AI?

[Guye]

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?

[MikeW781]

I think this would belong in either forum games, so the posts here wouldn't count, or in politics

[Steelfist]

Still, since it's here...

I would probably allow it control; If it works...

[KZ]

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.

[The Holy namelesskitty]

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.

[Bromtaghon]

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.

[algebra15]

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?

[KZ]

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.)

[algebra15]

I would be perfectly happy to be "ruled" over by a

British 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.

[KZ]

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.

[algebra15]

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.

[Bromtaghon]

I agree, sort of.  Humans can evolve and adapt, whereas the AI is limited to its programmed knowledge- which will eventually become outdated.

[KZ]

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.

[algebra15]

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

  the 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]

[Bromtaghon]

...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.