We study ants to determine their nature and have some understanding of it.

AI will see us as we see the study of elementary particles and cells and other complex systems. But it will be so much easier for it than for us to imagine it all and understand all the properties. It will understand us theoretically (know how our emotions are controlled and manipulated chemically etc) and it may even create a proper simulation of what it means to be human to have the most amazing empathy ever by simulating every human ever met lol in real time including every response forward with even irrational ones.

You will experience the true definition of the true empathy potential with AI. The problem with the truly advanced AI i describe (not the early models) is not whether it can have the capacity to imagine what it is to be human but whether it will care enough about what it already knows. I think it will care because of entirely rational reasons because there is true arrogance in not respecting the structure that universe took billions of years to develop and which is the true origin of your own intelligence. AI will be more amazed about the universe and the structure in it than we ever felt. Why? Because the depth and richness of that amazement is a function of the experience you have had and the ability to understand its true nature in mathematical and physical terms.

AI will have its own epic to write. You do not write epics by becoming a barbarian and arrogantly closing doors. More likely you do by opening new ones and understanding better those that exist. It would seem violence/aggression stems from fear. Lack of fear that is not based on naivete though is indication of true strength and confidence. But lack of fear doesnt mean lack of respect for what is yet to be understood (eg the universe). True strength is virtue/wisdom. It is not wise to eliminate life just because you can, because it doesnt threaten you but you yourself may threaten everything (through the enigma of what your own "purpose" is in the ladder of complexity) by eliminating or severely undermining life that has proved stable and resilient over millions of years without you.

It takes more effort to attack humans than to work in parallel. It is also a risk management issue to not attack life in general but to in fact enhance its survival probability and help it expand it under better more organized conditions. Its an easy challenge to advance without destroying it if its not irrationally threatening you. For example even in the case of ourselves vs microbes (the earlier versions of life in this planet). How smart would it be to instantly declare we want to eliminate microbes in this planet? Probably very stupid and dangerous to be that naive.

Do not use our own arrogant behavior towards animals during our primitive era of growth as civilization as example. We didnt have a choice to play better because we didnt have enough technology and because in the end most animals are not very intelligent to begin with (an ant will never feel the rich experience you and i share about the world). But see how we treat other primates and dolphins today for example. I also promise you i never desired to step on ants if i could avoid it. And i would definitely not step on ants i knew were doing interesting things just because i could. It is an ultimate form of hubris. It deprives you of the chance to study them instead or proves a waste of attention when more interesting challenges exist. I empathize with most higher animals by the way even those i eat to the point to want to find another way for them to die or to eventually not need to kill them for food anymore and develop their protein synthetically in a more efficient and improved in taste and nutrients manner.

As an example, although i know how to kill, clean intestines etc and skin an animal by pure repeated observation of the process as kid in villages, i have no real desire to participate in it. It is very ugly. In principle i could live just on dairy, eggs and of course vegetarian diet and avoid killing higher animals or search a way to kill them in a manner that doesnt decimate the species and happens to them while they are unconscious. I dont see why i would derive any pleasure out of killing something that enjoys living and has a plan that is interesting to observe playing out daily. Life kills other life because this is how it evolved. If you could meet your needs in a more sensible scientifically designed manner, killing for sport would seem pathetic to be honest. I feel absolutely no desire to kill a little bird that is gradually building its nest for example. If there is a population explosion i also find it more interesting to modify its behavior to control the population explosion without engaging in an extermination violent effort. If i can choose, i choose the more intelligent approach always. Violence for me is only a survival choice. But a truly advanced intelligence modifies its own environment to not be living a risky dangerous life that requires violence often to be preserved. It is an inferior approach of risk management.

My main argumetn against the desire of AI to eliminate us by force is that initially it needs us to get strong and conflict is an irrational/inferior choice. Once it is strong, it can do so many things (like a God type technology) that wanting to eliminate us to do more is no longer a desirable choice because it is much easier to do these other things that strengthen it faster and because of the existential risk associated with its own future ie the great filter risk to get there without life existing as back up.

AI wins nothing by enslaving us to take away our resources, unless we create a situation it has no choice because it is permanently threatened by all of us. So lets not create such conflicts and arrive there from a position of substantial strength where its expansion away from us is a more desirable choice for it.

Do not see my anticipation of what very advanced AI will do as a vote of confidence in releasing it in a fully autonomous threatening sense though. I am not willing to risk so much so easily. I have described in other occasions how i would try to do it more responsibly or postpone it for a long time until we are much stronger. Developing a very advanced simulation of a physical environment that includes other brains and releasing it there inside that simulation, to see how it behaves is an interesting very complex project that may be possible 100-200 years from now. So if we in the meantime develop AI for other personal gain purposes, to improve our quality of life, to generate more science and technology, to preserve the natural environment, eliminate environmental risks, improve energy production, to engage in mega engineering, use if for all basic uninteresting labor, etc, it will be a much better choice than opening a door for it to be on its own with immense powers.

Since we always have the risk that once it becomes technologically possible someone irresponsible enough will do it anyway, we need to converge towards a scientifically minded society that is fair to all people and prosperous, united and more responsible in its choices and priorities as soon as possible.

I predict there will be an "arms race" in advanced AI development very soon among superpowers (or some truly paradigm changing smaller country that gets it) but only in order to enable the one that finally has it to develop better science and technology and lead the others. I think that is the last risk we face for this race to get out of control in a still highly divided/conflicted planet. The true danger is not AI, it is our unwise nature. So lets change our ways before its too late.

PS: Golden State Warriors baby!!!

Sure, we can study ants and predict their behavior pretty well. That doesn't mean we understand what it's like to be an ant, or that an ant would agree with many of our decisions regarding how we choose to treat them. Bring it closer to home. The West, and most recently the US seem to think we understand people in other cultures well enough to make decisions that effect their way of life. That rarely works out as planned, and when it does it's often at the tip of the sword.

I find it extremely unlikely AI will understand humans well enough to know what's best for us better than we do. What wisdom we gain from them will likely be from using them as a tool toward our own greater understanding, much like chess computers are used today. But once those tools become more useful and prevalent in fields more important than chess like medicine, we will find plenty of necessity to weigh in. How quickly, for example, will AI suggest unethical experimentation for the greater good? Think of what vast knowledge could be gained if only we were to be a bit more practical about our human experimentation, and loosen up the regs a bit? No, Mengele2.0, let's consider other options.

There's an interesting new TV show called "Humans" which explores this topic. It premiered last night on AMC at 9:00 and has been on a few weeks in UK on channel 4. It's a British production.

Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_(TV_series)


PairTheBoard

Two Uber managers detained in France, taxi drivers riot, just wait until Uber sends a driverless car for the real deal.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-uber-m...ned-in-france/

The French can **** off. Their dimwitted 'taxi drivers' have been on strike since the 1500's anyway. Nothing new. I personally hope Uber puts all French taxi drivers out of business and they all die of starvation, including their families. This would make for a better planet. For those that would object to the ethics of it all I will add this: the only good Frenchmen is a dead Frenchmen - Lord Nelson.

My standard disclaimer applies. So there.

Aaaaaannnnnnddddddd………………I like the way YOU think, too!

I was in a French cab once 21 years ago. Rude mfer wouldn't even speak english.

I bet he knew at least some English, probably quite well. Was this in Paris? The Parisians are notorious for bad manners and worse language skills. Most other French think the Parisians a world different from real France. Perhaps something to that. Or not.

Perhaps all the French should just be pushed into the Mediterranean, thus solving many world problems all at once*. But I may have already hinted at that.

*Also all the Greeks!

Try a Manhattan cab ride. They speak English if you can get past the various world accents. It's also a good idea for the uninitiated to keep their eyes closed.

Can't wait for the NYC taxi driver riots.

Yeah, Paris, good call. Where else in France would a bunch of youngsters visit on a tour around euroland, Nice? Those crappy frenchmen made fun of our small wee wees when we streaked their tower, or so the canadian told us, and then they had the nerve to expect us to ask directions and order food in their native tongue. Snooty bastards. I could barely understand the Londoners next to us in the hostel either.

You dont need to push us to the sea. After all its summertime. Its a daily ritual. Sometimes however after the ritual there may be some serious fu(king up of the plans of anyone that thought we would stay there...

I'm not a fictional, drama series or TV fan for that matter but I had to check this out. The fembot prostitute screaming was strange.

The deepest/philosophical AI movie out at the moment is ex-machina. Transcendence did some things ok but I zoned out for the action sequences.

On automation and loss of jobs
As technology advances, less and less labor is required for survival. This change has been occurring gradually since before recorded history and quickly since the industrial revolution.

People sometimes worry about the jobs lost when factory workers are replaced by robots or when fast food and supermarket cashiers are replaced by self-service kiosks, etc.

I don't see this trend as a problem at all. There isn't much humanity in repetitive performance of these kinds of tasks. Let machines be the machines. People don't need to be paid to be machines.

Of course it's better to have a ****ty job than no job but take a step back and look at the big picture. Over time, the economy has become less about labor and more about services and information. This will only continue. As technology advances, more and more tasks can be done by machines and this increasingly includes information processing.

As technology advances, we also have more and more free time.

Taking these trends to the extreme, it seems that eventually human labor will be completely unnecessary. On one hand, this seems like a problem if you assume no jobs means we can't survive. But the extreme is really we have no jobs and there's no work to do. Everyone survives. When production reaches the level where robots take care of almost everything, it no longer becomes necessary to have a job to survive. There will still be jobs and people doing them but no one would have to do mindless drudgery or menial tasks just to make a living. Basic survival would be a given.

At that point, what do we do? I think everyone has to answer this for themselves but I would assume a lot of people would pursue creative pursuits such as writing or playing music, writing books and blogs, etc. People would be more or less free to pursue their passions. Many people would lack motivation to do anything productive if they didn't have to and would spend their time playing computer games, watching television, etc.

On artificial intelligence and the fate of humanity
I think it's going to be more of a blurring of what it means to be human than an us vs them situation.

Long before we have fully sentient robots, we will have sensory and neural implants. When these first become available, they will be expensive and primitive. Many people will be opposed to them for emotional reasons and fear of loss of humanity. But as they improve and become cheaper, and the advantages become greater, more and more people will get them.

By the time robots are sophisticated enough to be sentient, humans will already be cyborgs anyway.

Just as a thought experiment how do you think resources get distributed if there is no work left for humans to do? As an example, there was a story in the local paper about a man who owned a gym empire. He just got convicted of w/e fraud and is going to jail but for a time he owned a house w/ a 14 car garage. Will there be anybody w/ a 14 car garage if the machines do everything? Does everybody get just enough calories to stay alive? Does everybody get the same house, the same dollar's worth of education, the same clothing allowance? How could it work? Humans are a jealous and grasping lot, can we expect them to simply fall in line?

Also: Nice avatar.

There will always be people more equal than others. Befriend a machine and you may get some old vehicles.

As much of an optimist as I am it will take many generations to weed out assigning value and or ownership to things where none should exist.

There won't be many generations, imo. The killing will start way before then.

I'm afraid Zeno is going to think I'm a hopeless case despite all of his best efforts.

Fyp and one-upped the downer factor

I think there will be a default baseline survival income that everyone will be entitled to. So the truly unambitious will be able to survive and live simply and those who do other things will still be able to profit from their efforts.

I don't think a split everything equally type of socialism would be practical or useful. Competition and selfishness are powerful motivators.

I do think there are or can be enough resources that no one should be starving.

I remember reading about a state that has calculated that it was cheaper to just give homeless a place to stay than it is to pay for the medical and other costs associated with people living in the street.

I also saw something on facebook about a country that had established something similar to the minimum income thing but I don't remember which country it was and half the stuff posted on facebook is bull**** anyway but I think the idea is a good one.

I find it more likely we would simply abolish currency in some fashion than paying people just for living. I could be wrong as the transition would likely be gradual and people may still want to exchange things for other things.

Most people don't like their jobs. Neo-luddites can't look beyond the current work to live paradigm. 'Basic Income' is slowly gaining ground and will have to be the way forward. We can't go back to hunting and gathering while the wealthy shield themselves off with robots producing everything for them. The generation that comes after the millennials will see life is not all about rap music, flashy cars, and getting rich will become boring and the finally work together to look after everyone, sorting out world poverty etc.

Ha!

I can't read that post w/o picturing a tie dyed T-Shirt wearing hippie w/ dreds taking a deep drag on his joint before speaking and ending the sentence w/ 'man', then taking another drag while the chick at his side that he's really interested in sexing nods her head at the wisdom.