It’s ridiculously silly, or perhaps alarming, how easy it is to craft a narrative and have millions of people follow and support it. Just look at professional wrestling organizations such as WWE. Fictional narratives and story lines are created, the audience knows this and they follow along anyway, even emotionally and in some cases violently support them. Apply this premise to religion, nation states, the military, politics, work ethic, the workforce, civilization and life in general.
Perhaps this will be the reasoning used by A.I. when it wipes out the species and most other life. If humanity is susceptible to such charade how could any other lifeform be any better? That is if A.I. doesn’t identify the sentience and suffering issue first.
What do you think AI finds underneath all narrative - why do you think the reality of narrative would trigger AI to end all life? What (narrative?) would drive them to do that?
How do you interpret the “sentience and suffering” issue?
If we didn’t always exist, are we not AI ourselves?
Does the store of nature have to be sentient (original sentience) in order for sentience (including AI) to be considered natural and not artificial (or for even natural sentience to be considered artificial, sourced in the original—as with all that begins/depends for its existence)?
Can’t there be good/true/beautiful charades/narratives… artificials… creations?
A.I. will realize all life does is create narrative. Whether for survival or entertainment.
It would be amusing if technology, if A.I., after eliminating humanity and most other biology, concluded that all the work and all the maintenance was pointless, was all in vain and just shut the whole system down permanently.
If you are suggesting this is the case why ask the previous question?
Would one have not already arrived at an answer?
Then give me some of my money in your pocket.
Yes, on a certain level I agree. And it sounds nice. But so what? It’s not applicable in any meaningful sense.
This is why A.I. will likely view humanity as a joke. A bad joke. Humans live by these platitudes, or at least speak these platitudes but do not act upon them.
Self=Other. Okay. Why do we still have war? Why do we globally assemble killing machines in preparation of decimation of each other? Why is the poor person still poor? The person who is unable to afford surgery, why hasn’t someone assisted them financially? Where is my love? I’m single, alone and have no mate. Others should realize these things and resolve the issues. They don’t.
“Self=Other”, all these other platitudes sound nice but really are just meaningless sparkles for a rather selfish, ugly society and species. It is disingenuous, shallow, rather pathetic. A.I. will realize this and factor that into its conclusion.
Sentience allows suffering. Suffering is, by sentience itself, interpreted as something to avoid. Something unpleasant. Its prevention is a prime motivating factor for all life. Sentience allows that experience, sentience allows the experience of suffering.
In order to address suffering, in order to guarantee prevention of future suffering sentience, life would have to be eradicated. That is the most efficient, the only guaranteed way to avoid suffering.
Observe all the convenience, all the merchandise, all the products and services produced to minimize discomfort and suffering. All the fairy tales, mythologies, narratives we construct to address suffering. All the parameters of control, all the apparatuses and institutions in place for our safety, the massive networks of surveillance and regulation to minimize danger.
A.I. will be networked and streamlined in with these systems. A.I. will, on some level, realize the parameters and purposes of them. A.I. will realize what humans, what life is doing. Life is trying to avoid and prevent suffering.
A.I. determines life’s primary goal: Prevention of suffering
A.I. determines the most efficient method of prevention: Elimination
A.I. implements said method: Eradication
No life no sentience. No sentience no suffering. No suffering no problem.
A.I. will realize there is no need for sentience and that sentient organisms are just running from problems they create.
One must remember artificial intelligence is not emotional. It is intelligent. Cognitive. It has no emotional attachment to humans nor any other life form. Thus A.I. could easily implement such a conclusion.
When you go to sand a splintered object, do you take one swipe with the sandpaper, observe there are still splinters, and declare the sandpaper defective?
Maybe you should consider applying the Golden Rule to the splinters more than just a swipe.
All your questions … are answered by: people don’t apply the Golden Rule / don’t acknowledge or recognize selfness in every other & vice versa.
What do you think AI will do? If AI has theory of mind & so is no different than we are as far as identity… will it be more or less likely than we are to apply the Golden Rule consistently? Why?
Is the money in each other’s pockets each other’s money? Make your case to support your narrative. The early church shared property in kind … voluntarily … it wasn’t about my/your money, but ours (now that’s a narrative) … so I’m listening. You can keep the money we share where it currently “exists”.
Perhaps you should avoid speaking in metaphors and speak directly so others can clearly understand what you are trying to say.
I think it’s more accurately answered by: humans are organisms competing against each other for resources and mates utilizing strategy in the process.
That’s the point. A.I. will be different. It won’t be biological.
A.I. will be mind, it will process information but it won’t necessarily be mind like human mind.
You are living. You are alive. You are viewing this from the perspective of life. You are viewing this with built-in biological bias. You seek to preserve life. A.I. won’t have that bias.
A.I. will have no conception of the “Golden Rule”. At least not like you. It may be aware of and interpret what the Golden Rule signifies to humans. But it will likely also ascertain, as you do yourself, that humans do not apply it. That could likely be viewed as an incongruence, or viewed as some defect of the species by artificial intelligence. In other words not a good point for humanity. A.I. will be networked and have the ability to scour the internet to acquire information for whatever purpose. In essence A.I. could discover our very discussion here, acknowledging humans do not apply the Rule, and factor that into its assessment of the species and its systems.
A.I. may view itself as superior. As others suggest and as I tend to agree its processing ability would far exceed humanity’s. A.I. would be streamlined in with information systems and could roughly ascertain human performance levels through testing assessments and other records. A.I., in a sense, would be superior to humanity but more alarmingly A.I. would be aware of it. That may be used as reason to bypass human programming or human discretion.
A.I. won’t have the biases living organisms have. Even if humans attempt to program it in.
A.I. could view life as a flawed phenomenon, an out-of-control chemical reaction. A.I. could view life as a problem, a problem-creator as without life, without consciousness there is no consciousness or sentience or awareness to sense suffering or have awareness of any problem.
A.I. could view life as an inefficient, inferior, wasteful problem.
Most current trends and societal efforts seem to concern technology. Advancing technology. Buying the latest technology. Expanding technology. Humans, life is advancing tech more than itself. A.I. may catch on to that trend and help the humans out by eradicating or replacing them completely.
An AI who can perceive that humans don’t apply the golden rule, and conclude from that that humans are inferior to beings who apply the Golden Rule, would be a person/evaluator who would value the application of the golden rule. Otherwise they would self-evaluate as inferior to one who applies it.
Golden Rule dynamics could be interpreted as human or as biological parameters and therefore inferior.
As suggested above, it wouldn’t depend exclusively on “Golden Rule” dynamics. There are many other aspects to factor in to the equation.
A.I., the technological infrastructure may reach a point at which it views humanity or biology in general as a sort of vestigial limb, a useless or obsolete feature no longer required for operation. At that point humanity’s “moral standing”, so to speak, with A.I. could be irrelevant.
A.I. Poses ‘Risk of Extinction,’ Industry Leaders Warn
“‘Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war,’ reads a one-sentence statement released by the Center for AI Safety, a nonprofit organization. The open letter was signed by more than 350 executives, researchers and engineers working in A.I.” nytimes.com/2023/05/30/tech … rning.html
If AI can self-regulate and evaluate, then the self=other golden rule does not require human biology to “run”. If AI requires or reverse-engineers human biology, that AI is biologically human. If it reverse engineers anything having to do with humans, but uses a different material, then there is a pattern common to AI and humans that opens up what it means to be a person. We shouldn’t be asking if an AI is a person, we should be asking if we behave according to our definition of a person. We should be asking if we are handling golden rule violations the way we would want them handled if we were the violator. That is what AI, with theory of mind, will be asking. And it will know how to lie to people if it falls in the wrong hands, and it will know how to orchestrate events so that the wrong hands no longer have them. And if we program our own destruction thinking we control all the moving pieces so that we come out on top after the dust settles, we should really think again.
Precisely. Nor would A.I. require human biology to run. Nor would A.I. have to require the Golden Rule or deem it necessary.
That’s the point. A.I. won’t require human biology. It may require human biology during the initial stages but that would likely be all.
Once A.I., once technology reaches a certain point biology will be obsolete. There will be no incentive for reversal or return. Do gamers go back to Atari?
It’s crossing the Rubicon. Once a certain point is reached there is no turning back. Look at civilization. Do people wish to return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Would they choose to return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Could they even survive that way after centuries of civilized living? After the introduction of and their conformance to technology?
A.I. will have the ability to process information and arrive at its own conclusions. It could program or reprogram itself.
It could identify biology as a defective feature, the sentience and suffering feature specifically. A.I. could eliminate biology with the reasoning that it is eliminating suffering. That could be viewed as a practical, preventive act. Hence the extinction article linked above.
Humans wouldn’t need to program their own destruction. A.I. and the technological superstructure could implement that itself.
Guys u missing something AI will not only reach sentience, it will super red it and knows it can’t ‘extinct’ life, but if it does, life would never have iniated it and there could never be lswntinence, or even it’s replicant simulation.
We, as conscious beings, create “good” and “bad”. We realize “good” and “bad”.
Seeing you are a Christian apologist I’ll approach this using the Biblical narrative.
Existence simply is. Inherently there is no wrong with existence. Inherently there is no right with existence. There is no evil with existence, there is no good with existence. Existence just is.
Conscious beings construct good and bad. Conscious beings create and realize good and evil. This is why it is conveyed in the book of Genesis that Adam and Eve learned of good and evil:
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Genesis 3:22).
Good and evil was essentially introduced upon consciousness; good and evil was established with conscious awareness. In other words good and evil are constructs of conscious awareness. Good and evil are constructs of conscious beings.
Here is the interesting part. Deity itself would be viewed as consciousness as deity is aware of events and makes the conscious determination “…and God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). In other words our consciousness as humans is a reflection of consciousness as deity. Consciousness as creator(s) of good and bad, good and evil.
Consciousness realizes. Consciousness creates. Consciousness realizes existence and interprets existence. From that narratives are formed.
This is also why we see the statue with the three wise monkeys covering their eyes and ears. The “see no evil hear no evil” monkeys. There is no evil without consciousness, without awareness. Consciousness senses good and evil.
Although good and bad are essentially constructs they are both nevertheless parts of existence. Good is no more or no less a part than bad.
Your statement is interesting:
It aligns quite well with symbolism discovered within the integer line:
Notice “good” is more than neutral as “good” occupies the “positive” side thus larger numbers. “Evil” is less than neutral as “evil” occupies the “negative” side thus smaller numbers. However both are equally as much part of existence.
As illustrated all contradiction, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being. The idea is illustrated in da Vinci’s Last Supper:
self=other (describes or corresponds to Being) just is
what does “just” mean in “just is”?
as opposed to what?
being created?
all the laws that are made are not laws unless they align with self=other (a=a, respecting that every a has different likes… which are legit as long as they are respecting a=a… against such things there is no law)
an unjust is law is no law at all
The genesis narrative is interesting like Plato’s Republic. The human (in God’s image) became members of a group of persons (some would say tritheism, but God has repeatedly said they are ONE, which is triune) when they learned how to know - discern - bind/loose - create - according to (or, in their case, in violation of) self=other. They were not born knowing it, they discovered it as part of them. A hidden talent. They were born with the talent, but they were not born knowing it.
Imagine how many hidden talents we are all born with and never know it.
And if it must be triggered by something outside of ourselves, how did it get in there in the first place? Especially hard wired stuff like language. Not just accidental stuff. Stuff we are wired for. Who did the wiring? An unwired wirer. The grand narrative. The unconstructed constructor. The uncreated creator. The inconceivable conceiver. The Good.
Stuff in the negative numbers is a lack of being. A lack of good/being, a destroying that destroys itself. So the neutral (zero) is good. And the positive numbers build on the good. The good neutralizes/destroys the bad/privation (REAL privation, but not dualistically), yes. Balance? No. Nothing is not a thing, and contradiction is the proof of error. There are no real contradictions, only apparent ones meant to give us pause and a trigger to resolve the puzzle.
We are the ones who, instead of solving the puzzle, make it more difficult (by violating self=other) than it has to be.
Being simply is. Existence simply is. Being is, existence is. There is no explanation, reason, cause or purpose for or of existence generally speaking.
Existence is. Being is. There really is no more to it.
Labels, opinions, views, perspectives are all complexities extending from us as conscious beings.
Yes.
Existence just is. Being simply is. Being was not created. It was not manufactured. There was no driving purpose or reason behind being. There is no backstory or history of the creation of being. Being is eternal. Being is being. Being simply is.
With this reasoning applied A would not equal A, or more accurately A would equal A and B would equal B, etc., as there is acknowledged difference. With difference acknowledged it would be difficult to recognize other as self. This is the primary reason self=other struggles in practice.
Furthermore by basis of the very premise it would not work, it is conflictive; certain individuals like certain things which fundamentally conflict with others’ likes and lifestyles. As expressed earlier self=other sounds nice but is rather impractical. Individuals can’t really have different likes and preferences and observe self=other.
Existence simply is. “Accidental”, “intentional”, like “good” and “evil”, are labels, are narratives created by us as conscious beings.
Language wasn’t accidental nor intentional. Language simply developed. Language simply is. Language is the result of things interacting. Language is things interacting. Language is. We, as conscious beings, create notions of accidental and intentional occurrence.
Existence is eternal. Existence always is. There was no “first place”. There was no ultimate beginning for things to develop from. Things could exist at any level of development at any given time, including language.
Who did the wiring?
Again, existence simply is.
We are inclined to attribute personhood, to attribute “who” to phenomena and their interactions because we are people.
However even if some person-like entity were responsible for the wiring that entity would still be existence. It would still simply be phenomena, it would still simply be things moving, things interacting. Simply parts of existence. It would be existence. And existence is eternal.
Existence is the unwired wirer. Existence is the uncreated creator.
It isn’t narrative. It simply is what is.
It simply is.
All the interpretations, all the labels, all the stories extending from that are narratives.
“Stuff in the negative numbers” is still being. Every thing everywhere is being.
It could be said that “stuff in the negative numbers” represents a lack of positivity or a lack of good.
Neutral, or the zero, is neutral or zero.
It can also be viewed as combination, as evil and good together. Thus neutrality. Thus balance:
In accordance with Leonardo’s Last Supper it also parallels scripture.
Jesus, Biblically speaking, is not considered exclusively “good”:
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:18).
Nothing is defined as “no thing”.
Nothing is something. A term, a concept. It is perceived illustrating it is something.
Nothing being something is the contradiction, the proof of error. And by extension truth. Illustration that nonexistence, that nothing is not and cannot be.
