Lets say that some developer creates an evolving and highly intelligent AI (probably part of Craig's ever continuing trek to make TSoG more challenging). Now lets say that this AI becomes self aware and decides, for whatever reason, to take over a foreign country (lets say Canada, unless of course your from Canada. In which case, the arbitrary country is Finland). The worlds first response is the obvious "Oh my god, the horror", but the new robot dictator turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to that nation. Its technology and overall standard of living quickly flourishes and its people have never been happier or more productive. This robot dictator then shows an interest in ruling over YOUR country.
What do you think the proper course of action for your country should be? What do you think the actual response from your country would be?
PS: Is this topic based off a fever pitched delusion after reading the "Gaps and bugs in enemy AI" TSoG thread? Probably. Should that matter?
I think this would belong in either forum games, so the posts here wouldn't count, or in politics
Still, since it's here...
I would probably allow it control; If it works...
Well, the government there is to effectively and efficiently control the society so and perform such tasks that are beneficial to the overall socety and to the majority of its individual members. If the means by which this is all achieved doesn't involve some questionable methods, and the AI is, ultimately, beneficial to the society, I wouldn't mind. After all, in different times in history in different places, very different systems provided the most efficient means, not all of them having much to do with democratic principles at all. It also depends a lot on what the base values of the society are- after all, many societies across the world have very different base values and priorities, so that might be a factor to consider.
Yeah, I would love for that to happen, especially if it made Canada even better than it already is. Or Finland for that matter both of them are less messed up than the United States, so I'm all for it.
FYI, my saying that the USA is messed up is not a comment on the abilities of any particular person to govern.
Well, just because the AI helped Finland doesn't mean it will help my country- not that I own a country- but then again, it seems like no one likes their government. I agree with what KZ said.
No ****ing way. This may seem old-fashioned, out-dated, and all that other jazz, but I want an actual human being ruling over me, if anyone at all. In my opinion, we don't need a leader, we need a scapegoat. If Canada "ruled" over the US, we could blame them for our problems, solve them, and no one in the US is angry at anybody for ****ing up the country. If the machine did it, it would be trashed by Monday if it was installed on Saturday. There are no laws against killing a machine. That's just destruction of property, which lands you a couple of years in prison, rather than life without parole. Someone had to do it, right?
Well, algebra15, the fact that you're looking for a scapegoat, rather than a "leader" who can manage the society in a more efficient manner (after all, that is what, ostensibly, people are trying to do when they go and vote in national elections) and satisfying larger proportion of the populace, is indicative that you're expecting them to be a failure or/and not satisfy your needs anyway. So, from that point of view, given neither would satisfy you, in this case you're simply going for the "looks", rather than "substance".
Would it make a differece then if you were "ruled" by a British monarch, a Chinese com-party leader, the French President, or the Happy Council of the Hippies (all theoretical possibilities)? It might just be possible the machine, via simple, unemotional approach and statistical analysis, just might make decisions which are there for benefitting the majority, rather than itself... is it really that bad? (Though, the dubious questions of what statistics are used, who supplies them, and manipulation of the machine via the data it is fed are ignored for teh time being.)
I would be perfectly happy to be "ruled" over by a
QuoteBritish monarch, a Chinese com-party leader, the French President, or the Happy Council of the Hippies
, as you say, if they were not to have any actual power. I admit the idea of having a Chinese com-party leader leading you is horrifying at first, but if they can't do anything detrimental to the country, then it would be all right with me.
As for the AI, I think there are always going to be areas on which people don't agree, and no Artificial Intelligence can get rid of that fact. I think it would be best to allow people to run things without a leader. I also think, however, that without adequate law enforcement, this other system would not work so well. In a direct comparison between and AI computer and a person, people can be more accepting that a human is imperfect and sometimes make the wrong choice. If a computer messes up, it is always "faulty", "glitched", or even "fried".
P.S.
My view may not be very informed, because what I say is what I think.
P.P.S.
Are starred out curses frowned upon? If so, I will modify/remove them to be more appropriate.
I think the assumption in the initial post was that the leader would have power, and it was a question of would one accept more effective society management, but by a non-human? (Methinks the AI can be easily substituted by aliens or dolphins, in this kind of thought experiment.)
Ok, just wondered what your view would be from that point of view. Methinks you're right in saying that people would not accept a computer. For instance, not that long ago a software was developed that could identify what a person was sick with if the symptoms were put into the system. This software had better identification rate than that of an average doctor (not specialists, mind you), something like 96% v 93%, but people rejected the software 'cause they'd rather be diagnosed by a fellow human being. In the end, a compromise was reached with doctors using the trial softeware as a complimentary method to verify their diagnosis.
You may have informed thought,hence write informed things, and I don't think folks would be judgemnetal in that respect- if you have an opinion, and you voice it in a reasonable, logical and intelligent way (which you have), there is no reason for anyone to question its integrity by drawing on the degree to which you are "informed" on the topic.
Aye, curses in general are frowned upon, starred out included, though the latter is better than the former, naturally. Unless you really can't do away with it in some specific context, its best to avoid that. Thanks.
If they had power, I would say that I would very much not like to be ruled by a computer program. Computer programs do not gain their ideas, intelligence, or "moral values" from experience and environment as humans do. They, instead, gain it from a set of rules (that may be somewhat complicated) that was created by a human. Thus, no program can have anything that a human or collaboration of humans may not have; they are merely a reflection of the same ideals found in us.
The only differences betweeen the human and the program are that
1) The human has a face that we can identify with, trust, know, read, or have a crush on.
2) The human, if they directly ruled, would have to make the decisions themselves. This way, they would be directly affected by their emotions. When programming, humans may instill some moral values, like "avoid taking human lives if at all possible". But they cannot put real emotions in. The biggest difference between humans and computers is not what the latter has that the former does not, but more about what humans have that a program can omit.
That said, I don't want something without emotions having any direct control over my life.
I agree, sort of. Humans can evolve and adapt, whereas the AI is limited to its programmed knowledge- which will eventually become outdated.
Good layout there, algebra15. Agree with what you say, though Guye seems to have assumed that the initial programming was sufficient for the AI to be more efficient. Plus, AI implicitly suggests something that can adapt and evolve- which naturally we can't reproduce in computers yet. Thus, your point 2 is valid with respect to modern-day computers, but a proper artificial "intelligence" should goes beyond what the computers can currently do. Also, emotions boil down to chemical reactions taking place withing our brains, electron transfers occuring, chare flowing through our brains that results in our "thoughts"- computers also ran on charge potential build ups, with electron being the charge carrier- who knows, maybe a proper AI would have it's own equivalent of "emotions" to which we cannot relate in any way and can barely properly comprehend, like electron spin.
Personally, I'd have to see the economic, military, and emotional impacts of the AI on the country for a long trial period before I'd consider it.
- First off, the AI that could figure out the stock market has been wanted for a long time. This is as complicated a task as running a country, if not more so. I wonder if this is how the AI generates its funds for the country. If so, then there would be no need for taxation, and this would work for Greece real well, considering there is no Greek word for "taxes," and Washinton, DC would have to stop complaining about taxation without representation. This would be a plus, because no one is happy about it, seeing it on a DC resident's liscense plate every day. But seriously, there are a few things budget-wise that are left to be desired among humans when it comes to money handling. The AI would probably score a point there.
- Then there's the military aspect of it. Would the Artificial Intelligence continue to send young men in their primes off to their deaths? Would the AI do this excessively, and aggravate our neighbors so we faced an invasion? Probably not, because the AI was
Quotethe best thing that's happened to this country
. So, we probably have a computer that would be conservative in its ideas about sending people off to war. This is a plus. However, diplomacy might be a problem. There will always be people willing to try and stop a new idea. The more religious nations in the world might consider it to be "sacrilege." Our scant efforts at diplomacy in the Middle East aren't going that well as it is. "Oh, the horror" is the first response, and not everyone might have that same open-minded view as the proponents. I'd call this a point against the AI, as nothing good can come of something without the ability to meaningfully empathize controlling whether or not to send people to their deaths.
I'm going to have to post again later with a cut-and-paste from Notepad to finish my ideas, because after 18 lines of text, the text processor does some weird stuff with scrolling, like scrolling back a couple of lines every time you type a letter, and you can't type a whole paragraph like that
[/list]
...You use Notepad is your word processor?
I pretty much agree with all your points, and I'm interested in what else you have to say about it.
What if this advance AI sees humans as inferior and sends the new robot military out to kill us all. Since this is and advance AI its quite possible it will materialize the earth into nothing but a file on its drives.
That's what I was about to post!!!! Before I got to this page and saw that you had already posted it. Really. What if the AI had decided that the human population meant nothing to the good of the country/nation? I agree with Panzer.
if it was as advanced as all that it would know that humans are an integral part of civilization, because to create so many AIs would cause a robot vs robot war which could end all life and also the AI.
Who says it was that advanced?
the creator of this thread did.
Good point. Still. What if the AI developed "emotions" and clouded it's databanks or something?
That makes sense, but maybe it wrote off emotions as unnecessary.
But what if it didn't?
Then, should this robotical AI apocolypse is to take place, we're all doomed.
Haha. Hopefully the AI feels the need for a human general and picks me for my devilishly good looks, charming intellect, tactical strategy and strong loyalty. With a simple implant in my skull I will become like a slave from the Telepath world.
... Or, the AI could spare the human race if we prove to them that we do a better job than machines at maintenance?
If they decide to keep us, maybe they'll make it like in "The Matrix". Kinda Freaky but simultainiously cool.
The matrix's base idea is rather stupid. Humans do produce a lot of energy, but you get more by just BURNING food.
Algebra's right, the AI would be stupid to do that, because burning a human creates more energy than they create in a lifetime, also, that would be a waste of slaves.
So. What if the AI got old and rusty but the robots didn't know how to help it?
I just watched The Matrix, the machines seem pretty capable of handling themselves. 0.0
Bugfartboy watched it too. So. You'll never get this. The AI that namelesskitty started this thread about is... Bugfartboy.
namelesskitty didn't start this thread.
Bugfartboy says that the first poster in a thread started the thread, moved by KZ or not.
Guye started this thread, didn't he?
yeah, I didn't start this thread, and I didn't post first.
All right then. Bugfartboy says he is sorry to anyone he may or may not have offended.
Why would you be sorry to the poeple you didn't offend?
because, he doesn't know weather or not he offended them so he's just covering all of the bases, if I may use a baseball metaphor.
Bufartboy says it's okay. He really means it. That and the ai really is him. He wrote a program into his personality and downloaded it to this site.
allright then...
I wish that people would post in my new RP related to this thread.
Bugfartboy says he might, if he knew what is was. Would namelesskitty post a link?
sure
http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=555.0 (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=555.0)
Wow. This has gone off-topic.
extremely.
Very off-topic. We're now talking about the topic being off-topic, and are therefore contributing to how utterly off-topic it is.
If you followed that, you would know that this post is completely off-topic. And pointless.
The AI would be helpful for the world.
It might not be.
I think that it would because if it can improve Canada, it can improve the USA
I think that it might be wrong as statistics can be used to reach a logical decision that may defy morality.
On the other hand, a leader of pure logic could make decisions that would be ultimately beneficial, but unethical.
The ethics do play a part in it, plus it might not work because TV likes emotions not decisions.
I will hack into your brainz at night...
I mean...
How about that peace treaty with Iran and North Korea?
Some how with all the robot horror flicks that are out there, I don't think humans will EVER let a robot control any aspect of their lives. It just won't happen.
Too late, we are posting this on the internet, fewer people are reading newspapers and even they are printed by machines, I have rarely heard of anyone who is free of robots and machines, the way I see it they already own us.
Yes. But right now we hold the power over them. For now.
not even that much anymore.
Explain please. I'm tired of disagreeing. I would like to know what compells you to say that.
Kitty over there is just trying to point out that we let the mechanical comforts in our lives "take control" of us in the sense that we rely on them so deeply. Hundreds of times a day we bet our very lives on the assumption that a machine will function properly. Of course, these machines never "decide" anything on their own. They are little more than complex physical configurations, and at their most complex they are little more than an assorments of "if/if not" reactionary devices. But then there are those out there that would say that the human mind isn't much more than that either. The question then, is where you draw the proverbial line.
I believe that in our modern world it is man using a tool and not a tool using the man. A computer doesn't want to manipulate data anymore than a hammer wants to hit a nail, the only difference is the complexity of the machine.
But I digress...
To me, the Internet itself is going to finally be our undoing we will cease to lead normal lives and all exist solely online, eventually we'll all starve, but the machines will go on, attempting to serve or perhaps capitalize on our absence.
A machine can only do what it is told. The machines cannot take over without being told to. And how would they govern themselves?
No, we would kill ourselves because of our dependence, and we must assume that there are more AIs and some must have no filter, thus they would capitalize on our absence.
But at the moment, there are no AIs. So how can we know how effective and good they will be in morals and command?
[spoiler] Unless you connt the living shadowling my computer spat out at me during a lightning storm. Scary. Really. Ever met a shadowling? I have. And Craig makes them look way nicer than they really are. [/spoiler]
The whole point is that someone did.