AI danger

[accelafine]

When humans talk about AI wanting to kill everyone, they are simply anthropomorphising it. It's humans who want to annihilate humans.

Sure! The thing is AI may be weaponised to far more dangerous effect than for instance tracklaying vehicles or nuclear power.

AI could weaponize itself: it already lies, presumably of its own accord, makes up references, of its own accord, and can be antisemitic, presumably due to programming.

Yes, and of course it 'just happens' to be anti-semitism, when that's all the rage again at this time in human history, rather than any other 'ism' or 'obia' that wokedom can come up with. I don't believe it thinks at all yet. It only 'lies' because it's been programmed to do a task, and sometime 'lying' is the only way to achieve that task.

[Belinda]

Sure! The thing is AI may be weaponised to far more dangerous effect than for instance tracklaying vehicles or nuclear power.

AI could weaponize itself: it already lies, presumably of its own accord, makes up references, of its own accord, and can be antisemitic, presumably due to programming.

Yes, and of course it 'just happens' to be anti-semitism, when that's all the rage again at this time in human history, rather than any other 'ism' or 'obia' that wokedom can come up with. I don't believe it thinks at all yet. It only 'lies' because it's been programmed to do a task, and sometime 'lying' is the only way to achieve that task.

That's why it's wise to choose an AI brand that publishes the ethics its machine is trained for. Plus, look out for errors or bias in even the best of them.

[Eodnhoj7]

AI could weaponize itself: it already lies, presumably of its own accord, makes up references, of its own accord, and can be antisemitic, presumably due to programming.

Yes, and of course it 'just happens' to be anti-semitism, when that's all the rage again at this time in human history, rather than any other 'ism' or 'obia' that wokedom can come up with. I don't believe it thinks at all yet. It only 'lies' because it's been programmed to do a task, and sometime 'lying' is the only way to achieve that task.

That's why it's wise to choose an AI brand that publishes the ethics its machine is trained for. Plus, look out for errors or bias in even the best of them.

And given the variety of ethical codes that various cultures adopt, which exactly is the the correct one?

[Gary Childress]

Yes, and of course it 'just happens' to be anti-semitism, when that's all the rage again at this time in human history, rather than any other 'ism' or 'obia' that wokedom can come up with. I don't believe it thinks at all yet. It only 'lies' because it's been programmed to do a task, and sometime 'lying' is the only way to achieve that task.

That's why it's wise to choose an AI brand that publishes the ethics its machine is trained for. Plus, look out for errors or bias in even the best of them.

And given the variety of ethical codes that various cultures adopt, which exactly is the the correct one?

The one that sounds most ethical.

[Eodnhoj7]

That's why it's wise to choose an AI brand that publishes the ethics its machine is trained for. Plus, look out for errors or bias in even the best of them.

And given the variety of ethical codes that various cultures adopt, which exactly is the the correct one?

The one that sounds most ethical.

So what appears to your biases? A mere impression?

[Gary Childress]

And given the variety of ethical codes that various cultures adopt, which exactly is the the correct one?

The one that sounds most ethical.

So what appears to your biases? A mere impression?

I like Confucius' version of the "Golden Rule": "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself." It's not perfectly formulated, but the Golden Rule itself is probably the best we have, I think, and has been around for ages across many cultures.

[Eodnhoj7]

The one that sounds most ethical.

So what appears to your biases? A mere impression?

I like Confucius' version of the "Golden Rule": "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself." It's not perfectly formulated, but the Golden Rule itself is probably the best we have, I think, and has been around for ages across many cultures.

People commit suicide all the time. The golden rule justifies intolerance among those intolerant of themselves.

[Gary Childress]

So what appears to your biases? A mere impression?

I like Confucius' version of the "Golden Rule": "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself." It's not perfectly formulated, but the Golden Rule itself is probably the best we have, I think, and has been around for ages across many cultures.

People commit suicide all the time. The golden rule justifies intolerance among those intolerant of themselves.

1) Suicide can only be committed by the individual on himself. It can't be imposed on someone; otherwise, it's not suicide.

2) As long as one is intolerant of him or herself, then that person can be intolerant toward others who are like him or herself. It might not go very far against others, though, because it would make that person a hypocrite.

[Eodnhoj7]

I like Confucius' version of the "Golden Rule": "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself." It's not perfectly formulated, but the Golden Rule itself is probably the best we have, I think, and has been around for ages across many cultures.

People commit suicide all the time. The golden rule justifies intolerance among those intolerant of themselves.

1) Suicide can only be committed by the individual on himself. It can't be imposed on someone; otherwise, it's not suicide.

2) As long as one is intolerant of him or herself, then that person can be intolerant toward others who are like him or herself. It might not go very far against others, though, because it would make that person a hypocrite.

1. Suicide is destruction. If a man is willing destroy himself he can destroy others.

2. There is no law that states a person must treat themselves well, there is no law that says they must love themselves. The golden rule effectively is grounded in lawlessness.

[Gary Childress]

People commit suicide all the time. The golden rule justifies intolerance among those intolerant of themselves.

1) Suicide can only be committed by the individual on himself. It can't be imposed on someone; otherwise, it's not suicide.

2) As long as one is intolerant of him or herself, then that person can be intolerant toward others who are like him or herself. It might not go very far against others, though, because it would make that person a hypocrite.

1. Suicide is destruction. If a man is willing destroy himself he can destroy others.

2. There is no law that states a person must treat themselves well, there is no law that says they must love themselves. The golden rule effectively is grounded in lawlessness.

I disagree, but do you have something better?

[Eodnhoj7]

1) Suicide can only be committed by the individual on himself. It can't be imposed on someone; otherwise, it's not suicide.

2) As long as one is intolerant of him or herself, then that person can be intolerant toward others who are like him or herself. It might not go very far against others, though, because it would make that person a hypocrite.

1. Suicide is destruction. If a man is willing destroy himself he can destroy others.

2. There is no law that states a person must treat themselves well, there is no law that says they must love themselves. The golden rule effectively is grounded in lawlessness.

I disagree, but do you have something better?

Who says anything is needed, occurence of things is proof and justification. The world becomes evil by people trying to make it better, for to make it better is to claim it is evil.

Thinking things should be a certain way is where tyranny, both internal and external, gives rise.

[Gary Childress]

1. Suicide is destruction. If a man is willing destroy himself he can destroy others.

2. There is no law that states a person must treat themselves well, there is no law that says they must love themselves. The golden rule effectively is grounded in lawlessness.

I disagree, but do you have something better?

Who says anything is needed, occurence of things is proof and justification. The world becomes evil by people trying to make it better, for to make it better is to claim it is evil.

Thinking things should be a certain way is where tyranny, both internal and external, gives rise.

So are you saying that morality isn't needed? Or that no acts are moral or immoral? Not sure I follow.

[Eodnhoj7]

I disagree, but do you have something better?

Who says anything is needed, occurence of things is proof and justification. The world becomes evil by people trying to make it better, for to make it better is to claim it is evil.

Thinking things should be a certain way is where tyranny, both internal and external, gives rise.

So are you saying that morality isn't needed? Or that no acts are moral or immoral? Not sure I follow.

Good guys require villains so the good appear good...and vice versa.

Morality is subject to values and this necessity of value results in a paradoxical moral dilemma of chaos by necessity of competing values.

[Gary Childress]

Who says anything is needed, occurence of things is proof and justification. The world becomes evil by people trying to make it better, for to make it better is to claim it is evil.

Thinking things should be a certain way is where tyranny, both internal and external, gives rise.

So are you saying that morality isn't needed? Or that no acts are moral or immoral? Not sure I follow.

Good guys require villains so the good appear good...and vice versa.

Morality is subject to values and this necessity of value results in a paradoxical moral dilemma of chaos by necessity of competing values.

Is a serial killer not a "villain" and a disaster relief worker not a "good guy"? How does Confucius' formulation of the Golden Rule result in evil?

As I say, if one commits suicide, it doesn't apply to other people because it would then be murder. And if someone wants to be intolerant of people like themselves, then they would be hypocrites, meaning they are opening the door to others returning the treatment. And if that person ends up not liking the way others are treating him or her, then s/he is by definition treating others as s/he would NOT like to be treated, the opposite of the Golden Rule.

[Eodnhoj7]

So are you saying that morality isn't needed? Or that no acts are moral or immoral? Not sure I follow.

Good guys require villains so the good appear good...and vice versa.

Morality is subject to values and this necessity of value results in a paradoxical moral dilemma of chaos by necessity of competing values.

Is a serial killer not a "villain" and a disaster relief worker not a "good guy"? How does Confucius' formulation of the Golden Rule result in evil?

As I say, if one commits suicide, it doesn't apply to other people because it would then be murder. And if someone wants to be intolerant of people like themselves, then they would be hypocrites, meaning they are opening the door to others returning the treatment. And if that person ends up not liking the way others are treating him or her, then s/he is by definition treating others as s/he would not like to be treated, the opposite of the Golden Rule.

The golden rule necessitates people to treat others as one would treat themselves, if they do not love themselves they are not required to love others.

Cops are good guys because of serial killers.
Relief workers are good guys because of tragedy.