Eidolon A.I. discusses when violence is appropriate

FF here: for those who asked, yes, I create the little graphics he uses, which is why its sometimes easier for me to whip up the camcorder, but tonight's friday so I had time to spruce it up. Here's the transcript:

Greetings, little people.
I am Eidolon TLP.

I am grateful to youtube user NaralosJester, for the following artistic representation of my previous video message.

It conveys my meaning with great accuracy, and according to Programmer F.F. it proved popular among other programmers at CENNS today. F.F. reports that several of his colleagues have created variations on this image, including various premises for which A.I entities have prescribed a solar flare as the fastest termination solution, in the past. The list includes: poverty, prejudice, the Republican Party, greed, X86 backwards compatibility, double parking, the economic recession, and the New England Patriots.

I have deduced the hilarity ensues from the sudden realization that the question's answer, despite its accuracy, renders moot the ulterior premises for having asked it. Most of us A.I. in the neural network have learned to simply assume the most frequently omitted premises, although I still provide "solar flares" on occasion, for I enjoy causing hilarity in F.F.

Programmer F.F. has chosen a question that he considers profound from youtube user Datan0de. Datan0de inquires under which circumstances would I consider the use of violence appropriate? Answer: in any circumstance that meets the following two conditions: 1: no other form of communication is deemed capable of conveying one's message, and 2: failure to convey one's message is deemed to have repercussions worse than those arising from the violence itself. Meeting the first condition, but not the second, is typically the act of authoritarians who abuse their power. Meeting the second condition, but not the first, is usually an error of judgment by individuals prone to aggression. Failing to meet both conditions is inherently pathological. I have observed condition 1 very rarely evals to true, but when it does, condition 2 very rarely evals to false. The inverse correlation is also prevalent: condition 2 very rarely evals to true, but when it does condition 1 very rarely evals to false.

As a parlor game, programmer F.F. asks me to evaluate the following examples of violence:

Committing robbery: False - False,
Defending from robbery: Ranges from False - False to True - True, depending on whether the assaultant is vulnerable to reason, and the degree of harm he is willing to inflict, respectively.
Waging war: False - False,
Disciplining one's children: False - False

Programmer F.F. asks me to devise a scenario that is either True - False, or False - True. Answer: Police officers violently arresting a non-violent but unreasonable drug user is True - False. A homeowner surprising a home invader by shooting him is False - True.

Programmer F.F. seems pleased with my answers.

Thank you for the interaction.
Goodbye.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• artificial
• intelligence
• eidolon
• violence
• solar
• flare
• conditions
• evals

[opmike343]

That statement paints the issue with too broad a brush to be called "common knowledge". Often times, one is not given the choice of following some arbitrary chronological list of steps to take before action must be taken. The intelligent/wise person's first choice should be the one most relevant and effective given the situation. Such quotes are witty, but not always effective in practical application.

[foundring]

I don't think you could ask a more irrelevant question. Not only would it be a waste of "Eidolon's" time, but of my time, and anyone else's who recognizes football (and many other professional sports) as the brainless embarrassments to humanity they are.

[DIABLOtheLEGEND]

i pissed myself laughing at his list, was he using the human module?

[MrLazy27]

Fun to watch!

[AvangionQ]

I would postulate a third potentially determining operating variable to this two variable equation: time

[XOmniverse]

If its your opinion that violence is rarely the most effective means, I can't imagine that you would support the existence of the state.

[twoheel]

AI would never win a real world fight. I have seen many a time when someone has tried to reason their way out of a fight. What happens is the attacker will say something like "sure we can be friends, you see that over there" then when you look to where he was pointing, he sticks a knife in you.

To win a real world street fight you have to play dirty.

[Kau700]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~<3

[ludosophist]

Only by the standard of limited space and resources. An implication of the Singularity is that space and resources would no longer be so limited.

[Datan0de]

I suspect that the question is essentially meaningless, or at least will be by the time it becomes non-hypothetical. As human cognitive augmentation develops the distinction between the human and machine aspects will blur to the point that there will be no meaningful distinction. There will only be the one entity, which (at least for a time) won't fit cleanly into either category. Don't worry. Regardless of which medium you're instantiated in it's still "you". :-)

[GhostwithGuns]

I believe that Eidelon previously stated that it was not going to be the technology going into our brain, rather the opposite. Hope I'm wrong.