Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 5:51 pm
You did not answer my questions.
What do you take to the "The Subject" at hand that he has some sort of "complete perspective" of, seriously??
Given the thread title, what relevance is a 2000 year old story? a time of ZERO AI, when nature was still seen as the enemy by most philosophies, a thing to be tamed and controlled.
The articles aren't about the bible. They provide an all-round perspective on AI and related modern day questions.
A quote:
For a more realistic portrait than Kurzweil’s of what a future dominated by technology might look like, one plausible place to start is with our present domination by technology, and how it is already transforming us as human beings. For example, why has our society become so oriented around statistics to the point that they mean the difference between success and failure, promotion or demotion, profit or loss, in so many different realms of life? As it turns out, what the computers do not seewhat they cannot see, what is invisible both to the computer and to all those at the upper-level of management who see through the eyes of the computerare all the purely human interactions of any job. And depending on what the job is, it can end up being the core competencies of the profession that end up neglected.
With regard to relevance. The tenure of the arguments in the OP are clearly fiercely against AI.
Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 1:25 amThe war against AI for the future of humanity will not be fought with guns or bombs.
I believe it is being fought right now.
My argument was intended to denote that AI may not be bad. This is not based on opinion or a perspective on society but based on the idea that when AI could learn to serve the purpose of life, that AI may be vital for Nature.
To answer the question, and thus to be able to decide that AI is a threat to humanity (outside the scope of an insiders societal perspective, of which I cannot judge), one would need to be able to answer whether AI can serve the purpose of life.
It is a simple question that can be used to prevent abuses of AI. Before one would release an AI, one could demand certainty with regard to what can be considered an optimal serving of the purpose of life.
My other topic (
Facts vs truths) essentially addresses a question that would urge to prevent releasing an AI based on the idea that life exists by random chance. The idea that life exists by random chance logically results in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random will count as 'good'. From such a perspective, an AI could simply be let on the loose.
What is the origin of the idea that life exists by random chance? It is the belief that facts remain the same in time.
By addressing fundamental questions, abuses of AI can be prevented and it may be that AI proves to be vital for human evolution and Nature.