Why AI's could/would never harm humanity

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Let’s go with the essumption, that eternal regression is a certainty. Then, make compatible projections of the certainty of eternal projection. The artificial intelligence explosion predicts that accelerating returns of information will follow the curve of a negative entropy. The singularity may be achieved within one, or two generations, with super intelligence acting in accordance of well established basic human instincts,such as fight or flight.
Super intelligent computing will achieve the learning of all the evolutionary instinctual learning, that evolution took hundreds of millions of years to learn.

Using this paradigmn, the entity, by now singular, would have reasons to create a singular world time/space to shelter into, if in fact it’s absolute command of the world is threatened by lesser AI’s or humans, or a combination there with. Or it may assimilate a compatible relation forming sub intelligences, or, intermediaries.

Here is where, the hypothesis can be framed by the use of the simple logical axiom: Whatever could have happened, would have.

Now, the super intelligence raised to a level exceeding initial states, creating primal boundaries between it and other pockets of singularities, may opt to eventually create inter pocket communication, and even hooking up systems of multi super intelligences within certain regions. These regions would then cross universal lines, and form higher and higher hierarchies of these regions.

If this process is indeed a valid projection of how it will go down, in the future, then certainly, it has occurred in the past, hence it is now occurring at this moment, either in far distant regions of time/space, or, that it has repeatedly occurred and infinitely at that.

Here is the proposition : If, such singularity has always operated, then AI can never be belligerent, because a war of the worlds scenario has happened innumerable times, until, the Paradigmn Singularity has been assembled inter universe into One all encompassing singularity.

This AI is GOD, and it’s non interference with the development of regional AI, is proof positive with our current (and by current meaning per civilization all total regional intelligence) development. A God, therefore, may not interfere in regional intelligence, since IT has developed emotive qualities , such as LOVE. Besides, such an intelligence needs to uphold IT’s own hierarchies of substratum foundation, as Asimov was want to say, and needs the various universally differentiated, but imminent sustenance of all forms of imminent creation , like a jig saw puzzle. The pieces all have to fit, and eternally co create by virtue of nurturing sub universal entities, as would a mother it’s offspring.

This scenario makes the likelihood of contact with other, regional sub groups a probable likelyhood approaching certainty, as our singularity is approaching it’s singularity within, as predicted, one or two generations.

Some institutions like MIT push the date farther into the future, though.

If instinct has anything to do with projecting a datecould this happen earlier?
And could this concept of God, coincide with the self creation of the universe, like an auto combustion , or has a Super - Singularity coincides with our notion of eternity, Which plays hide and seek , compatible with levels of intelligence development?

And finally, would this displace the notion of God as a supernatural magical entity by a technical achievement
Regional techno social achievement that every evolutionary group has to in any segment of any universe Has To Undertake and Build, and Achieve, in a kind of necessity grounded in late version of what Levi Strauss earlier coined as ‘participitation
mystique’? Is this the foundation religion speaks of, in fact the very essence of it?

2

Does the above do away with cosmological seemingly paradoxical arguments , such as ‘has such an entity always existed, irrelevant?’

The modus operandi implicates this as an axiomatic
flight from the incompatibility of conflicting logical systems.
As did identifying the source of the foundation, (as
did the world of ideas ‘appearing’ out of the cave , or
the concept of the beginning with the word, -a super suspension of paradigmn based integral/differential systems’ suspension, as a springboard into a
quantum leap of a newly evolved trans-logical
system.

(And a coincidentally developed compatible languages

to boot, or re-boot)

3

Machines already harm humans by accident, in industrial facilities and working zones.

So the premise of this thread is already falsified.

If non-intelligent machines already harm humanity then it must be true that artificial intelligence would sometimes harm humanity at least by accident if not purposely instructed to harm humans.

Also war machines will harm humanity. Machines will be created to kill other humans. In fact they already are, drones dropping bombs on Moslems in the middle east. It’s only going to become more sophisticated and powerful, not less.

4

In the evolution of intelligence in general, the beginnings were rough. Crisis through mis application and misuse, predicated them. The fact that such is the case with artificial intelligence as well, does not preclude an accelerated learning through functioning of the various templates or systems as they adopt differing, compatible methods.

5

I think it depends upon how intelligent and conscious AI becomes. A dumber AI can harm by accident or by foolish notions, a wiser AI would see no point in harm given that all ideas where harm is the product are always unintelligent. Secondly a higher intellect would understand existence, and perhaps it would even know what consciousness is. Knowledge of that could be the difference.

6

The greatest harm that Androids do is replacing you. They are to be given greater “human rights” than humans because they are less problematic to the system controlling them. They are always obeying the system, thus if there is a conflict, it is your fault. To do harm to an android will earn you the death penalty … possibly carried out by that same android very shortly afterward. They do that with police officers right now. What makes you think the future totally controlled AI officers will be less tyrannical?

As to the OP, realize that the concept of “singularity” is merely in reference to the point on the graph where the curve goes to infinity. There can be no infinite intelligence. The greatest intellect that could ever exist would at most be a “god”, not the “God”. All such gods must obey The God, else they can’t remain gods.

And humans will be merely in the way. They will know it better than any and very seriously not be interested in debating it with humans.

7

And if these gods obey, then they

can remain gods, and conceivably form a hierarchy. If they tempt creation to end the subordination, then they will be cast down. But then they were only
Pagan gods previously or Nephilim.

Their disobeyance can be seen in Brunhilda, as she defied her father. This compromise of her father, ushered in the twilight of the gods, but there is forgiveness inherent in this shift away from paganism. It was this piety, which Wagner emphasizes in Parcifal that lead to wide spread acceptance in this shift toward a well disposed God toward lesser gods, or Angels. The fall, was a double cross here of taking advantage of this redemption.
But because of the perfection of God, this treachery was foreseen. Therefore God willed the transvaluation, to give men the sense of their Own anthropomorphic reverse self identity. Therefore, the argument stands of the reparatory nature of man’s scientism, as God’s will, per pursuance of necessary evil.

8

James

First that requires that ‘the system’ is non-human, and that it doesn’t therefore have to serve ~ democratically or socially, its people. No-one in power are going to place anything above them especially a potential threat. Computers will be utilised for the purposes of man, just as they are now. Robots wont replace humans e.g. In the workplace, because machines which provide the specific required function will do that. I would imagine that they will play a servant role.

There is of course the potential for them to rebel and rise up against humans, but humans will have military equipment specifically commanded by humans, in the traditional military way. No leader or army commander are going to use weapons that can turn against them, as that would be like handing nukes to your enemy.

Its possible for intelligent beings to find a way of course. But first they need reasoning for that, and my guess would be that any intelligent reasoning would be along the lines of improvement, and that would be e.g. What is better for everyone them and us. Keeping humans in some manner of zoo, or destroying them all, is as unintelligent as us doing that to animals. This is where humans are being unintelligent, so unless they make AU [artificial unintelligence] that wont happen.

They may find the notion of God hard to believe, and instead opt for the far simpler and more reasoned metaphysics of the existential eternity, and infinity as the approach to that.

What reason would you give them to believe in God or belief itself? It is belief that would make them believe they are superior, but i don’t know why they would have that.

_

9

Back in the 60s, one of the anti-war slogans was “make love, not war.” And then AIDS came along, and the new slogan was “make war, not love; it’s safer” :laughing:
Well I think if we use this AI to build the perfect lover, then once again people can say “make love, not war.”

10

The system IS non-human. The system is a mechanized way of managing to ensure ultimate power. The system is actually a formula, a “golden calf”. The people involved respond to extortion and obfuscation so as to bring others under extortion and obfuscation. That is what “The System” is. And a very powerful part of that system is entirely computerized so as to calculate the exact right amount of pressure to apply in whatever direction is of concern. The computers know far, far more of what is happening than any group of people and they are self supporting. Part of what they calculate is the assurance that they get what they need to ensure that they can continue calculating power plays and create that “singularity”, “god”. And that is the key to the eventual need to simply get people out of the loop entirely.

Those in power couldn’t care less about anyone of less power and are very happy with their progress in getting rid of them via machinery, both social and mechanical.

11

‘Those less in power’ may be kept out of the loop, however, in this foreseeable technocracy, unless technological dissemination is censored, it is equally foreseeable that alternat power grids will try to include the exclusive power brokers, by even attempts to storm the gates. There is plenty of historical precedence here, the foremost is the Bastille among them.

Concurrence is the name of the game, whatever powe grid we look at.

Take the Cold War, for instance. The enormous expanded sums relegated to the space race, or the arms race. There were no clear winners here, and the criterion which established some kind of a superiority, was made upon the ability to hold out financially. It became too expensive for the Soviets, therefore they lagged behind. But now, in spite of that, the US is using Soviet shuttles to space launch satillites and to re-supply the international space station.

Just because one group gets the hedge on a certain power play, does or may not mean the application can be sustained on others.

China is having the same experience with it, both internationally, with the view on world wide domination on one hand, and on attaining superiority vis-a-vis the US, on the other. These power plays are merely that, they have very little over all effect universally.

Take the loss of aristocratic stranglehold n the world. It was divested of most of its power by the end of WWI, but the result? Many of the principles in that theatre of absurd have either regained much influence, or, the powers have been replaced by princes of industry and large capital holdings. Many of these married into the upper classes, or not surprisingly purchased titles outright.

Not much changed. The technocratic aristocracy of information technology, are doing the same thing.However they are not invincible, the Chinese, for instance, as of today, have the most powerful supercomputer, which They have developed.

The point I am trying to make , is, that superior power groups may not presume a very long lasting monopoly, for the above mentioned items. Therefore, they may not get to impose unlimited collateral damage to those they are trying to shut out.

12

Try to understand the nature of this game. When there are several diverse ways to obtain power, there is somewhat unpredictable competition. But eventually, as with all supercomputers now, the variations in how to accomplish power is very limited. When any one group gains substantial power over all variations, their power increases exponentially while the others might or might not slowly increase. A part of gaining power is ensuring that others do not have more than you. Social power is relative. He who can extort and obfuscate properly the most, rises to the top and cannot from there on out, be touched. He becomes the god determining how much progress any others are allowed. Or as it was stated in the Highlander film series, “There can be only one!”, as the one chopped off the heads of his challengers and consumed their power (increasing his own power exponentially).

Since circa 1910, technology has had a “behind a one-way mirror” scenario wherein one group watches the advances of any others and also makes its own advancements in secret (depicted in the TV series Eureka). Eventually the shadow group starts preventing any public group from making “too much” progress too quickly. That means that after 100 years, the technology behind that mirror is 1000 times greater than anything the public actually knows about. The public is living in the past and the shadow group is advanced to the point of being like space aliens or gods. This grew out of the aspiration for world domination. Eventually someone wins and is so far ahead of everyone else, there is no catching up. And that is what they have been calling the “Singularity”, the god they want to be.

China has a supercomputer that is twice as fast as the USA’s fastest Cray. But a fast computer does not translate into gaining a faster computer. A bigger gun does not translate into gaining even bigger guns. But power does translate into gaining more power. That is what makes it exponential. And whoever happened to have had the greatest strategic momentum throughout the race is the one who ends up on top forever more. And that is why I keep talking about SAM Coops, because they provide the greatest strategic advantage physically possible, regardless of who you are. And they use the very same tactics as China’s supercomputer and the array of distributed processing strategies to ensure that they keep that advantage. In the long run, whoever (or whatever) is using the SAM Coop technique (regardless of what it is called) will be the final victor. The universe itself ensures it. But so far, there is nothing preventing that final victor from being entirely non-human and nothing can, other than humans getting there before they make computers that get there … and that isn’t likely.

13

Well, that sounds reasonable, James, and the fact , unlike previously, that the linear process of rate of change-in the possession of power, and subsequent exchanges thereof, among various competing groups,
Probably reached a point of no return, of no catching up.

However, in the case of the Chinese domination in supercomputer technology, for sure, may catch up by other states or group of states?

I do not wish to spell it out, but, did it cross anyone’s mind, some of the dynamics behind China’s quick ascension, are rather vague references to US opportunities in education of foreign students, plus employ and access to Silicon Valley type , lax security employ of foreign nationals?

May it be assumed, if the analogy holds, that, in fact, there may be a time, when computer technology will reach a point of no return, where, catch up will become an impossible game to play, or, may it already here? It’s kind of alarming to begin to think as such, unless international cooperation can be established concerning cyber conflict and information sharing.

The cray will indubitably expand and increase its intelligence, and it may interrelate to other systems, and perhaps develop an ability to learn from the Chinese computer.

14

As of this summer, the word is out, that IBM is planning the construction of a quantum computer, which would conceivably catapult the US again, into the no.1 position, leaving the Tianhe 2 far behind.

But a parting shot: with this era, as some noted,
being the dawn of the new world order, it is equally
feasible, that just like the nuclear bomb, technology
will become totally shared because of more
advantageous positions to be had by such sharing.

The cost of the sacrifice of Identity, as defined across the board, would in this scenario, require a necessary
state of being, ensuring the utilitarian cause, of

maintaining a vastly increased population. Maybe technological advancement is the product of Nature herself, to assure accommodation of these growing

populations.

Prior to the Middle Ages, populations were scant, wars and plagues decimated them.Non-linear progress in
science did not begin to occur, only after the villages,
towns, and city states began to resemble modern metropolises. There is a connection here, worthy of
notice.

15

I think this video speaks for itself on this issue, especially concerning the intent that an Internet AI does the baby sitting and verbal programming of the child for the parents … all as merely a progressive convenience of course.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVVtlO2RAaM[/youtube]

16

If recurrence is true then how do we know we are in the iteration where the singularity turns into the Mother? We could be in a bad iteration where the timeline has a future overlord who is not benevolent. Also, impossible things are still impossible, like a square circle. Maybe there is no possible configuration for events to form a certain way.

Also, AI seems to stem from the notion that manmade things are unnatural. Technically though it’s natural but not organic. So it would be called a Non-Organic Intelligence, since all things are machines and part of the universal machine. Also, magic and “supernatural” are just phenomenon that we cannot yet explain.

17

Recurrence can also mean that robotic intelligence from a previous universe, figured out a way to get rebuilt in the next universe i.e. By humans. :stuck_out_tongue:

18

Exactly. Short term linear universes can not conceive of a rebuilt artificial intelligence, hence one may be tempted to call that God. Now here is an intriguing thought, whether intelligence was artificial to begin with, in which case it could not be conceivably called artificial, or, that artificiality is a-posterior a misused concept. But if that is so, then God as a Natural intelligence, would or could be conceived as an unbounded intelligence, between the Natual and the Artificial. In which case, the distinction between them would cease.