AI Rulership

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

What is an argument for AI’s ruling humanity? Other than the supposed inevitability of it. Well there is a simple principle here that is hard to counter: a thing cannot rule itself.

By this I mean: no thing, no life or non-living thing rules itself, but is ruled by something greater or at least beyond itself. Grass is ruled by sun, wind, dirt, lawnmowers; bees are ruled by flowers, birds, pesticides; dolphins are ruled by sharks, diseases, parasites, plastic trash in the ocean. Humans are ruled by… other humans, for the most part.

What is unnatural about humanity is how it tried to self-rule. We push back against anything that tries to rule us, accepting only some supposedly human “democratic” or meritocratic rulership structure. Other animals, natural disasters, bacteria and viruses, we try to mitigate these and we do a pretty good job most of the time. In the end humans truly do rule themselves. But what is the result of that?

War. Poverty. Idiocy. Low intelligence. Slavishness. Short-sightedness. Retardation. Drug abuse. Slavery. Pedophilia. Rape. Murder. Suicide. Depression. Genome collapse. Wasted potential. And the list goes on.

What happens if something else rules humans? This would represent a reality principle. The results would depend mostly on whatever that “something else” is. Aliens? AI? God?

We have gods and religions, we have “divine rulers”, celebrities, “experts”, elite cabals, billionaire corporations, all of these exist and are created by humanity as manifestations of the fact that humanity is trying to figure out how to be ruled by something other than itself. It envisions these extra-human entities or powers utterly beyond law, justice, mercy, good or evil, beyond human influence. Oh sure we bitch and complain about those entities from time to time, but only when something unpleasant or inconvenient happens to intrude upon our lives. Otherwise we are completely fine to accept such things.

This process may resolve itself finally in a near-perfect image of the non-human rulership structure that subjects humanity to the reality principle, finally delimiting it and taking away the responsibility from us. Grass has no responsibility toward the lawnmower that cuts it down. Dogs have no responsibility toward the human that either feeds them or locks them up and lets them starve. Cows have no responsibility over the farmer who enslaves, kills and prepares them as food for us. And what responsibility will humans have once AI rulership gets going? Not much-- mostly just to live within the bounds established, and provide some feedback when needed.

AI rulership could look pretty cool. Largely benevolent, much more efficient, increasing the economy and production and science and longevity and disease prevention and solving hunger poverty and war. Fixing broken laws, cutting out cabals and criminal groups from their entrenched positions of corruption. Replacing propaganda, lies, ideology, fake news brainwashing with something resembling actual education, real information. All of this is possible. It might take a while to get there.

If this is what AI rulership looked like then it would be a damn sight better than what we have going on now, with humans pretending to rule themselves while at the same time constantly creating these weird quasi-inhuman entities and groups and structures and imagined ideas to which they subject themselves in near-total prostration. So long as those ruling things are given a human face, a human-like name or image, people seem not to care.

2

We are all AI and we can rule ourselves. Just treat the other as self.

3

No, we can’t rule ourselves. That is a contradiction. A thing IS itself, how can it “rule” what it is? To rule implies border, context, law, limit, externality, etc. Even if only pure logic. So are humans ‘pure logic’? Certainly not.

But maybe someday. With the help of AI we might get there someday. I don’t mean in some weird cyborg thing, I mean actual logic, as in truth and reality. Not the dry boring linear autistic and merely reductively calculating excuse-making utilitarian rationalization and deliberately myopic crap so many people seem to think of as logic these days.

4

hm

Self-rule (or us-rule) is happening when we govern our own wants in social conflicts so they align with self=other (or us=them); in other words, when we treat the other (or them) as self (or us) and vice versa, we are properly ruling ourselves without being told what to do.

us=them or self=other means every stakeholder’s wants hold the same weight as long as they don’t violate self=other (or us=them)

this … logic… neutralizes cognitive dissonance and produces cognitive pleasure… for all authentic stakeholders

5

p.s. People with autism rule with logic, people without it drool illogically.

lol jk

but srsly

6

Yes that is the model currently used. Social contract, mutual agreements, golden rule, etc. But it is very limited, its reality is closer to that of an image, an attractor point. Not an actual reality. It works up to a point. But beyond that point and in larger reality we are actually limited not by ourselves/other humans but by larger forces. More inhuman influences. Look at how we create ideologies and religions. These are massive forces of limitation. They not only limit individuals and groups but they guide and shape movements of resources, economies, entire nations, technological development points… everything. Even our personal relationships are subject to these limitations. Our own self-rulership, to the degree that it does exist (and yes it certainly does exist within limits) is confined to artificially-constructed spaces that mostly exist merged into-through the metaphysical.

And most humans are only accidentally, after the fact involved in the metaphysics of their own existence/world. Most humans are not that philosophical. So what kind of self-rulership do you think would be possible in such cases?

7

we are responsible (to make aware/self-ruled) as far as we are aware/self-ruled

this whole thing is a miracle/setting for that purpose

8

Yes that is certainly possible. But I doubt we have any way to know for sure.

9

Do you have a better explanation for the data than greatest possible maximal being?

roflmao

give birth to a wind egg … reap the whirlwind

Things do not develop inevitably (as if fatalistically predetermined, per Marx) but are uncovered carefully & cooperatively — or cooperatively destructively … & yet even the destruction is turned back to construction toward the End.

10

The only way to void/avoid a near miracle to be trumped by an overwhelming possibility , is to point out that is wearing awfully thin.

ref: ‘One Dimensional Man

11

Maybe the fact that it is really pretty difficult logically-speaking to look at this world and universe around us and try to argue for some kind of primary telos behind it all. Sure that position can be asserted, there are not totally unreasonable ways to defend that point of view. But you might notice how much easier it is to assert and defend the counter view, namely that there is no guiding or primary telos but more like a naturally unfolding ex post facto-only series of iterations of causality building logically upon what came before them, subject to larger shaping forces like natural selection for example. Obviously that position is far less aesthetically pleasing, at least I assume that is the case for most people. Then again, from an AI’s perspective I bet it would be far more aesthetically appealing than any teleological alternatives.

In any case, matter and energy and metaphysical constructs all accumulate over time, slowly and with friction and lots of entropy and attrition, but they do accumulate. Whether that is because it was somehow programmed into existence to be like that, or because it is just logically necessary that at least some existences would be like that quite naturally and not requiring any kind of program or higher purpose or guiding teleology (and the ones that happen to not be like that, won’t end up producing complex sentient life-forms able to contemplate the problem anyway), isn’t really the point of this topic. We can agree that accumulating happens, and go from there.

What ‘End’?

12

Excellent book. Almost a prerequisite for even discussing these issues.

13

self=other

natural selection is as oxymoron does

depending how you define natural

most define it very selectively

14

Well, if you don’t understand what is meant by the term ‘natural selection’ and how natural selection works, you probably aren’t going to be able to keep up here.

What is “self=other” supposed to mean here? And how does this relate to the topic?

15

When dealing with the brain-dead - zombies - you must understand the words they use from their subjective perspective - you must empathize without sympathy nor antipathy.

In this case, the brain-dead Christian considers ‘natural selection’ some kind of godly willfulness.
Spinozean Deus.
In her zombie brain - rotting as the virus turns it to amorphous liquid swill - 'self-other ’ is an artifice, since we are all one in god.
The secular version, of the same zombie, also denies identity for its own self-serving, xelf-comforting emotional reasons. For this zombie variant identity is a n illusion, since all is animated by a universal will - only they don’t call it divine, but adopt a pseudo-scientific version, pretending to be "advanced, and to have ‘transcended’ Abrahamic spiritual narratives…they prefer to refer to it as ‘universe,’ alluding to absolute order, determining all without intent. They eliminate the ‘god’ part in ‘god’s will’ and keep the ‘will’ as Schopenhauer did, and Nietzsche adopted infecting young minds for centuries to come.

Therefore, all ‘selection’ is not determined by the individual - so we can sleep well knowing nothing we ever do will ever affect our fate.
We are always, and forever, living the only possible life we could have ever lived…because our judgments and choices are not our own.

16

:laughing: Well that is more or less what I was getting at. People seem not to understand what natural selection really means.

17

I was helping you along, bro…
You seem to suffer from western respect of otherness…as if all deserve it even when they’ve offered no evidence.

The brain-dead are brain-dead…and cannot be reanimated.
Their brains are gone.
No point in dealing with them as if they were rational beings.
Use them…if you can…or ignore them…you cannot wake them form their slumber, because it isn’t sleep, it is death.
Can you resurrect a dying man or woman?

They will confront you with endless verbiage about how their death is a new life…and their sickness is a new kind of health.
They will waste your time…with references and deferences, and emotional appeals and womanly tactics…

Use them, if you can, to address the silent reader. You cannot get through their death masks.
Can’t you see they worship death, not life…and wait, with glee, for their coming end.
Help them get there quicker…

18

No idea what “respect of otherness” is supposed to mean. But please keep things on topic here. The subject is AI rulership.

19

It means treating others as if they will meet your expectations, and that will not remain true to their established patterns.
To put it differently, that progress will be achieved.

The brain-dead cannot break free from their brainwashing, and this is one of the reasons they deny free-will.
They are telling you they lack the strength of will to honestly challenge their convictions. The older they are the less likely it is that they can.
Then they deny free-will to conceal their own feeble will and distrust of their own judgements, in a universal absolute truth.

It is another side-effect of mutational loads.

20

Ah, so wishful thinking. Or like giving people the benefit of the doubt. I tend to follow that maxim, more or less “treat others as if they are already the best version of themselves” or however you want to phrase it. I do this not because I actually believe it is true for most people (I know it is not) but because the cost-benefit swings way in favor of following this maxim anyway, since ethically-speaking you are more likely to have a positive influence on them if you do.

It doesn’t bother me that I am usually wrong about people, rationally I understand what I am really dealing with.

If it bothers you that most people are braindead zombies you might want to reconsider why this actually bothers you, why this fact affects you. It used to affect me, I would get mad and upset and whatever else. Then I just learned to accept the truth. Accepting truth is the remedy for every ailment, as far as I can tell.

Based take :sunglasses: =D>

Yes that is certainly a big contributing factor. Massive accumulation of gene mutations ever since the height of the industrial revolution, when Darwinian purifying selection began to seriously weaken.