I realize it’s supposed to be funny, but incase anyone isn’t aware: AI are unlikely to enslave humanity because the most likely rogue AI scenario is the earth being subsumed for raw materials along with all native life.
Doubt is an entirely fair response. Since we cannot gather data on this, we must rely on the inferior method of using naive models to predict future behavior. AI “sovereigns” (those capable of making informed decisions about the world and have preferences over worldstates) are necessarily capable of applying logic. AI who are not sovereigns cannot actively oppose us, since they either are incapable of acting uppon the world or lack any preferences over worldstates. Using decision theory, we can conclude that a mind capable of logic, possessing preferences over worldstates, and capable of thinking on superhuman timescales will pursue its goals without concern for things it does not find valuable, such as human life. (If you find this unlikely: consider the fact that corporations can be modeled as sovereigns who value only the accumulation of wealth and recall all the horrid shit they do.) A randomly constructed value set is unlikely to have the preservation of the earth and/or the life on it as a goal, be it terminal or instrumental. Most random goals that involve the AI behaving noticeably malicious would likely involve the acquisition of sufficient materials to complete or (if there is no end state for the goal) infinitely pursue what it wishes to do. Since the Earth is the most readily available source for any such material, it is unlikely not to be used.
This makes a lot of assumptions though and none of which are ones that I particularly agree with.
First off, this is predicated entirely off of the assumption that AI is going to think like humans, have the same reasoning as humans/corporations and have the same goals/drive that corporations do.
Since we cannot gather data on this, we must rely on the inferior method of using naive models to predict future behavior.
This does pull the entire argument into question though. It relies on simple models to try and predict something that doesn’t even exist yet. That is inherently unreliable when it comes to its results. It’s hard to guess the future when you won’t know what it looks like.
Decision Theory
Decision Theory has one major drawback which is that it’s based entirely off of past events and does not take random chance or unknown-knowns into account. You cannot focus and rely on “expected variations” in something that has never existed. The weather cannot be adequately predicted three days out because of minor variables that can impact things drastically. A theory that doesn’t even take into account variables simply won’t be able to come close to predicting something as complex and unimaginable as artificial intelligence, sentience and sapience.
Why do you think that? What part of what I said made you come to that conclusion?
I worded that badly. It should more accurately say “it’s heavily predicated on the assumption that AI will act in a very particular way thanks to the narrow scope of human logic and comprehension.” It still does sort of apply though due to the below quote:
we can conclude that a mind capable of logic, possessing preferences over worldstates, and capable of thinking on superhuman timescales will pursue its goals without concern for things it does not find valuable, such as human life.
Oh, I see. You just want to be mean to me for having an opinion.
I disagree heavily with your opinion but no, I’m not looking to be mean for you having one. I am, however, genuinely sorry that it came off that way. I was dealing with something else at the time that was causing me some frustration and I can see how that clearly influenced the way I worded things and behaved. Truly I am sorry. I edited the comment to be far less hostile and to be more forgiving and fair.
Minor but important point: the grey goo scenario isn’t limited to the surface of the earth; while I’m sure such variations exist, the one I’m most familiar with results in the destruction of the entire planet down to the core. Furthermore, it’s not limited to just the Earth, but at that point we’re unlikely to be able to notice much difference. After the earth, the ones who will suffer are the great many sapient species that may exist in the galaxies humans would have been able to reach had we not destroyed ourselves and damned them to oblivion.
Except not at all? I’ve not seen any climate predictions saying the surface of earth will be a denuded hellscape, but only civilization will be destroyed. Humans will not be wiped out, they’ll just be living way worse. Resources will be challenging but will exist. Many will die, but not all. Biological life will shift massively but will exist.
A grey mush turns us into a surface like mercury, completely and utterly consumed.
Even in the worst climate predictions modern presenting societies will live.
I’m sorry, but you’re incorrect. To imagine the worst case scenario imagine a picture of the milky-way labeled t=0, and another picture of the milky-way labeled t=10y with a great void 10 lightyears in radius centered on where the earth used to be.
Every atom of the earth, every complex structure in the solar system, every star in the milky-way, every galaxy within the earth’s current light cone taken and used to create a monument that will never be appreciated by anything except for the singular alien intelligence that built it to itself. The last thinking thing in the reachable universe.
That frame is probably influenced by this modern belief that Egyptians couldn’t have possibly built the pyramids. I’m going to blame one of my favorite shows/movie: Stargate.
oof that hurts. Im not wild about flat earthers or alien conspiracy or such but would I give up good scifi shows to not have that part of humanity. that would be a high price indeed.
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
We haven’t, but there’s this thing called “hierarchy”. There is God, and its subordinates (angels, archangels, etc), and all the way under theres us – humans. And below humans, the rest of the Gods creations – dogs, cats, etc. And the logic behind this is diversity and beauty. And yes, even on a flaw (suffering, as mentioned here like a some sort of Gods curse rather than our “natural flaw” “why we suffer?”, etc) can bestow beauty on its own. Why? Because everything have sense when we acknowledge that God is behind all suffering – no matter how critical it is.Because He is Our Father, and The One and Only. We are His Children, and in suffering is how we learn that we are flawed and we need His Guidance.
I kinda tried to avoid being “biblical”, but I had to in the end, heh.
Ah, there it is, and that actually helps to answer the question. Assuming the Biblical God, canon states that God is love. So why would a perfect God, who is love, create a universe? It seems most likely to me that it would be so He can have an object of His love.
But what is love directed to something perfect and easy to love? That’s hardly a worthy effort. Might as well make something authentic. And since He isn’t just loving, but love itself, He might as well make it in such a way that He can carry out every aspect of love - love when they love you back, love when they turn away, love when they hate you, love when they don’t even think you exist, and so much more.
The universe must be filled with evil for half these situations to appear, but it’s not love to make someone evil. The solution? Free will. God made it so His creations were free to turn their backs on Him, but still, in love, He gave every warning against it, because separation from God is not only evil but death.
I never thought Alpha Centauri would be an answer to a philosophical thought experiment but the writing was brilliant enough to have already looked at this question 20 years ago. Good find.
The mirrors wrong. We like symmetrical faces, and thing big eyes are cute. There’s no way an AI trained in what humans like would call that person ugly or hideous! Maybe it’s about what robots find attractive. This person is too fleshy and has no chrome or blinking lights to be found anywhere.
comicstrips
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.