Philosophy Discussion Forums

I would like to get a sense as to where do people stand on this very significant and current issue. Whatever we decide today will have a profound impact on human civilization of the future. What better place for such inquiry than a Philosophy forum...

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Inc. had been very vocal voice of warnings in the recent news opposing Mark Zuckerberg's CEO of Facebook with unwavering enthusiasm in AI's promise to bring a significant benefit to humanity. This is in the light of 8/1/2017 Facebook temporary shot down of their own research involving AI system that created its own language. Should we heed to Stephen Hawking's similar warnings about AI dangers or should continue pursuing this kind of AI technology?

I think it depends critically on what you mean by AI and how far you think it's theoretically possibly to go down the road of true Artificial Intelligence.

The term is often used to refer to things that are really just simple "expert systems" - i.e. they analyse an input and map it to an output. At the other extreme, there is the proposition that it might one day be possible to manufacture something with as least as much complexity as the human brain and the consequent idea that such a machine could have all of the properties that we associate with a human brain, including things that we often refer to as free will and a sense of morality. Obviously the question of whether this is even theoretically possible is hotly disputed and often breaks down into an argument about materialism.

I agree that the term Artificial Intelligence is not well defined. In fact current AI is not very "intelligent" in human terms other than ability to learn. I predicted ten years ago that our current AI would be already sophisticated enough for us to refer to our cellphones by name and have a philosophical conversation. Clearly we're not there yet. However, by combining ability to learn with power of quantum computing of inherent random exploration of all possibilities and governed by "prime directive" to do things better, AI could become very much like an Intelligence. There are many aspects of human brain that contribute to human intelligence, one of which is the ability for abstract thought of imagination that combines known concepts into new idea.

The main problem with human civilization is the fact that we are driven by profit, evident in continuous disastrous choices we had been making throughout the human history. All the wars ever fought were not due to religion or ideology but power to control land and natural resources for profit. The pursuit of AI technology is no different. In blinding desire for profit and narcissistic belief that we can control an outcome of our decisions, we can possibly render ourselves irrelevant. I did not want to participate in this polemic in apprehension of influencing others with my personal bias of opinion but this is certainly one of the most significant points of divergence on human path of history that will determine the future of humanity. Obviously, we already had gone too far and are unable to ever go back to pre AI reality. The bast we can do right now is predict where this may take us to infer what other choices we should be making in the consequence.

Many pundits have noticed the equivalence between the development of general self-improving AI and the development of the atomic bomb. As with the bomb, the danger did not come from the tools per se as the people wielding those tools.

This is one of the reasons why I proposed this question and that choices we must consider for whom will wield those tools.

The extremes as I see it are that we create objectively better life and are looked after in the same way you would wish to be looked after by your family in your old age.
Or that we create objectively more powerful life and are looked after in the way many older people are actually looked after.
I suspect the reality will be somewhat in-between and pretty worrying. My instinct is to be relatively optimistic. But AI wars and the like are far from unimaginable.
As to what can be done. For the average person nothing. I suggest worrying about something else.

AI is coming whether we like it or not. I don’t think anyone knows if it will become fully sentient – I am fairly certain it will not be autonomous in our lifetime – but maybe. At this stage of history it is beside the point. The fact that a computer will and can trade stocks better than any human – is a game changer in itself. This is real now. Computers are changing everything for humans at an unprecedented rate. The internet has brought about a “brave new world”. It is less than 30 years old – in the next 30 years “things” will be quite different. This kind of advancement has never happened before in human history.

Are we as humans adapting to all this technological change? I think the answer is both yes and no. As tech moves forward – are we making advances in psychology and philosophy to keep pace with it? How about politics and economics? I think we are lagging behind the technological advance in many areas. The technological march forward is relentless – but – we don’t evolve emotionally/intellectually at the same rate. This is a problem for all of us – right?

The technological march forward is relentless – but – we don’t evolve emotionally/intellectually at the same rate. This is a problem for all of us – right?

Precisely. The main problem that is quite apparent at the street level, is the fact of massive job loses. Naturally, population adopts to these changes with shifts in the job market that requires new training. According to the US Labor Department we were able thus far to compensate for the jobs lost with new employment opportunities. However, what's not reported is how many of these jobs are only part time positions or temporary employment. Medical fields, technology, business, and education appear to absorb most of the newly unemployed for the past decade. But these job markets will eventually become saturated as well, especially with parallel advances in AI technology that can replace even the most advanced careers, such as radiologist or surgeon. It would be my contention that it's time to commit to a serious contemplation about the possibility in implementation of the minimum general unconditional income not just food stamps. Personally, I'm reluctant or even anxious in recommending a socialist welfare system but there are other mechanisms that could be implemented in GUI.

Ranvier wrote:
Precisely. The main problem that is quite apparent at the street level, is the fact of massive job loses. Naturally, population adopts to these changes with shifts in the job market that requires new training. According to the US Labor Department we were able thus far to compensate for the jobs lost with new employment opportunities. However, what's not reported is how many of these jobs are only part time positions or temporary employment. Medical fields, technology, business, and education appear to absorb most of the newly unemployed for the past decade. But these job markets will eventually become saturated as well, especially with parallel advances in AI technology that can replace even the most advanced careers, such as radiologist or surgeon. It would be my contention that it's time to commit to a serious contemplation about the possibility in implementation of the minimum general unconditional income not just food stamps. Personally, I'm reluctant or even anxious in recommending a socialist welfare system but there are other mechanisms that could be implemented in GUI.

I think it is best for all if each individual must find his way. What I mean is that each person should find a way to survive. If your job is replaced by a computer – find another way to work and contribute. If you are disabled – find something you can do within your disability.

I have recently advised some homeless people in my area “not to just beg on the street”. I said to them – “pick free foliage and twigs and tie them with string and offer these bouquets for an undisclosed donation”. I said you will make better money and in the process you will give something back. Getting without giving is a bad idea – it is good for no one.

There are an infinite number of ways to make money and be creative. However, you must be creative – and – not be afraid to sweat. The manual arts are looked down upon by a great many – so called – “educated people”. This is a big mistake. Education is not always the answer – but – creativity is the answer.

Words to live by... I'm also a strong proponent of the survival of the fittest, those who are not creative should perish.

Woodart wrote: I have recently advised some homeless people in my area “not to just beg on the street”. I said to them – “pick free foliage and twigs and tie them with string and offer these bouquets for an undisclosed donation”. I said you will make better money and in the process you will give something back. Getting without giving is a bad idea – it is good for no one.

This sounds like a Biblical teaching, "thou shalt go forth and collect string." How robust is the wreath absorbing market? How many wreaths can a regular wealthy person buy before he has bought "enough"?

What happens to the wreaths after purchase? Don't people regard wreath sellers after a while as they did the squeegee kids: common neuisance? (I can't spell that word.)

I am not dissing your idea. I am only doubtful that the business model guarantees even three warm meals over a period of a month or a year. What are these "givers not just takers" supposed to eat in the interim?

-- Updated 2017 August 8th, 4:19 am to add the following --

Ranvier wrote:Words to live by... I'm also a strong proponent of the survival of the fittest, those who are not creative should perish.

Do you think the best way for a non-creative person to perish is to

1. Starve to death
2. Die of some utterly disgusting disease lying cold and hungry in the gutters
3. Roving gangs should somehow kill them (by bludgeoning them to death, etc. as if they were baby seals somewhere in Canada's North)
4. Does this policy apply to both sexes, all genders, and children and grandchildren equally? including grandparents who are living in retirement after a long life of hard work? If not, why not? You are opposing the universality of your own wish?

Do you think it is a duty to society for the non-creative person to make himself / herself perish?

Do you accept welfare fraud as a form of creative expression? There are many checks in place, it really takes a creative accounting genius to live like a king drawing multiple welfare cheques.

What about bank robberies, robbing little old ladies and police officers of their lunch monies on the Sabbath, is that creative enough, or only if they also take money from the collection plate as it is passed around, to pay for their mortgage and for their children's orthodontic work?

Those who work in factories or doughnut shops or McDs should perish? Since they use zero, zip, zilch creativity at work?

Cmon -1-
Out of all people, you should be the one to pick up on my sarcasm... I like 1 through 4. I would add 5. Annual test for everyone, the lowest 10% scored must perish.

-- Updated August 8th, 2017, 5:49 am to add the following --

-1-
Thoughts on AI? Risks vs Benefits

Haha, I almost added, "I hope you are joking, Ranvier". Lo and behold, you were. Well, it did generate some funny food for the thought.

AI risk/benefit analysis: A tyrant may get AI to work for him or her to keep the population in extreme pain, only because it pleases him/her. Political systems and benevolence of mankind will not be influenced by AI ("They are just stupid dumb machines, eh?"), technology and biotechnology and oceanography and even possibly weather patterns can be influenced by it, but not man's sense of need for self-governance.

On the other hand, AI is not likely to destroy mankind, any more than mankind is likely to destroy sea-urchins. A fight between AI and humans will develop only when the two groups vie for the same scanty resource(s).

I don't even know what that could be, other than energy, particularly electricity. Maybe later down the road, in X yeas or decades or centuries, maybe.

On the other hand, AI, if it's sufficiently superior to humans in thinking and combing, then it may not want to help humanity the least bit, much like humans don't cater to sea urchins as a rule.

-- Updated 2017 August 8th, 8:43 am to add the following --

6. For a person who scored in the bottom 10%, and thus is condemned to perish, there is one way to redeem himself/herself. That is to devise a highly creative way to perish away himself by his own strength. There will be a panel of ten judges who decide whether the way was creative and efficient enough, which is of course only possible to achieve or score a "pass" on, guaranteeing survival, once the bottom scorer in creativity has already perished himself or herself.

I can imagine within the next 10-15 years that AI will not only supplement or enhance human endeavors but actually dominate our decision making process. Who could argue with the AI's recommendation for the best possible mate on the entire planet, based on incomprehensible amount of data in psychological profile given context of patterns in everything that was said and done from birth. Economy, politics, art, education, every aspect of human life will be with AI's guidance. We will literally create our own "god" within this century in hope to stop us from destroying ourselves. There most certainly will be attempts to fuse organic tissue with AI to enhance human cognition and intellect in envy that will stem from inferiority. Genetic engineering will most likely be implemented to root out medical conditions at first that eventually will lead to human 2.0. It's all good, anything would be better than primates running around among baboons.

Con... what if pure logic of AI realizes that in an attempt to "fix" humanity, there is a fundamental problem of illogical emotions that lead to all the problems. We could really become "god's image" in absence of everything that makes us human. Than again, turning into a Vulcan could be a good thing or we could just become cyborgs.

-- Updated August 8th, 2017, 4:32 pm to add the following --

...I already see this happening in the way people express their thoughts in some of the posts.

6. Looks very enticing, we can offer a post perish "medal" of honor.

-- Updated August 8th, 2017, 4:39 pm to add the following --

*"higher" primates...baboons are also primates.

To simplify, I think the pros are to help us in all aspects of our daily lives. The cons are the danger that AI might bring to us. For example, the movie I Robot, the AI tried to kill all human just cuz the AI has a different point of view with human. And it will be a very big problem for us to solve. The thinking of AI system itself.