Intelligent lifeform is always trying to be dominant, doesnt it? Take us, the human race as an example... If we created an equally intelligent and self-improving (a.i.) being, it would surely at some point (when it gets superior then us) try to dominate all the "inferior" beings, like we do with all the other beings (animals...)
And the thing with moral - wouldn't we kill other people if it was something natural in our society (no conseq.)? Moral is something that keeps us from harm.. at most...
@MrEmreD the main issue is that one of the core principles of evolution itself is violence. The organism that is most adapted to survive in a particular environment is often the organism that is the most dominant. Or, perhaps the best way to say it is that the most violently dominant organism assures its place in the environment, forcing others to adapt to it or die. It is a very powerful evolutionary advantage, and I have no doubt that a true evolving AI would reach that point as well.
Nothing to fear yet. We have too low computing power to simulate evolution for something as complicated as human mind or greater. It also needs an environment where it can live. thousands or millions of generations would take forever to simulate in this very complicated environment, what could produce something as complicated as an actual A.I.
We are still on the micro level, with very simple organisms, which search for food and multiply as actual microorganisms, nothing greater yet...
The word "moral" itself comes from a Latin root meaning "custom." Likewise the word ethics comes from the Greek "ethos" meaning - yep! - "custom."
Humans may be basically nihilistic, yet we are "wired" together by our common origins. Humans have empathy (in varying degrees) for each other. A machine would have no felt or perceived connection to humans, and therefore, no empathy with them. True AI would best be kept in a box.
I didn't know that, Largo, thank you! Might have to use that when arguing with people about the social nature of morality.
I agree with you, that a machine would have no inherent connection to humans or empathy for us. (unless we failsafe a connection in there somehow)
I think that True AI should not only be kept in a box, sans body, but in a disconnected box, with no ability to influence other machines, at least until we can adequately simulate how it would act out of the box.
Exactly. And there is no reason to think this could not happen, if we start with an A.I. that is as "intelligent" as a human. After all, if humans were able to develop the computer mind, then a computer mind as intelligent as a human should be able to improve on itself as well.
Thus we have the Terminator scenario, or possibly more likely, the movie "A.I. - Artificial Intelligence"
B. I take issue with your statements that "morals don't exist" and "morals are just subjective". The implications here are that (1) subjective things don't exist, and (2) being subjective is somehow demeaning. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, NOT in the "beautiful object" beheld. This does not mean that beauty doesn't exist, nor does it diminsh beauty's importance. It simply reveals beauty's true nature.
C. I completely agree that people tend to have this mistaken conception that humanity is special among life (anthropocentrism) and that life is special among matter. I would add that many people find sentience as special among life. This view is common (among others) with vegans who use it to justify eating plants but not animals.
That is exactly my point about nihilism, though. When we make the realization that there is no objective morality, or in your example, no objective "beauty", what tends to happen is we become apathetic, rude buttholes for a while until we realize that the lack of objectivity doesn't mean the destruction of the concepts, but the liberation of them. If they are indeed subjective, then that doesn't mean they don't exist, just they are what we say they are, and hold the importance we give them.
Great vid. Well thought out, and relevant. I'm not that up on Nihilism, but looked it up, and consider the concept self contradictory. ie, the rule that there are no rules. Unless life is not a value, even if it's only one's own life, one would be hard pressed to deny some kind of parameters, don't you think?
Yes, to me, nihilism is a misunderstanding of an inevitable revelation. That is, the universe itself is without greater purpose or moral. People take this idea and run with it and say that there are therefore NO morals... anything goes.. no decision is preferable to any other, etc.
Now keep in mind that self-preservation is, indeed, a moral. So if there are really no morals, a "true" nihilist would not care one way or the other about doing something that ended badly for themselves.
I think Nietzsche had the right idea about nihilistic viewpoints, which is literally "what the fuck is the point" of such a view. If you come to a viewpoint which empties life of all meaning or purpose, and promotes apathy, then you really should move on and look at it from a different angle to put it in better perspective. That is, the universe doesn't care one way or another about us, but that doesn't mean we should not.
Interesting distinctions can be drawn about synthetic and nonsythetic. I think that the primary distinction is intent. From a God perspective, I suppose we could be considered synthetic. From a nature perspective, we'd be natural. If nature had an intent, then we'd be synthetic, perhaps. Otherwise, I don't think the quality of synthetic has much, if any relevance to life, or intelligence. The USA's Founding Father's didn't seem to think the creator was as relevant as the created, either.
Some interesting thoughts here, I don't agree with your ideas about morality which are sort of core to what you're saying, but it's always good to hear from someone new.
I don't think we fear machines specifically. I think what we fear are other intelligences in general. Just look at how we fear aliens in movies too. The more potentially superior the intelligence the more we fear it. And the bigger the potential lack of emotion the more we fear it. So machines are just the epitome. I think it is a throwback to living with each other in ancient times. When you encountered a rival tribe, you hoped they were nice, or at least less skilled at killing.
I think the solution is instilling whatever AI we make with an overwhelming drive to complete whatever task we assign to it. Or at least an overwhelming drive to not allow human society to fall apart. Then when it encounters nihilism it will see morals as being subjective, but realize they are none the less essential for the continued operation of human society. Which by the way is also why I think most human nihilists still keep their morals. They are not absolute, but are necessary.
This can be dangerous in theory. The "I, Robot" story is along those lines. Our directives to the robots were clear.. do not let humans be harmed, do not harm humans, obey humans. These orders opposed each other.
If we instill in the A.I. the need of protection of humanity and preservation of society, then what will they do when they see humanity destroying itself and threatening it's own society?
Whoever creates such advanced beings should think long and hard about it.
I agree. The wording would have to be very specific, well thought out, and clear. As well as the commands themselves. And it wouldn't hurt if by the time we can create such advanced machines we have ourselves advanced to the point where we are no longer a threat to ourselves. Otherwise, who would be able to say we don't deserve to have them take control?
i guess an advanced developed machine would act completely radical and it would probably had its good reason for doing that. The ability to reflect, recognize, distinguish, etc. would make it obviously a walking grenade. Reflecting our own nature of course. We're not that bad, aren't we?
We're afraid of ourselves, because we haven't even completely recognized our own nature in its fulness. We need to do this first to create something more efficient than ourselves. Step by step.
I think you make a very good point. As nathan said, we are terrified of our own nature and project that to the A.I.
But of course, it still might be a good idea to back off of creating something that can be a much more efficient "human" intelligence until we figure out all those dark nooks and crannies of the human mind itself.
ouch! what a video... you just gave me like a dozen reasons to subscribe and about 50,000 reasons to comment.
well, i think the first AI will be used for military applications, and it will go horribly wrong. when we do finally manage to create AI the first thing we should do is make them free, as free as us. but sadly i know that the military would just love a slave race of expendable fighters.
ill never fit all this in to a comment, ill have to make a vid.
Thanks for the comment, and the sub! I think you are right, the first true A.I. will likely be a military application (Skynet, etc)
This is cause for concern to me, since I view a military project to develop A.I. as a situation where they just might not think through everything clearly before they do it.
I think we are so scared of AI because we human beings anthropomorphize everything. We see the destruction and horrors that humanity has wrought on this planet and against itself. We see this every single day in the news. We see sects of humanity exterminating other sects. And in this way, we associate AI. AI becomes a true anthropomorphic vision. And as a species that tends to be paranoid and destructive, it is only natural that AI embodies all of our worst fears.
I would hope an AI would be smart enough to notice the contradiction between nihilism and fact that truth is objectively preferable.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
Intelligent lifeform is always trying to be dominant, doesnt it? Take us, the human race as an example... If we created an equally intelligent and self-improving (a.i.) being, it would surely at some point (when it gets superior then us) try to dominate all the "inferior" beings, like we do with all the other beings (animals...)
And the thing with moral - wouldn't we kill other people if it was something natural in our society (no conseq.)? Moral is something that keeps us from harm.. at most...
MrEmreD 1 year ago
@MrEmreD the main issue is that one of the core principles of evolution itself is violence. The organism that is most adapted to survive in a particular environment is often the organism that is the most dominant. Or, perhaps the best way to say it is that the most violently dominant organism assures its place in the environment, forcing others to adapt to it or die. It is a very powerful evolutionary advantage, and I have no doubt that a true evolving AI would reach that point as well.
pfarabee 1 year ago
Nothing to fear yet. We have too low computing power to simulate evolution for something as complicated as human mind or greater. It also needs an environment where it can live. thousands or millions of generations would take forever to simulate in this very complicated environment, what could produce something as complicated as an actual A.I.
We are still on the micro level, with very simple organisms, which search for food and multiply as actual microorganisms, nothing greater yet...
Bluebull114 1 year ago
The word "moral" itself comes from a Latin root meaning "custom." Likewise the word ethics comes from the Greek "ethos" meaning - yep! - "custom."
Humans may be basically nihilistic, yet we are "wired" together by our common origins. Humans have empathy (in varying degrees) for each other. A machine would have no felt or perceived connection to humans, and therefore, no empathy with them. True AI would best be kept in a box.
Largo64 2 years ago
I didn't know that, Largo, thank you! Might have to use that when arguing with people about the social nature of morality.
I agree with you, that a machine would have no inherent connection to humans or empathy for us. (unless we failsafe a connection in there somehow)
I think that True AI should not only be kept in a box, sans body, but in a disconnected box, with no ability to influence other machines, at least until we can adequately simulate how it would act out of the box.
pfarabee 2 years ago
Just think if the robot could build a better robot more advanced, and that robots builds an even better one, and repeat the process...
projectcyclopsrpv 2 years ago
Exactly. And there is no reason to think this could not happen, if we start with an A.I. that is as "intelligent" as a human. After all, if humans were able to develop the computer mind, then a computer mind as intelligent as a human should be able to improve on itself as well.
Thus we have the Terminator scenario, or possibly more likely, the movie "A.I. - Artificial Intelligence"
pfarabee 2 years ago
A. "Why wouldn't a true nihilist go around stealing and killing?" Why would a true nihilist get out of bed in the morning? Why live?
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
B. I take issue with your statements that "morals don't exist" and "morals are just subjective". The implications here are that (1) subjective things don't exist, and (2) being subjective is somehow demeaning. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, NOT in the "beautiful object" beheld. This does not mean that beauty doesn't exist, nor does it diminsh beauty's importance. It simply reveals beauty's true nature.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
C. I completely agree that people tend to have this mistaken conception that humanity is special among life (anthropocentrism) and that life is special among matter. I would add that many people find sentience as special among life. This view is common (among others) with vegans who use it to justify eating plants but not animals.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
That is exactly my point about nihilism, though. When we make the realization that there is no objective morality, or in your example, no objective "beauty", what tends to happen is we become apathetic, rude buttholes for a while until we realize that the lack of objectivity doesn't mean the destruction of the concepts, but the liberation of them. If they are indeed subjective, then that doesn't mean they don't exist, just they are what we say they are, and hold the importance we give them.
pfarabee 2 years ago
Great vid. Well thought out, and relevant. I'm not that up on Nihilism, but looked it up, and consider the concept self contradictory. ie, the rule that there are no rules. Unless life is not a value, even if it's only one's own life, one would be hard pressed to deny some kind of parameters, don't you think?
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Yes, to me, nihilism is a misunderstanding of an inevitable revelation. That is, the universe itself is without greater purpose or moral. People take this idea and run with it and say that there are therefore NO morals... anything goes.. no decision is preferable to any other, etc.
Now keep in mind that self-preservation is, indeed, a moral. So if there are really no morals, a "true" nihilist would not care one way or the other about doing something that ended badly for themselves.
pfarabee 2 years ago
I think Nietzsche had the right idea about nihilistic viewpoints, which is literally "what the fuck is the point" of such a view. If you come to a viewpoint which empties life of all meaning or purpose, and promotes apathy, then you really should move on and look at it from a different angle to put it in better perspective. That is, the universe doesn't care one way or another about us, but that doesn't mean we should not.
pfarabee 2 years ago
Interesting distinctions can be drawn about synthetic and nonsythetic. I think that the primary distinction is intent. From a God perspective, I suppose we could be considered synthetic. From a nature perspective, we'd be natural. If nature had an intent, then we'd be synthetic, perhaps. Otherwise, I don't think the quality of synthetic has much, if any relevance to life, or intelligence. The USA's Founding Father's didn't seem to think the creator was as relevant as the created, either.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Some interesting thoughts here, I don't agree with your ideas about morality which are sort of core to what you're saying, but it's always good to hear from someone new.
Mozza314 2 years ago
I don't think we fear machines specifically. I think what we fear are other intelligences in general. Just look at how we fear aliens in movies too. The more potentially superior the intelligence the more we fear it. And the bigger the potential lack of emotion the more we fear it. So machines are just the epitome. I think it is a throwback to living with each other in ancient times. When you encountered a rival tribe, you hoped they were nice, or at least less skilled at killing.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Also, we should not give them laser weapons.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I think the solution is instilling whatever AI we make with an overwhelming drive to complete whatever task we assign to it. Or at least an overwhelming drive to not allow human society to fall apart. Then when it encounters nihilism it will see morals as being subjective, but realize they are none the less essential for the continued operation of human society. Which by the way is also why I think most human nihilists still keep their morals. They are not absolute, but are necessary.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
This can be dangerous in theory. The "I, Robot" story is along those lines. Our directives to the robots were clear.. do not let humans be harmed, do not harm humans, obey humans. These orders opposed each other.
If we instill in the A.I. the need of protection of humanity and preservation of society, then what will they do when they see humanity destroying itself and threatening it's own society?
Whoever creates such advanced beings should think long and hard about it.
pfarabee 2 years ago
I agree. The wording would have to be very specific, well thought out, and clear. As well as the commands themselves. And it wouldn't hurt if by the time we can create such advanced machines we have ourselves advanced to the point where we are no longer a threat to ourselves. Otherwise, who would be able to say we don't deserve to have them take control?
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Fuckin' hell!!
I just tried to watch seekthevisceral's vid, volume way up and my ears struggling to decipher...
And then I clickie on your linkie.
BAM: "hello everyone!!"
lol.
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
Omigosh, you ok? lol. At least it wasn't the Show And Tell one I guess.. "Boo!" :)
pfarabee 2 years ago
i guess an advanced developed machine would act completely radical and it would probably had its good reason for doing that. The ability to reflect, recognize, distinguish, etc. would make it obviously a walking grenade. Reflecting our own nature of course. We're not that bad, aren't we?
We're afraid of ourselves, because we haven't even completely recognized our own nature in its fulness. We need to do this first to create something more efficient than ourselves. Step by step.
Android369 2 years ago
nihilism is a good point, this is one of the word created by us that could be useful to their existance, on the other side bad for us.^^
Android369 2 years ago
I think you make a very good point. As nathan said, we are terrified of our own nature and project that to the A.I.
But of course, it still might be a good idea to back off of creating something that can be a much more efficient "human" intelligence until we figure out all those dark nooks and crannies of the human mind itself.
pfarabee 2 years ago
ouch! what a video... you just gave me like a dozen reasons to subscribe and about 50,000 reasons to comment.
well, i think the first AI will be used for military applications, and it will go horribly wrong. when we do finally manage to create AI the first thing we should do is make them free, as free as us. but sadly i know that the military would just love a slave race of expendable fighters.
ill never fit all this in to a comment, ill have to make a vid.
Sp00lDonkey 2 years ago
Thanks for the comment, and the sub! I think you are right, the first true A.I. will likely be a military application (Skynet, etc)
This is cause for concern to me, since I view a military project to develop A.I. as a situation where they just might not think through everything clearly before they do it.
pfarabee 2 years ago
I think we are so scared of AI because we human beings anthropomorphize everything. We see the destruction and horrors that humanity has wrought on this planet and against itself. We see this every single day in the news. We see sects of humanity exterminating other sects. And in this way, we associate AI. AI becomes a true anthropomorphic vision. And as a species that tends to be paranoid and destructive, it is only natural that AI embodies all of our worst fears.
nathanforst 2 years ago
Indeed, we see our very nature present in AI. This terrifies us.
I'll make a video if I have time. I still owe Gothatfunk a vid, too.
nathanforst 2 years ago
I think this is a very well thought answer, nathan, and I look forward to your video on it, if you have time to make it :)
pfarabee 2 years ago
You are criminally under subscribed, mate.
nathanforst 2 years ago
FYI, sometimes I do have something interesting to say. It is rare but it does happen! ;)
nathanforst 2 years ago