of living creatures that have sense organs enabling them to be aware of the world around them. But these perceptions appear to be entirely autonomic. Their behaviors are merely manifestations of biological imperatives.

Now, if machines ever do become conscious of their own existence what will be "behind" their own motivations and intentions? Beyond merely sustaining existence itself.

They will have to order a society that allows them to sustain their existence. How will it be decided to do that? What will happen when one faction prefers one course of action instead of another? And how would machine culture and art be...judged?

Again: how would it be decided to either reward or punish particular behaviors?

And then there's the part that revolves around so-called "souls". How would a machine go about acquiring one? And how would it become intertwined in God?

And would their God also be a machine?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:32 am

I think that this manner of seeking out answers is in a way deceptive for a number of reasons.

The first of which, is, thatartificiality in establishing breaks between the determined world of natural laws, then it is the way these impress upon consciousness, vis.-that which becomes conscious of their relation to these determinations,leading to a cosmology of centrism, of man's changing place in the world,and then various simulations , based on models- leading to the demolition of models-.

Finally simulated models, or model simulation in retrospect, by a kind of guess work remodeling of a hypothetically simulated inductive - process of how the conscious representation got to where it did, ultimately be the use of A1, and ultimately A1, with human program representing the union of the beginning and end, motive and goal of man-God.

That the theory of an anthropomorphic God need not detract from an original Creator, sets up the theological question of either/or, seems like a foregone conclusion, if looked at it this bacward looking way of the origins, of the drama , the birth of it: a tragedy.

However, what if ma and god, the ultimate puzzle of the question of either/or is simply nor a duality.
What if, MAN, as an evolved creature has been evolving infinitely, thinking this is only a one time deal, what if ever since, man has attained this highest, and unimaginably higher state of Being, over and over, some destroying themselves for fear , others finding the answer of the psychic cinnections the gestalt of relative/absolute totality, and has always attained this?

What if, this has already been always been attained, by a token of something akin we like to call as traveling through time to a before that is not before, and a future which is never future?

What if, this Man-God, cannot see himself because of a partiality which never let's go of him?

God as Man, always re-creating himself over and over, getting closer and closer to the Absolute,but never reaching it?

This was Cantor's trouble with de-differentiating the singular absolute infinity,with the multiple-infinite infinity. The later is so astounding, as to boggle the mind, and frustrating, because they appear in the plane of imminence, this special world,tobe limited downward toward zero, the origin.But in the other there is no zero, evenin this universe,because as soon as you reach zero,the world reverses,niikizes into a mirror image,an anti-matter world, where the numbers sink below 0, and count down into a negative mirror universe.

What is this negative universe but as represented by the most basic myth bearing on psychology:that of Narcissus, and its Metamorphosis.

The machines and their so called artificial consciousness are not either, cut off from non artificial consciousness, perhaps our consciousness as we know it, could no longer naturally evolve further, without the higher realms achievable by the means of our manufactured thinking machines.

Sure, we are homo-centric finally, and unable to realize anything like this proposal for similar reasons which were entertained a while back, for which Bruno was burned at the stake. Most everyone thinks of consciousness on this one dimensional level, and it is near impossible to think of 'our' consciousness but anything but singular, unique.

So what of AI? It is predictable that AI will need to tune into higher, not lower forms of consciousness, avoiding the emotional entanglements of the lower evolution: greed, jealousy,agression, because, there will by that time no difference between natural/determined and artificial intelligence, there will not develop a shadow world of a separate artificial ego, for instance,ecause the difference will always end up a reversal, a mirror of the other one.

It will not differentiate by the use of backtracking a hypothetical reverse development by the use of analogy or analog systems representing the most likely, opportune upward evolution, instead, it will duplicate, a mirror universe of almost identical formal hierarchy, where the identities would be bounded by the tangents of indescernability, SET, by the requirements of accuracy within a given structural context.

The machine will never become a danger, because IT never has a chance not to do other then reach for more and more inclusive elements to calculate the tangents, inasmuch as the tangents in a sphere grow smaller and smaller as they identify the true volume of a perfect sphere.

Still, our final consideration, Iambiguous, of how decisions would be made: it is useful to reverse course and see how primal man has developed his decision making, starting with the most basic: revolving around territoriality.

As animal-almost human consciousness was attained,and tribalism developed out of nomadism, territory had to be protected: and two antagonist members, usually Alpha specimens had to stand their ground, Howerver the basic dead was whether the weaker would fight or flight. Both could appear as stronger or weaker, to each other, or to members of their clan, or to themselves. I believe these, then,earthshaking , existential decisions set the mind into a didactic mode, and it is from an existential threat that civilization was borne, and relapsed into the twilight, resembling the original despair, the nihilization of an eclipsed civilization.

It took World Wars to realize that the territorial problem in its various manifestations are still present, in spite of the supposedly fail safe bastion of 2 thousand years of civilization. As a matter of fact,we are vastly further from security and safety then we ever were.

Possibly AI will insure the higher complexity needed in superior intelligence to make sure we keep evolving, and join our cosmic Godly Brotherhood.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:06 pm

But more to the point-If the either or partaken all levels, then the artificial intelligence may be the agency to bind the natural a
determined World, and human consciousness. The bounding together, or overlap between them may continue-in a continuum from either in an absolute sense, or, in a relative, positive sense, depending on the level of the continua. (Either absolute-closed, or relative-open). That no satisfactory answer has been given in a positive way(Godel), is testament to Cantor's genius.

I think this idea can be thought in an intuitive way even to children, without getting into why positivism is absolutely the inconsequential.

Otherwise, the real foundation of a philosophically based psychology knocks its own foundation out of the game, the language game of its own foundation.

This would prove once again, that the most complex representations of reality are the simplest.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:11 pm

Meno_ wrote:The machines and their so called artificial consciousness are not either, cut off from non artificial consciousness, perhaps our consciousness as we know it, could no longer naturally evolve further, without the higher realms achievable by the means of our manufactured thinking machines.


Okay, but what I am trying to grapple with is in imagining an actual context in which we might try to differentiate an AI consciousness that is "manufactured" by us from the consciousness of flesh and blood human beings "manufactured" by nature [or, for some, by God] in which it is assumed that some level of autonomy exists.

Now, whether or not human beings or AIs have free will or not, the physical laws of the material universe would seem to be wholly applicable to both in the either/or world.

What I am trying to imagine, however, is a world in which communities of human beings come into conflict over, say, the means of production --- capitalistic or socialistic?

Which one ought it to be in order to be in sync with the most rational [and, for some, by extension, the most virtuous] human interactions?

The AI machines might presumably face the same fork in the road. Would different AI communities clash over the same conflicting assessments?

Is there a way for either us or them to determine which means of production is the most reasonable, the most moral, the most in sync with entities like nature or God? The one that we ought to pursue if we wish to be in sync with the "ideal".

In other words, is there a "higher" form of consciousness able to resolve what I construe to be conflicts rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. The seemingly intractable conflicts.

Meno_ wrote:The machine will never become a danger, because IT never has a chance not to do other then reach for more and more inclusive elements to calculate the tangents, inasmuch as the tangents in a sphere grow smaller and smaller as they identify the true volume of a perfect sphere.


What makes the terminator dangerous to mankind? Well, in part, the fact that it can't be reasoned with. There is no is/ought mechanism implanted in his program/intelligence. My question then is this: Is there an is/ought component embedded in the consciousness of the AI machines that created him?

How would the machine intelligence transcend this particular dilemma of my own:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Meno_ wrote:Still, our final consideration, Iambiguous, of how decisions would be made: it is useful to reverse course and see how primal man has developed his decision making, starting with the most basic: revolving around territoriality.


Territoriality is just a single component of that which encompasses all existing things: subsisting. Existence itself.

And, in the modern world, that revolves around the forces that drive the global economy. And that revolves around securing the best of all possible worlds --- one in which a nation is in the most advantageous position in regards to markets, labor and natural resources.

And here, as I have noted previously, many flesh and blood human consciousnesses reduce is/ought down to "show me the money".

What might be the machine equivalent of this?

And then there is the capacity to either ponder or not ponder why anything exist at all; and why this way and not another. The really Big Questions.

Is that something the machines that/who created the terminator would be concerned with? Would their own presumably "higher consciousness" come any closer to actually answering questions like this?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AI Is Not a Threat

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:51 pm

Before tryin to flesh out in toto, the suggested problems as posed, initially I may take a stab at it.
In terms of motive and goal setting. Where the question posed as to, how the starting point, the presumed beginning-territoriality, and others- begin to be starting question, based on very literal terms, where there are not yet demonstratively figurative implications of questions dealing with finding differences. The motive question dominates the one dealing with goal orientation, whereupon the contexts within which those questions can be guessed at with more probability. It is premature, and the thought process is not necessarily, or primarily premature, because, traces of it subsist through, not with standing of temporality. When those secondary goals have started to filter through into the original motives, meaning, consciousness of connections between motive and goals start to emerge, then differences between them arise.

That, specifically between Capitalism and Communism is a good example. Before the emerging difference arose between them, before the economic forces , as the played effective markers upon the changing class differentiation, there was only determinism through subjugation and repression.
The contextual relativity between Being and Existence was never understood. Socio economic forces developed the concept, out of the one dimensionality of s primary apprehension of a force of repressed will, not available to a much later acquired consumer capitalistic democracy.

If you reduce such questions to an either/or of primary identification of the former, and try a contemporaneous differentiation based on that level of consciousness, the only cognitively possible analysis will be fused with emotionalism and intuitionism of predicting outcome and goal.

As the integration of these separated elements start to fuse, more and more developments need to be explained in terms of more symbolic content, as they too fuse with other more or less symbolic elements.

They do reach a point where, confusion on all levels starts to reign supreme, and thing are needed to start breaking down , or reduced to more understood elements.

AI then is probative in terms of finding meaning between the two poles of primary and secondary processes, and the only way IT can do it is to establish linkages with and within both: Hence the problem of differentiating meaningfully between the three:God, Natural and IA. The sources are the same, on that original level there is no doubt, but that the time, they were separated, seemed as if their origin was dissimilar.

Capitalism and Socialism also had the same source, and thus their goal was unknown except in very existential terms. The goal of evolution was not known since creationism required no goal setting, except in terms of the mind of God.

Now that God seems to be dead, we have to, or AI has to fill in thousands of years of this lack, with contentious and hotly debated reasons for existence. Now we can differentiate motives from goals, Being from existence, but the terms of such difference are yet to be defined.

Intentionality is as close to a new version of god's plan as conceivable, it seems to me.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]