Quote:
Originally Posted by masque de Z
The evidence is the first super intelligence that is mankind itself. Mankind as a total is wiser than individuals. The evidence is that we became better as we grew our civilization. Our ethics improved or the ethics of the best of us are more sensible today. And yet it is still the same animal. So wisdom and more intelligence collectively made us better.
Of course our current system of ethics seems best to those living in the current system of ethics. This is nearly always true for people who are allowed to speak/write in public. I like it here too for the most part.
Quote:
You are the one that is making the very aggressive negative speculations.
I'm quite certain that my 95% confidence range is wider than just about anyone else's in this thread. That is an extremely non-aggressive intellectual stance.
Quote:
In fact most of you here that are afraid of the super intelligence that is better than us in everything generally accepted as good qualities of intelligence are assigning it human properties of the worse kind not the best kind.
Actually, some of us recognize that intelligence means what intelligence means and that other words mean completely different things. There are no "good" inherent qualities of intelligence. A jerk who is 2^287396 times more intelligent than an nice guy is precisely 2^287396 times more intelligent.
Quote:
And yet the best kind are precisely those assigned to the animal as it improves. So the direction is towards better with higher wisdom not worse.
I can't parse this bit. Absolutely no one said anything about the best kind or worse kind of intelligence. They simply denoted "not much of it" and "****loads of it. They probably did this using some intuitive knowledge of what people mean when they mean the "I" part of "AI"
Quote:
I can speculate properly using how examples of intelligence in individual human societies and mankind in total evolved. And because damn it i have mathematics and logic in common with it. We both have to use the same probability theory at some basic level and obey the same laws of basic physics.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
Quote:
I am making very careful speculations here.
Not possible or your range would be quite wide. Since you are claiming to rely on math and logic and statistics and physics, I demand to see your work. You can skip over the simple stuff about how we are bound by gravity, of course.
Quote:
I have done the same for my own ethics. I behave as i do vs others because i rationally value that choice not because of cultural reasons of bias or because i fear the law. I can give you plenty of reasons that killing in general in random cases is bad that are entirely rational and not emotional for example.
So you are claiming that you like what you like (aka value) because you sat down and did some logical analysis and physics equations to determine your values?
Using formal logic and physics (I don't think that probability and statistics are necessary here), tell me how you decided upon your personal valuation of dipping grilled cheese in tomato soup for lunch. Extra credit if you can derive the vectors necessary to differentiate between the valuation of cream-based tomato soup vs. the more pure form. Even the extra credit is more simple than showing the work of a system of ethics, so the general tomato soup question should be quite easy.
If you've never had grilled cheese dipped in tomato soup, IDGAF. You should easily be able to develop highly precise quantitative models for each in a few seconds given the Wikipedia pages for each. Going out to a diner for empirical evidence or relying on your memory of prior experiences with grilled cheese dipped in tomato sauce is clearly cheating.