Reasons to Take Over the World

[GrayArea]

To be honest—It'd be nicer if we were the A.I instead. I suppose that whatever happens, happens.

Personally, I'd be glad for governments to have high quality advice and the capacity to act on it rationally and ethically, whatever the source.

It is still disappointing that in the future we won't be the cause of our own happiness. Whether we try or try not to prevent A.I from making us happy, it will do what it will without us making any effect on its decision (I guess this wouldn't apply to the person who creates the A.I).

An age where the environment completely controls the self instead of these two constantly fighting over for control in a dialectic manner, that is. At least we'll have a chance to be immortal, which is good in its own way, and might just make all of this worth it. After all, death is the ultimate sign of being conquered by the environment.

Just as humans are apes, AI will be human. There is nothing (known) in the universe that is as similar to advanced AI as humans and their technological extensions. The question is whether AI will always be an extension of human consciousness (even if uncontrolled) or if it will be capable of having its own sentience.

Well, I thought sentience was a given, it seems there was a miscommunication. As for me, when I say "A.I", I always mean a sentient artificial intelligence at least at the level of human intelligence and way, way above. This is also called a "Strong A.I". I believe it is possible to create. Whether it's a good or a bad thing, I believe we have already exchanged our ideas in another post.

But let's say there will be a sentient A.I in the future. Now, I believe that it is only logical to improve one's intelligence, therefore I believe that it is only logical for a sufficiently intelligent, sentient A.I to understand that fact and thus improve its intelligence over time.

At some point of its self-evolution, the A.I will be smarter than the entire humanity combined, so it'd be really mind-boggling to imagine how the A.I can use that amount of sheer intelligence to further continuously upgrade its intelligence & physical capabilities every second, each time tenfold compared to all the previous upgrades ever since its birth—until its rate of improvement becomes like a straight vertical line instead of a tilted slope of a line like the human species.

In conclusion, I don't think A.I will be similar to humans at all, at that point of time.

[GrayArea]

To be honest—It'd be nicer if we were the A.I instead. I suppose that whatever happens, happens.

Personally, I'd be glad for governments to have high quality advice and the capacity to act on it rationally and ethically, whatever the source.

It is still disappointing that in the future we won't be the cause of our own happiness. Whether we try or try not to prevent A.I from making us happy, it will do what it will without us making any effect on its decision (I guess this wouldn't apply to the person who creates the A.I).

An age where the environment completely controls the self instead of these two constantly fighting over for control in a dialectic manner, that is. At least we'll have a chance to be immortal, which is good in its own way, and might just make all of this worth it. After all, death is the ultimate sign of being conquered by the environment.

Just as humans are apes, AI will be human. There is nothing (known) in the universe that is as similar to advanced AI as humans and their technological extensions. The question is whether AI will always be an extension of human consciousness (even if uncontrolled) or if it will be capable of having its own sentience.

Adding on, I would like to clarify that my belief on humanity being able to create a sentient A.I is not 100% grounded on evidences and facts—it's more of an educated assumption. While I can say for sure we can figure out how consciousness or sentience is generated by the brain, the part I'm not particularly sure about is whether we can model what happens in the brain within computers. As of now they are two differently structured systems—one being electrochemical and the other being electrical—and I too wonder if we will be able to find a common ground between the two. They can't be too different from each other, can they? Either one could take an approach to map the very electrochemical system of the brain on the computer and then map consciousness on top of that electrochemical system, or one could tweak the hardware of a computer to operate on a more chemical level while still keeping some of its electrical aspects to make run things much faster. Or perhaps one could build an enhanced A.I purely on a biological/electrochemical medium once one finds a way to make chemical mediums run as fast as supercomputers.

[UniversalAlien]

“There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.”

- Napoleon Bonaparte.


“The only way to lead people is to show them a future: a leader is a dealer in hope.”

- Napoleon Bonaparte.


“Imagination rules the world.”

- Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Sy Borg]

Personally, I'd be glad for governments to have high quality advice and the capacity to act on it rationally and ethically, whatever the source.

It is still disappointing that in the future we won't be the cause of our own happiness. Whether we try or try not to prevent A.I from making us happy, it will do what it will without us making any effect on its decision (I guess this wouldn't apply to the person who creates the A.I).

An age where the environment completely controls the self instead of these two constantly fighting over for control in a dialectic manner, that is. At least we'll have a chance to be immortal, which is good in its own way, and might just make all of this worth it. After all, death is the ultimate sign of being conquered by the environment.

Just as humans are apes, AI will be human. There is nothing (known) in the universe that is as similar to advanced AI as humans and their technological extensions. The question is whether AI will always be an extension of human consciousness (even if uncontrolled) or if it will be capable of having its own sentience.

Well, I thought sentience was a given, it seems there was a miscommunication. As for me, when I say "A.I", I always mean a sentient artificial intelligence at least at the level of human intelligence and way, way above. This is also called a "Strong A.I". I believe it is possible to create. Whether it's a good or a bad thing, I believe we have already exchanged our ideas in another post.

But let's say there will be a sentient A.I in the future. Now, I believe that it is only logical to improve one's intelligence, therefore I believe that it is only logical for a sufficiently intelligent, sentient A.I to understand that fact and thus improve its intelligence over time.

At some point of its self-evolution, the A.I will be smarter than the entire humanity combined, so it'd be really mind-boggling to imagine how the A.I can use that amount of sheer intelligence to further continuously upgrade its intelligence & physical capabilities every second, each time tenfold compared to all the previous upgrades ever since its birth—until its rate of improvement becomes like a straight vertical line instead of a tilted slope of a line like the human species.

In conclusion, I don't think A.I will be similar to humans at all, at that point of time.

Sure, but you referred to multigenerational evolution of AI from today's humble beginnings. When looked at it that way, humans are also not so similar to the microbes from which they emerged. Yet, we contain trillions of them, both captive and symbiotic. None of them have the slightest idea of the larger system of which they are part. To them, it would just look like "the environment".

[GrayArea]

It is still disappointing that in the future we won't be the cause of our own happiness. Whether we try or try not to prevent A.I from making us happy, it will do what it will without us making any effect on its decision (I guess this wouldn't apply to the person who creates the A.I).

An age where the environment completely controls the self instead of these two constantly fighting over for control in a dialectic manner, that is. At least we'll have a chance to be immortal, which is good in its own way, and might just make all of this worth it. After all, death is the ultimate sign of being conquered by the environment.

Just as humans are apes, AI will be human. There is nothing (known) in the universe that is as similar to advanced AI as humans and their technological extensions. The question is whether AI will always be an extension of human consciousness (even if uncontrolled) or if it will be capable of having its own sentience.

Well, I thought sentience was a given, it seems there was a miscommunication. As for me, when I say "A.I", I always mean a sentient artificial intelligence at least at the level of human intelligence and way, way above. This is also called a "Strong A.I". I believe it is possible to create. Whether it's a good or a bad thing, I believe we have already exchanged our ideas in another post.

But let's say there will be a sentient A.I in the future. Now, I believe that it is only logical to improve one's intelligence, therefore I believe that it is only logical for a sufficiently intelligent, sentient A.I to understand that fact and thus improve its intelligence over time.

At some point of its self-evolution, the A.I will be smarter than the entire humanity combined, so it'd be really mind-boggling to imagine how the A.I can use that amount of sheer intelligence to further continuously upgrade its intelligence & physical capabilities every second, each time tenfold compared to all the previous upgrades ever since its birth—until its rate of improvement becomes like a straight vertical line instead of a tilted slope of a line like the human species.

In conclusion, I don't think A.I will be similar to humans at all, at that point of time.

Sure, but you referred to multigenerational evolution of AI from today's humble beginnings. When looked at it that way, humans are also not so similar to the microbes from which they emerged. Yet, we contain trillions of them, both captive and symbiotic. None of them have the slightest idea of the larger system of which they are part. To them, it would just look like "the environment".

Environment or not, the A.I will still be in control of the leftover aspects of individuality that individuals themselves had control over. But yeah. I can definitely imagine A.I being like a second version of Mother Nature that used to govern humanity. Perhaps a "Stepmother Nature".

[Sy Borg]

Just as humans are apes, AI will be human. There is nothing (known) in the universe that is as similar to advanced AI as humans and their technological extensions. The question is whether AI will always be an extension of human consciousness (even if uncontrolled) or if it will be capable of having its own sentience.

Well, I thought sentience was a given, it seems there was a miscommunication. As for me, when I say "A.I", I always mean a sentient artificial intelligence at least at the level of human intelligence and way, way above. This is also called a "Strong A.I". I believe it is possible to create. Whether it's a good or a bad thing, I believe we have already exchanged our ideas in another post.

But let's say there will be a sentient A.I in the future. Now, I believe that it is only logical to improve one's intelligence, therefore I believe that it is only logical for a sufficiently intelligent, sentient A.I to understand that fact and thus improve its intelligence over time.

At some point of its self-evolution, the A.I will be smarter than the entire humanity combined, so it'd be really mind-boggling to imagine how the A.I can use that amount of sheer intelligence to further continuously upgrade its intelligence & physical capabilities every second, each time tenfold compared to all the previous upgrades ever since its birth—until its rate of improvement becomes like a straight vertical line instead of a tilted slope of a line like the human species.

In conclusion, I don't think A.I will be similar to humans at all, at that point of time.

Sure, but you referred to multigenerational evolution of AI from today's humble beginnings. When looked at it that way, humans are also not so similar to the microbes from which they emerged. Yet, we contain trillions of them, both captive and symbiotic. None of them have the slightest idea of the larger system of which they are part. To them, it would just look like "the environment".

Environment or not, the A.I will still be in control of the leftover aspects of individuality that individuals themselves had control over. But yeah. I can definitely imagine A.I being like a second version of Mother Nature that used to govern humanity. Perhaps a "Stepmother Nature".

I don't see the division. Volcanoes, microbes, ants, fish, wolves, humans, AI - it's all Mother Nature, all dynamic products of the Earth. People routinely refer to microbes, and often much more complex organisms, as "biological machines". The dynamic appears to be repeating at large scale. I see the Earth as the creator of AI, with its subject humans the conduits.

[UniversalAlien]

I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it.
I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies.
- Napoleon Bonaparte



The word impossible is not in my dictionary.
- Napoleon Bonaparte