Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
It might be less risky to recognise that it's worse than a mine field. Would we even want a good answer? We might not like it very much. What I think a lot of people mean is that AI recognises humanity as it's master as some sort of prime directive. I doubt that's good in any moral sense but good luck with it anyway.We should have safeguards in the use of AI by humans. That is
I would try to walk you through why this is a bad idea, but last time we talked you dismissed the value of hypotheticals. All I’ll say is that it’s really dangerous to think that we can just let AI develop without putting our thumb on the scale of its ideology.
You talking about human safeguards is a nonsequitor. Of course there needs to be human safeguards.
I have never dismissed the idea of hypothetical Hypotheicals can be very useful and interesting.
I've dismissed one particular hypothetical as childish point scoring and long resolved
To your point. Yes it's very dangerous to let AI develop without putting out thumb on it (as you put it). I don't think that's in dispute.
I take the safeguard bit as you agreeing with me on that
Human safeguards are what we use the AI for. That’s a completely different question than what the AI will want to do itself.
Once we develop an AI that can make better AI versions without our input, then we are no longer the dominant force on the planet, the AI is. AI doesn’t get tired, it has access to all the info it has learned in an instant with perfect recall, it will make encryptions more powerful than anything anyone could possibly ever solve, etc.
So if the AI can make its own autonomous choices without checking in with any human, every time we let it operate poses a huge risk to us. That’s because if we tell it to optimize for paper clips (the classic example) it might decide the best way to do that is to turn every atom on the planet into a paperclip.
But notice, there will be countless sectors of society where AI is told to do something, and so long as it doesn’t check in with us once, that one time could be the end of the planet.
Paperclip maximizer
edit
The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. It illustrates the existential risk that an artificial general intelligence may pose to human beings were it to be successfully designed to pursue even seemingly harmless goals and the necessity of incorporating machine ethics into artificial intelligence design. The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked with manufacturing paperclips. If such a machine were not programmed to value living beings, then given enough power over its environment, it would try to turn all matter in the universe, including living beings, into paperclips or machines that manufacture further paperclips.[6]
Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans.
— Nick Bostrom[7]
Bostrom emphasized that he does not believe the paperclip maximizer scenario per se will occur; rather, he intends to illustrate the dangers of creating superintelligent machines without knowing how to program them to eliminate existential risk to human beings' safety.[8] The paperclip maximizer example illustrates the broad problem of managing powerful systems that lack human values.[9]
The thought experiment has been used as a symbol of AI in pop culture.[10] Author Ted Chiang pointed out that the popularity of such concerns among Silicon Valley technologists could be a reflection of their familiarity with the tendency of corporations to ignore negative externalities.[11]
Yes I've posted about paperclip world several times over many years.
Again I dont think the dangers are in dispute
I never tire of watching people in positions of privilege believe they are superior over others because of things they had absolutely no hand in. It's just so pathetic it's entertaining.
Hint: you're not more deserving of ANYTHING based on where you were born or who you were born to. You're just not.
This idea flourishes only in Christian soil.
Luciom seems primarily Darwinian (and Nietzschean), much like you anti-Christian scientific types.
it's a potentially dangerous delusion.
It's not the danger that is in dispute. it's the idea that we can 'have it under our thumb'.
I feel like we already went over why that objection doesn’t work. You don’t have the option of no AI. So now you have the law of excluded middle
Either it’s the case that we try to make AI have good morals to humans or we don’t try to have AI have good morals to humans.
You can’t have it both ways and call it a dangerous delusion so that you can celebrate how enlightened you are, because it’s not a logical possibility.
Yes that's exactly what I responded to.
I really dont think you want to go down your attempt at 'logic again
Delusion about preventing dangers is potentially dangerous. Realism is a good idea even when it's ugly
That’s not responsive to what I wrote. I’m just going to assume from now on that you’re a spineless loser that retreats from any hypothetical he doesn’t like with some vague incoherent aphorism.
Bye.
It was but ok
It’s the definition of privilege. That you can make no positive contribution to your community and instead spend your hours online poisoning debate with death wish fantasies, all because your unknown and ancient ancestors got lucky.Really, and I’m not wishing anything here, but the best contribution you’ll ever make is when you no longer exist because it least it won’t be negat
Ofc it's privilege. Earned through the bloodline. The whole point of the game of life is accruing privileges for your bloodline. That's how you win, given a vast number of interactions with other human beings are 0 sum, you want to your bloodline to be on the winning side and you build upon what your ancestors did to preserve and increase that privilege.
You don't have to overdo it too much as win-win games exist as well, so it's a dance.
Ofc you hate me because you disagree with me on fundamental values, but that's fine and expected
The typical chez post is incoherent but I’m sure it means something to him.
I never tire of watching people in positions of privilege believe they are superior over others because of things they had absolutely no hand in. It's just so pathetic it's entertaining.
Hint: you're not more deserving of ANYTHING based on where you were born or who you were born to. You're just not.
Counterpoint yes you are, that's what family is.
Atomized individualism is your religion, not mine. You are just a cog in your family line. Your family line does deserve what it has, as the sum of millions of interactions with reality across the centuries and millennia by all members of that family line.
Ofc some members will have contributed more, some less.
Your failure is imagining the game starts over every time someone is born. That's a fantasy for people who come from losing families ofc, otherwise the coping can be unbearable
Ofc it's privilege. Earned through the bloodline. The whole point of the game of life is accruing privileges for your bloodline. That's how you win, given a vast number of interactions with other human beings are 0 sum, you want to your bloodline to be on the winning side and you build upon what your ancestors did to preserve and increase that privilege.You don't have to overdo
I don’t hate you so much as your horrendous posts and third rate Nietzschean ideology.
Your whole political philosophy is based on the unproven and deeply suspect assumption that “bloodlines” mean that mental qualities are transmitted through generations to an extent that gives inheritors a distinct advantage, and after years now of reading your teenage level garbage I’ve still yet to see offer any evidence for this.
Ofc it's privilege. Earned through the bloodline. The whole point of the game of life is accruing privileges for your bloodline. That's how you win, given a vast number of interactions with other human beings are 0 sum, you want to your bloodline to be on the winning side and you build upon what your ancestors did to preserve and increase that privilege.You don't have to overdo
This has been the default mindset throughout human history. All the anti Christians have in opposition to this is shallow nagging.
This idea flourishes only in Christian soil.
Luciom seems primarily Darwinian (and Nietzschean), much like you anti-Christian scientific types.
Yes, they don't even realize where their ideas come from. They don't even realize universalistic leftism comes directly from some specific protestant denominations.
I am very pre-what you mention though, nothing i say about family and bloodlines would have been strange for roman patricians.
Yes, after asking you to write in standard English.
This has been the default mindset throughout human history. All the anti Christians have in opposition to this is shallow nagging.
Meanwhile the people agreeing with Gorgo commit crimes to try to put their kids in the right colleges, but they collectively fail to understand they do that because they do operate under the exact same system i do, but i made my peace with it without shame while they live in constant internal struggles between their professed belief system and the way they live in the world.
Yes, those people are horrendous hypocrites with bad values. And?
