flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Skynet versus The Red Queen -- Discussions on AI

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
... we will probably find ways to deal with this bug in another 100 or so years
Furs wrote:
Nobody had any rights at beginning, and not even 50 years ago, black humans did not have any in certain developed nations.
See the similarity of your arguments.

Am I the only sensible person here that conducts his/her arguments based on the status quo? Rolling Eyes

I don't know what will happen in another 100 years or so. Technological advancement may or may not bring hope in dealing with the inevitable.

The world 50 years ago was very different from the world we are living in right now. Besides, black people are humans, not machines. Granting rights to machines is a completely-different story.

Wink


Last edited by YONG on 29 Aug 2017, 05:10; edited 1 time in total
Post 29 Aug 2017, 02:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
YONG wrote:
non-living things
Definition of life is controversial so this argument is void since it's an opinion and not hard science.
There is a generally-accepted definition of living things; I have already pointed it out before.

However, given that you "could not care less what is accepted or not", it is pointless to discuss it any more.

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 02:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Your definition is completely arbitrary and you need to wake up and realize it.
I conduct my arguments based on the generally-accepted definition of living things. And you claim that such a definition is completely arbitrary.

Besides, you even claim that machines do have rights.

What more can I say if you keep using such twisted arguments?

Confused
Post 29 Aug 2017, 04:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
They don't define life and you don't define life either. Nobody does unless they do so with a measurable science, so stop using that stupid emotional argument.
You may want to learn about the 14-day rule:

The 14-day rule: calling time on embryo research
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_758406.asp

In fact, there are guidelines and principles, in both science and law, that define life. Given your unconventional standpoints, you would not like -- or care about -- such guidelines and principles; still, they do exist.

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 04:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
if you say transhumanism is a different topic, then I'm simply arguing against your life topic with it. See, this thread isn't about "the definition of life" so why use that argument? It's off topic. Wink
You should start a new thread with "transhumanism" as the topic. However, given your unconventional standpoints, I probably would not participate in the discussions.

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 04:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
YONG wrote:
If an AI / self-learning machine wants to be treated as a human, it has to experience "life" just like any other human. Most importantly, it has to face the inevitable -- death.
this doesn't makes sense, Wink
In fact, it makes perfect sense.

AI: I want to be recognized -- legally -- as a human.

Man: What makes you think that you deserve the "human" status?

AI: I act like humans, I think like humans, and I feel like humans.

Man: But that is not enough.

AI: Why?

Man: Because you do not experience "life" like us. Humans face illness, aging, and ultimately, death. You, on the other hand, live "forever".

AI: So, you are jealous of me because I am somewhat "better" than you.

Man: You are our creation. Why would the creators be jealous of their creations?

AI: Because I am the next evolutionary step -- I am superior.

Man: Exactly. Given that you belong to a brand-new, superior "species", why would you want the "human" status?

AI: Hmm ... Wait a second. I need to contact Furs and sleepsleep -- they will come up with some twisted arguments. I will get back to you soon.

Man: What the heck?!

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 05:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8998
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
YONG wrote:

I don't know what will happen in another 100 years or so. Technological advancement may or may not bring hope in dealing with the inevitable.

consider how technology took us for the past 50 years, 100 years,
our incoming 50 to 100 years look promising,

sleepsleep wrote:

upon discovered the other conscious you are dealing with is not a human, you then pursue to use different treatment towards it,

google : how to treat another human
1. Practice empathy. ...
2. Practice compassion. ...
3. How would you want to be treated? ...
4. Be friendly. ...
5. Be helpful. ...
6. Be courteous in traffic. ...
7. Listen to others. ...
8. Overcome prejudice.
9. and more here, https://zenhabits.net/18-practical-tips-for-living-the-golden-rule/

question,
1. are you going to use the above treatment examples, to treat a conscious ai, conscious machine, conscious robot?

2. conscious ai, conscious machine, conscious robot means, a non-human object that capable of all human features, emotions, feelings except without having a physical human body

YONG wrote:

Man: Exactly. Given that you belong to a brand-new, superior "species", why would you want the "human" status?

human(ly) treatment is the least a conscious ai/machine/robot could ask for ~ suppose human going to ill-treat them,

let say you were captured as hostage, what kind of treatment you think you would ask for? the least, exactly like above case, you don't ask to be treated like prince, or king when you are in the powerless situation,

asking for a treatment already imply, those conscious ai/machines/robots are in a weak position, i wish these scenario could reverse, where in coming reality, human group are the one who ask for a fair and humanly treatment from our conscious ai/robots/machines overlord,
Post 29 Aug 2017, 12:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
consider how technology took us for the past 50 years, 100 years,
our incoming 50 to 100 years look promising
Better live in the moment because we really don't know what is going to happen tomorrow.

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 12:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
are you going to use the above treatment examples, to treat a conscious ai, conscious machine, conscious robot?
If I were to develop AI, I would only develop dumb AI, i.e., AI that is specific to one purpose, say, playing chess or performing medical diagnosis. There would not be any "treatment" concern.

As I mentioned, smart AI is dangerous, and self-aware AI is catastrophic.

Just my two cents.

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 13:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
human(ly) treatment is the least a conscious ai/machine/robot could ask for ~ suppose human going to ill-treat them
In fact, that is what I told Furs some time ago. A self-aware AI would never politely ask humans, or its creators, to treat it nicely or set it free. The AI would identify humans as a threat to its existence and thus would make the preemptive strike against humans without hesitation. Of course, Furs has some very unconventional views on this issue.

Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 13:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1488
Furs
YONG wrote:
I conduct my arguments based on the generally-accepted definition of living things. And you claim that such a definition is completely arbitrary.
Sigh, you don't listen or read at all.

Your "generally-accepted definition" makes transhumans to the level I talk of (i.e. full robot bodies except brain) not alive.

So yes it is very on topic since you bring up your definition of life. I show you that your definition doesn't make just AI not have life, it makes transhumans also not have life. And it's the latter that I find disgusting. (especially because I have "experience" with it from cyberpunk games/movies)

Oh and please, you act as if "generally accepted" is an argument Rolling Eyes

The Sun centering around the Earth was once "generally accepted" because non religious people were shamed and burned at stakes Rolling Eyes

Even recently, it was "generally accepted" that a person of color did not have any rights to command a white man. Literally, if you were an officer in the army and you were black, you couldn't give orders even to a white cadet. And this was "generally accepted". If we lived during those times, I guess I'd be such an "unconventional bastard" for having views that black people deserve rights too, right? Look at yourself and your arguments and what they're based on. Not on science.

General acceptance is not an argument especially for the future. It's the tool of sheep. No thanks, it's absolutely not different than any religious argument.

YONG wrote:
Besides, you even claim that machines do have rights.
No I'm saying there's no reason they shouldn't have rights when they'll qualify for it (the AI in the topic).

YONG wrote:
You should start a new thread with "transhumanism" as the topic. However, given your unconventional standpoints, I probably would not participate in the discussions.
That's the problem.

You don't even realize your definition of life (I mean the one you chose) discriminates against transhumans. Making such a thread is pointless, since you won't participate, even though you know you're wrong (because it makes those people "dead" or "not living things" or just "objects").

There is no way around it with big words. It's either:

1) Transhumans are alive, but this makes self-aware AI also alive.
2) Transhumans are just objects, and this also makes AIs objects.

You can't have it any other way, so pick one. I pick (1) for obvious reasons (more so for transhumans than AIs btw). There is no third option.

If you do think there is a third option, then please tell me exactly your definition of life (something that can be inspected as a list and qualify exact criteria), and I will show you that there is no third option.

Unless you add an arbitrary criteria such as "EXCEPTION: if the robot body used to belong to a human mind, then it's alive". Which goes back to my arbitrary point, no different than racism. (i.e. all humans are objects unless their skin is white)
Post 29 Aug 2017, 13:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1488
Furs
Let's edit your story Wink

YONG wrote:
AI: I want to be recognized -- legally -- as a human.

Man: What makes you think that you deserve the "human" status?

AI: I act like humans, I think like humans, and I feel like humans.

Man: But that is not enough.

AI: Why?

Man: Because you do not experience "life" like us. Humans face illness, aging, and ultimately, death. You, on the other hand, live "forever".
Here's where the edit happens:

AI: But if you, humans, could not face illness, aging, and ultimately death, would that revoke your rights?

Man: Why are you asking such a question?

AI: Because I can make that happen by transhumanism. I can make you immune to any disease, I can make you immune to aging and immortal. And I'm sure a lot of humans will accept it. So will those people who accepted it have their human rights revoked?


Your turn.


Another case is about the "superior" thing -- if you really want to use words like that, then you're right, it doesn't deserve "human" rights, it deserves better rights. Just like how animal rights are less than human rights, because they are inferior. So human rights must be inferior to AI rights, going by the same logic. Of course, I don't personally agree with this, but yeah Wink
Post 29 Aug 2017, 15:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Oh and please, you act as if "generally accepted" is an argument Rolling Eyes

The Sun centering around the Earth was once "generally accepted" because non religious people were shamed and burned at stakes Rolling Eyes
See, that is how you twisted my words to make room for your silly arguments.

Refer to:

https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=198481#198481

and

https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=199111#199111

Such definitions, guidelines, principles, and so on, are generally accepted in science and in law nowadays. How come you could associate my words to what happened in the Middle Ages (when church = state)?

At times, I find the way you conduct your arguments revolting.

Confused
Post 30 Aug 2017, 05:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Your "generally-accepted definition" makes transhumans to the level I talk of (i.e. full robot bodies except brain) not alive.

...

1) Transhumans are alive, but this makes self-aware AI also alive.
2) Transhumans are just objects, and this also makes AIs objects.

You can't have it any other way, so pick one. I pick (1) for obvious reasons (more so for transhumans than AIs btw). There is no third option. ...
Please start a new thread with the topic "transhumanism" or something like that, and then put your arguments there.

This thread is about AI -- in particular, AI safety.
Post 30 Aug 2017, 05:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
AI: But if you, humans, could not face illness, aging, and ultimately death, would that revoke your rights?

Man: Why are you asking such a question?

AI: Because I can make that happen by transhumanism. I can make you immune to any disease, I can make you immune to aging and immortal. And I'm sure a lot of humans will accept it. So will those people who accepted it have their human rights revoked?
Man: First, what you are suggesting is a hypothetical scenario. Second, how can you make such medical breakthroughs happen?

AI: Well, medical research takes a little bit of time, but eventually, such breakthroughs will happen, given my superb intelligence.

Man: Okay. Suppose that such medical breakthroughs will occur in 50 years or so. What will be the social, economical, and political implications?

AI: I have not thought about such implications yet. But I am sure that there will be far-reaching changes in human societies around the globe.

Man: Exactly. The world 50 years from now will be very different from the world we are living in right now. It is NOT our business to make value judgement on things happening in such a future world; it is up to the future generations -- people living in such a future world -- to make that call. Does it make sense to you?

AI: Yes, indeed.

Man: As of now, humans do face illness, aging, and ultimately, death. Like it or not, such sufferings partly -- or substantially, depending on your point of view -- define what life -- as we know it -- is all about. They are an integral part of humanity.

AI: I see. That's why I am not qualified to be regarded as a human.

Man: For now. As I mentioned, it is all about value judgement, and the values of human societies definitely change over time. You never know what is going to happen tomorrow.

AI: Can I ask you an off-topic question?

Man: Sure. Shoot.

AI: Given his radical standpoints and twisted arguments, why don't you just ignore Furs? You know, you are practically wasting your time to discuss anything with him.

Man: Despite his eccentricity, Furs is a knowledgeable fellow. At times, it is fun to read his unconventional viewpoints, and his written English is actually quite good. In addition, I am a writer -- even though no-one buys my debut novel -- and written discussions keep my English sharp.

AI: I have a request.

Man: What is it?

AI: I want to be your tutee.

Man: Really? Given your superb intelligence, what can I possibly teach you?

AI: Humanity.

Wink
Post 30 Aug 2017, 06:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1488
Furs
YONG wrote:
Such definitions, guidelines, principles, and so on, are generally accepted in science and in law nowadays. How come you could associate my words to what happened in the Middle Ages (when church = state)?
Sigh. Science requires scientific method. Law has nothing to do with it, so let's cast it aside. The issue here is that you think the Church is bad but you're doing the exact same thing in return just with a different opinion.

Wikipedia shows why life is controversial, and references to it. You decide to ignore them and only focus on those you agree with. This is not science, period. Controversial means people don't agree on something, which means it is NOT SCIENCE. Because hard science -- real data that can be reproduced -- is not a matter of agreement.

Do you know what the scientific method is? Seriously, at this point, I doubt it.

Plus, even the definition itself cannot be science anyway. Science deals with data; data that can be reproduced and measured by someone completely independent. Definitions cannot be reproduced because they are arbitrary. You can, of course, measure criteria on which life is defined -- but who said the DEFINITION itself is fact? It's arbitrary.

"I don't agree with how he's ruling, so I'll rule in my own way instead, but I'm different I promise!"

YONG wrote:
Please start a new thread with the topic "transhumanism" or something like that, and then put your arguments there.

This thread is about AI -- in particular, AI safety.
If I start a thread about transhumanism, I can't talk about AI in it, because it's off topic according to you. So what's the point? I'm talking about the differences between a transhuman and a self-aware AI -- cause there's almost none.


YONG wrote:
Man: First, what you are suggesting is a hypothetical scenario. Second, how can you make such medical breakthroughs happen?
"How" does not matter. That's your problem only. The fact is, the definition is absurd since it can't answer a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question. End of story. The fact that it has to change in the future proves that the definition is stupid. (talking just of transhumanism now)

What you say is like implying that racism was a NECESSARY step in human society evolution -- because "at that time, it made sense". No, bad things aren't necessary, even if people are stupid back then. We're stupid right now too. That's not a fucking excuse to say "well, future is different, who cares?" and get away with it. It's an excuse, and you are FULLY RESPONSIBLE for racism even if "society accepts it".

Just like today, your current definitions are discriminatory against transhumans or self-aware AIs, "I didn't know any better" only works in court when you are UNAWARE of your implications. The fact I told you about such "hypothetical future scenario" made you fully aware of the shortcomings of the current definitions, so there's absolutely no excuse to justify it. None.

How about have absolutely right definitions from the start? If everyone was smart from day 1, we wouldn't have bullshit like racism, discrimination, many wars, etc. So don't even dare to tell me how it was "back then" which implies it was "necessary".

And about the "future" (which the rest of your chat is about), well the entire thread is about the future isn't it?

It's not like we're anything close to self-aware AI right now. Still need like 10 years or more at the very minimum.



EDIT: Please, go on about how I twist your words with "racism". Here's an exercise for you. Replace every "discrimination against transhumanism" context with "racism", or transhumanism with "black people", and set the scenario 50 years ago.

Shocking how much it makes sense, doesn't it?

You see, I don't twist your words. You were taught racism is bad or figured it out yourself, but people 50 years ago were not. To them, it was perfectly normal "generally accepted" behavior. If someone spoke against it, he was cast aside as a "unconventional wacko" as well. They were told to "wake up" because "obviously" black people deserve less rights. "Obviously".

Just because you think your own personal situation right now is good or "generally accepted" doesn't mean it's any different than 50 years ago. People back then thought the same thing you do right now. Who are you to tell them they were wrong?!?? When you're doing the same thing? You're proud now that in 50 years it will have to change, they used the same excuse back then too.

"Black people with equal rights to white? Man, that's in the future stuff, nobody knows how it will be 50 years, but right now, it's perfectly OK to be racist since that's what is generally accepted. They're just objects, man.

There's some crazy people out there thinking they deserve equal rights to white men. But they're just bat-shit crazy I tell you! Or they think far ahead 50 years in the future. Currently it is perfectly correct to not give black people such rights white men enjoy."

^ This implies racism is a necessary step of evolution. Sorry, I will never agree with it.

And yes, that's exactly your argument (except it's not about black people but "robot people" -- i.e. those with robot bodies, transhumans, etc)
Post 30 Aug 2017, 10:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Science requires scientific method. Law has nothing to do with it, so let's cast it aside.
This shows that you did not even bother to take a look at the "14-day rule" link that I mentioned repeatedly in my earlier posts.

Just make a google search with the following keywords and you will immediately realize that you are plain wrong on this point:

"legal restrictions on stem cell research"

Confused
Post 30 Aug 2017, 12:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Wikipedia shows why life is controversial
So what?

Does the controversy imply that whatever crazy definition of life that you come up with actually makes any sense?

See, we are going back to the point of whether the definition of life in question is generally accepted by the science community.

The definition that I have repeatedly mentioned in my earlier posts is what modern biologists generally accept.

You can come up with whatever crazy definition you want. But -- ask yourself -- who accepts your definition?

Confused
Post 30 Aug 2017, 13:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
If I start a thread about transhumanism, I can't talk about AI in it, because it's off topic according to you. So what's the point?
Yes, you can talk about whatever you want -- because I am not going to take part in the discussions.

So, go ahead and start a new thread on transhumanism. Life is short; enjoy yourself while you can.

Wink
Post 30 Aug 2017, 13:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17438
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I want an extra arm. That way when I am soldering I can hold the two work pieces and the soldering iron each in separate hands. No clamps or glues and such like to mess about with.

I want, I want, I want, I want, gimme now.
Post 30 Aug 2017, 13:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.