Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:15 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:53 pm ...then that will be a significant breakthrough.

Sure, but that does not seem a possibility. I think that is, at least, Chomsky’s insight.

But what is discomfiting is the awareness that AI will be programmed with tasks. The most obvious has already been suggested. An AI program, with an array of bots, that can insert itself pervasively in social media to influence or alter how people think about something.

'you', adult human beings, have DONE A 'job' ON and OF 'this' ALREADY.

'you', adult human beings, have inserted "yourselves" pervasively into society, influencing and altering how children 'think' about 'things'.

'you, adult human beings, literally, 'adulterate' children INTO 'adulthood', and I MEAN 'adulterate' in the sense of 'rendering poorer', 'by adding False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect 'thinking' INTO 'the children'. Or, 'programming' 'the little robots' to be just like 'the older ones'. That is; DISTORTED and CONFUSED.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:15 pm Or comb through Internet communication seeking out people with opinions and ideas (statements) deemed inappropriate or undesired.

The ‘diabolical mind’ of men — already in evidence — will gain a tool tremendously more powerful. The worst usage, and outcomes, seem the most likely. They are inevitable in fact.

AI is not and will not become “independent”, but will be something the powerful employ.

BESIDES 'you', adult human beings, WHO gave "yourselves" THE POWER and CONTROL OVER "others", WHO ELSE are the so-called 'powerful ones'?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:15 pm Mythologically, also perhaps psychologically, it seems inevitable that AI will embody the ‘demonic’.

ONCE AGAIN, JUST COPYING from 'their' CREATOR/S.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:15 pm And what was previously ‘intuited’ and ‘foretold’ by visionaries, paranoid or realistic.

It now manifests.

REALLY?

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 11:24 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:15 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:53 pm ...then that will be a significant breakthrough.

Sure, but that does not seem a possibility.

Agreed.

But, as I stated to Gary, it is not utterly inconceivable that it could be achieved sometime in the extremely distant future.

Now I realize that you heathen savages don't cotton to this kind of thinking, but I suggest that it would not only require a God-level of understanding of matter, but also God's permission to create a new (manmade) way of awakening a new eternal soul into existence out of the living fabric of God's own personal mind stuff.

If it is at least a possibility that all of reality is made out of mind stuff, then literally anything "imaginable" can be done with it.

Indeed, as we stand on the earth and look out into the universe, I propose that we are witnessing the extent to which mind stuff can be manipulated and ordered.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:15 pm But what is discomfiting is the awareness that AI will be programmed with tasks. The most obvious has already been suggested. An AI program, with an array of bots, that can insert itself pervasively in social media to influence or alter how people think about something.

Or comb through Internet communication seeking out people with opinions and ideas (statements) deemed inappropriate or undesired.

The ‘diabolical mind’ of men — already in evidence — will gain a tool tremendously more powerful. The worst usage, and outcomes, seem the most likely. They are inevitable in fact.

To paraphrase something my long since dearly departed (hillbilly) pappy used to say when confronted with the threat of some impending trouble pointed out by my dearly departed (hillbilly) mammy:

"...What do you want me to do, crawl under the bed and eat cat poop?..."

...Or...

"...What do you want me to do, wave my hand like Jesus and make it go away?..."

I sure do miss them.

So then, AJ, knowing that bad people are going to do what bad people do. then what's it gonna be?

LOL 'these people' STILL 'thought' and/or BELIEVE that so-called 'bad people' ACTUALLY EXISTED.

Just HOW ALTERED and DISTORTED they HAD BECOME could be SEEN just about EVERYWHERE here.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 11:24 pm The cat poop solution or the Jesus solution? Or perhaps you have something else in mind?
_______

FIRST there NEEDS to be A 'problem' BEFORE A 'solution' could be FOUND or MADE UP.

Is there ANY ACTUAL 'problem' here?

If yes, then WHERE and WHAT IS 'it', EXACTLY?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 11:53 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 11:24 pm But, as I stated to Gary, it is not utterly inconceivable that it could be achieved sometime in the extremely distant future.

I’m not sure if futuristic distance would enable man to create a living entity that is ‘sentient’ as man is (and other animals are). However, if man is in fact simply a biological robot then perhaps man could create a very sophisticated substrate and it could house an entity — somehow.

So then, AJ, knowing that bad people are going to do what bad people do, then what's it gonna be? The cat poop solution or the Jesus solution? Or perhaps you have something else in mind?

Neither of those.

Someone will create a super-computer human protoplasm management system. As the CCP would create if it could. It is not paranoia, I don’t think, but inevitable extension of clear tendencies we are aware of now.

What should or must a ‘soul’ do in the face of what is manifesting now? That is the part that I do not have clear.

ONLY 'you' can Truly TELL "your" 'self' what 'you' SHOULD or MUST DO. BECAUSE ONLY 'you' KNOW, FOR SURE, WHAT 'you' DO or DO NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:05 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:07 pm

It's possible the dangers are far off. It's possible they are quite close.

The current danger is in the chaos coming from misinformation.

And job losses.

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, SO FIXATED ON two of the MOST UNNECESSARY 'things' IN Life - 'jobs' AND 'money'?

Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:05 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:07 pm The current danger is in the chaos coming from misinformation.

And job losses.

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, SO FIXATED ON two of the MOST UNNECESSARY 'things' IN Life - 'jobs' AND 'money'?

Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

I'm assuming that it's because he (Age) is not an "adult" human being and he has been harmed by what at least some adults say and do in the name of "jobs" and "money".

Not everyone is struggling to survive and therefore needs a job and money to survive. Not everyone is struggling to live a life that is meaningful to them and therefore want a meaningful job, AND some aren't struggling or else seeking meaningful employment at all and truly want a "job" and/or "money" so badly that they would do evil in order to get paid for it. That is commonly known as "banal evil".

"Banal evil" is evil done without knowing that one is doing evil. It was the defense of Eric Eichman who (apparently) was very good at his job during the Nazi German episode at ensuring that the trains carrying Jews to the death camps were running efficiently. Eichman claimed at his trial that he was only doing his job. The prosecution insisted that "just doing one's job" is not a legitimate excuse for doing evil. That raises extremely difficult and complex results for society at large. The Israeli court chose to condemn Eichman as "guilty" on all accounts and sentenced him to death.

No one knows for sure if Eichmann was truly "evil" or not. We can assume that he knowingly did evil irrespective of what his conscience may have told him (if he was truly aware of the overall nature of what he was running the train schedule for). If Eichman was not aware of what he was doing and why and yet "evil" for doing it, then that places the burden on every human being to know what and why s/he is doing what s/he is doing. There is no such thing as "ignorance" or not knowing that what one is doing is evil.

If the latter case is true then we must condemn the ignorant to death for being ignorant if they did "evil" while they did (or said) what they did.

OR we can try to warn others if they are unknowingly doing evil (and we know for sure ourselves that they are doing "evil"), HOWEVER, not everyone who is warned will listen and many are outright hostile when others tell them they are doing evil.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 2:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:49 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:34 pm

and there's the rub... I never claimed they'd write anything

-Imp

Great, more incomprehensible half-thoughts from Impenitent. Perhaps he's a one-person species all to himself. Will he ever even demonstrate so much as the level of intelligence of a calculator? The philosophy of an old-wrinkled miser.

BUT 'calculators' do NOT have 'Intelligence'. ONLY 'animals' DO.

Perhaps.

A calculator is ARTIFICIAL and "intelligent" in the sense that it can do math better than an average human being can do math. That is perhaps "intelligent" but it is not "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" of what and why it calculates what it does. A calculator can be used by a human to do "good" and a calculator could be used by a human to do "evil". However, the calculator itself is not "good" or "evil" only synthetic or artificial intelligence. It is not an animal. It is made of metal and wires and plastic and other inorganic materials. It cannot feel or know pain, suffering, joy, happiness, contentment, fear, love, calm or any other emotion or sensation that a human being feels.

If a calculator does feel such things, then that would imply that every time someone throws a calculator in the garbage can to be broken down and recycled for it's minerals so that better calculators can be made with those minerals, then a person is "euthanizing" a sentient being. Of course, sentient beings also do that to each other and it is not necessarily a crime, depending upon what kind of being they are. For a human being, it is forbidden to eat other human beings. However, a human being must eat other living beings in order to sustain his, her or "their" self. Of course eating all the other living beings on a planet puts human beings in a place where we must either starve or eat each other.

THEREFORE, it is wise and prudent of human beings to care for the welfare and future of other species, perhaps even ALL other species so that we never find ourselves in such an ethical dilemma (death or cannibalism).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:05 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:07 pm The current danger is in the chaos coming from misinformation.

And job losses.

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, SO FIXATED ON two of the MOST UNNECESSARY 'things' IN Life - 'jobs' AND 'money'?

Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

But I am NOT.

It is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that THE 'society', which 'you', human beings, HAVE CREATED and live IN, in the days when this is being written, is almost entirely structured around the two COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY 'things' of 'jobs' AND 'money'.

Thus, WHY 'you', human beings, WERE IN SUCH THE MESS that 'you' WERE IN, back in those OLD DAYS.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:46 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:05 am

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, SO FIXATED ON two of the MOST UNNECESSARY 'things' IN Life - 'jobs' AND 'money'?

Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

But I am NOT.

It is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that THE 'society', which 'you', human beings, HAVE CREATED and live IN, in the days when this is being written, is almost entirely structured around the two COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY 'things' of 'jobs' AND 'money'.

Thus, WHY 'you', human beings, WERE IN SUCH THE MESS that 'you' WERE IN, back in those OLD DAYS.

Okay.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:05 am

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, SO FIXATED ON two of the MOST UNNECESSARY 'things' IN Life - 'jobs' AND 'money'?

Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

I'm assuming that it's because he (Age) is not an "adult" human being and he has been harmed by what at least some adults say and do in the name of "jobs" and "money".

ASSUME ALL you WANT, but I suggest that you SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY FIRST, BEFORE you ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing', that way you will NEVER BE Wrong, like you ARE here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm
Not everyone is struggling to survive and therefore needs a job and money to survive. Not everyone is struggling to live a life that is meaningful to them and therefore want a meaningful job, AND some aren't struggling or else seeking meaningful employment at all and truly want a "job" and/or "money" so badly that they would do evil in order to get paid for it. That is commonly known as "banal evil".

"Banal evil" is evil done without knowing that one is doing evil.

But what even IS the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED definition of 'evil', itself?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm It was the defense of Eric Eichman who (apparently) was very good at his job during the Nazi German episode at ensuring that the trains carrying Jews to the death camps were running efficiently. Eichman claimed at his trial that he was only doing his job. The prosecution insisted that "just doing one's job" is not a legitimate excuse for doing evil. That raises extremely difficult and complex results for society at large. The Israeli court chose to condemn Eichman as "guilty" on all accounts and sentenced him to death.

Is sentencing people to DEATH, and the KILLING of 'them', just ANOTHER part of "other's'" jobs?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm No one knows for sure if Eichmann was truly "evil" or not. We can assume that he knowingly did evil irrespective of what his conscience may have told him (if he was truly aware of the overall nature of what he was running the train schedule for). If Eichman was not aware of what he was doing and why and yet "evil" for doing it, then that places the burden on every human being to know what and why s/he is doing what s/he is doing. There is no such thing as "ignorance" or not knowing that what one is doing is evil.

BUT, considering the Fact that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, can NOT even DECIDE, and EXPRESS CLEARLY, what IS Right, what IS Wrong, AND what IS 'evil', in Life, then KNOWING one is doing EITHER seems like a VERY BIG ASK.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm If the latter case is true then we must condemn the ignorant to death for being ignorant if they did "evil" while they did (or said) what they did.

Is 'condemning the so-called "ignorant'', to death, for 'being ignorant' and 'evil' 'thing' to do, or NOT?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm OR we can try to warn others if they are unknowingly doing evil (and we know for sure ourselves that they are doing "evil"), HOWEVER, not everyone who is warned will listen and many are outright hostile when others tell them they are doing evil.

EXACTLY like HOW 'you', adult human beings, are Truly 'IGNORANT' of the 'evil', or Wrong, that 'you' ARE ALL DOING, and ARE NOT LISTENING TO NOR SEEING THE WARNING SIGNS, and 'you' BECOME HOSTILE when TOLD and SHOWN the Wrong that 'you' ARE ALL ACTUALLY DOING. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True throughout these writings here, in this forum.

ANYWAY, and by the way, I ALREADY KNEW that the society, which you live in, is structured around 'money' AND 'jobs'. I ALSO KNEW WHY that society was in such THE MESS that is was in, and thus WHY 'it' WAS Truly SICK and ILL.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:46 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:05 am

WHY are 'you', adult human beings, SO FIXATED ON two of the MOST UNNECESSARY 'things' IN Life - 'jobs' AND 'money'?

Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

But I am NOT.

It is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that THE 'society', which 'you', human beings, HAVE CREATED and live IN, in the days when this is being written, is almost entirely structured around the two COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY 'things' of 'jobs' AND 'money'.

Thus, WHY 'you', human beings, WERE IN SUCH THE MESS that 'you' WERE IN, back in those OLD DAYS.

Since we have this particular structure, then we need to consider how AI ought to be used within it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 2:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:49 pm

Great, more incomprehensible half-thoughts from Impenitent. Perhaps he's a one-person species all to himself. Will he ever even demonstrate so much as the level of intelligence of a calculator? The philosophy of an old-wrinkled miser.

BUT 'calculators' do NOT have 'Intelligence'. ONLY 'animals' DO.

Perhaps.

A calculator is ARTIFICIAL and "intelligent" in the sense that it can do math better than an average human being can do math.

SO, the 'definition' of 'intelligence' includes words in relation to 'math' and 'being better than an 'average human being' (whatever that IS, EXACTLY), right?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm That is perhaps "intelligent" but it is not "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" of what and why it calculates what it does. A calculator can be used by a human to do "good" and a calculator could be used by a human to do "evil". However, the calculator itself is not "good" or "evil" only synthetic or artificial intelligence.

BUT a 'calculator' does NOT have 'a level of intelligence', from my perspective.

AND, if you were somewhat CURIOUS and INTERESTED, then you would ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Otherwise, UNTIL THEN 'you' are ACTUALLY just SHOWING and PROVIDING PROOF of 'NON INTELLIGENCE' or just being CLOSED, along with ALL of the "others" here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm It is not an animal. It is made of metal and wires and plastic and other inorganic materials. It cannot feel or know pain, suffering, joy, happiness, contentment, fear, love, calm or any other emotion or sensation that a human being feels.

If a calculator does feel such things, then that would imply that every time someone throws a calculator in the garbage can to be broken down and recycled for it's minerals so that better calculators can be made with those minerals, then a person is "euthanizing" a sentient being. Of course, sentient beings also do that to each other and it is not necessarily a crime, depending upon what kind of being they are. For a human being, it is forbidden to eat other human beings.

REALLY?

IF yes, then WHEN did this FORBIDDING come into Existence, and by WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm However, a human being must eat other living beings in order to sustain his, her or "their" self.

LOL This is A PRIME EXAMPLE of just how TWISTED, DISTORTED, SICK, ILL, and DISILLUSIONED these adult human beings HAD BECOME, back in the OLDEN DAYS when this WAS being written.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm Of course eating all the other living beings on a planet puts human beings in a place where we must either starve or eat each other.

you DO GET SO FAR OFF-TRACK or SIDE-TRACKED considering what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are replying to here.

All I SAID and CLAIMED was:

BUT 'calculators' do NOT have 'Intelligence'. ONLY 'animals' DO.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm THEREFORE, it is wise and prudent of human beings to care for the welfare and future of other species, perhaps even ALL other species so that we never find ourselves in such an ethical dilemma (death or cannibalism).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay. But does 'this' NOT somewhat CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIM that A 'human being' MUST eat other ANIMALS, (in order to sustain "its" 'self'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:04 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

I'm assuming that it's because he (Age) is not an "adult" human being and he has been harmed by what at least some adults say and do in the name of "jobs" and "money".

ASSUME ALL you WANT, but I suggest that you SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY FIRST, BEFORE you ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing', that way you will NEVER BE Wrong, like you ARE here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm
Not everyone is struggling to survive and therefore needs a job and money to survive. Not everyone is struggling to live a life that is meaningful to them and therefore want a meaningful job, AND some aren't struggling or else seeking meaningful employment at all and truly want a "job" and/or "money" so badly that they would do evil in order to get paid for it. That is commonly known as "banal evil".

"Banal evil" is evil done without knowing that one is doing evil.

But what even IS the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED definition of 'evil', itself?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm It was the defense of Eric Eichman who (apparently) was very good at his job during the Nazi German episode at ensuring that the trains carrying Jews to the death camps were running efficiently. Eichman claimed at his trial that he was only doing his job. The prosecution insisted that "just doing one's job" is not a legitimate excuse for doing evil. That raises extremely difficult and complex results for society at large. The Israeli court chose to condemn Eichman as "guilty" on all accounts and sentenced him to death.

Is sentencing people to DEATH, and the KILLING of 'them', just ANOTHER part of "other's'" jobs?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm No one knows for sure if Eichmann was truly "evil" or not. We can assume that he knowingly did evil irrespective of what his conscience may have told him (if he was truly aware of the overall nature of what he was running the train schedule for). If Eichman was not aware of what he was doing and why and yet "evil" for doing it, then that places the burden on every human being to know what and why s/he is doing what s/he is doing. There is no such thing as "ignorance" or not knowing that what one is doing is evil.

BUT, considering the Fact that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, can NOT even DECIDE, and EXPRESS CLEARLY, what IS Right, what IS Wrong, AND what IS 'evil', in Life, then KNOWING one is doing EITHER seems like a VERY BIG ASK.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm If the latter case is true then we must condemn the ignorant to death for being ignorant if they did "evil" while they did (or said) what they did.

Is 'condemning the so-called "ignorant'', to death, for 'being ignorant' and 'evil' 'thing' to do, or NOT?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:23 pm OR we can try to warn others if they are unknowingly doing evil (and we know for sure ourselves that they are doing "evil"), HOWEVER, not everyone who is warned will listen and many are outright hostile when others tell them they are doing evil.

EXACTLY like HOW 'you', adult human beings, are Truly 'IGNORANT' of the 'evil', or Wrong, that 'you' ARE ALL DOING, and ARE NOT LISTENING TO NOR SEEING THE WARNING SIGNS, and 'you' BECOME HOSTILE when TOLD and SHOWN the Wrong that 'you' ARE ALL ACTUALLY DOING. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True throughout these writings here, in this forum.

ANYWAY, and by the way, I ALREADY KNEW that the society, which you live in, is structured around 'money' AND 'jobs'. I ALSO KNEW WHY that society was in such THE MESS that is was in, and thus WHY 'it' WAS Truly SICK and ILL.

Then, apparently, you seem to know more than you tell us, Age. I can only go off what I see in the news. Not everyone reads the same news sources and not every news source reports everything a person perhaps needs to know. If you are not in such a dilemma of potential ignorance as we are, then I commend you. In a sense, you are even very fortunate--more fortunate than those of us who can only think and do according to what little we understand about what is happening in the world.

Count yourself lucky or count yourself cursed or whatever you want to count yourself as. My only hope is that you are not yourself an "adult human being" at this moment in time. Perhaps you need to become one yourself so that you can be blamed for all the world's problems by someone else who doesn't think of themselves as an "adult human being".

I know nothing about you, Age, but apparently, there are critics out there who think themselves immune to their own criticism by claiming to be something other than what everyone else around them is. Sadly I can relate to that feeling as well. Sometimes one has to be just an ordinary human being in order to understand better what other human beings say and do. I wish you well Age (if that even amounts to or means anything real and substantial).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:17 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:41 pm THEREFORE, it is wise and prudent of human beings to care for the welfare and future of other species, perhaps even ALL other species so that we never find ourselves in such an ethical dilemma (death or cannibalism).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay. But does 'this' NOT somewhat CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIM that A 'human being' MUST eat other ANIMALS, (in order to sustain "its" 'self'?

I only said a human being needs to eat other living beings. Is a plant, not a living being? Can a human being live healthy without any meat in their diet? I've heard conflicting claims on that account. Or are you suggesting that human beings are "animals" and therefore it is a contradiction to say that it is not "cannibalism" to eat other animals?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:46 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:47 am Why are YOU unaware that human society is almost entirely structured around money and jobs?

But I am NOT.

It is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that THE 'society', which 'you', human beings, HAVE CREATED and live IN, in the days when this is being written, is almost entirely structured around the two COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY 'things' of 'jobs' AND 'money'.

Thus, WHY 'you', human beings, WERE IN SUCH THE MESS that 'you' WERE IN, back in those OLD DAYS.

Since we have this particular structure, then we need to consider how AI ought to be used within it.

But ACCORDING to ALL the 'scare mongering' 'artificial intelligence' is GOING TO TAKE OVER, ANYWAY.

SO, what would be THE POINT of CONSIDERING HOW 'ought' some 'thing' be USED, when 'that thing' is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'artificially intelligent', and WILL, SUPPOSEDLY, BECOME MORE INTELLIGENT, than the ones how USE 'it', ANYWAY?

What was the WHOLE POINT in DREAMING UP, INVENTING, DESIGNING, and CREATING 'artificial intelligence' if NOT for 'it' to be ABLE TO START REPLICATING, and thus CREATING MORE and BETTER of "its" OWN 'self', that is; 'self-learning, self-producing, and self-replicating machines'?

And, was NOT the WHOLE POINT of ALL-OF-THIS just SO SOME PEOPLE could OBTAIN MORE MONEY?

Now, if 'that' was NOT DONE so that SOME PEOPLE could OBTAIN MORE MONEY, then WHAT WAS the ACTUAL POINT of CREATING such 'machines'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:25 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:46 pm

But I am NOT.

It is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that THE 'society', which 'you', human beings, HAVE CREATED and live IN, in the days when this is being written, is almost entirely structured around the two COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY 'things' of 'jobs' AND 'money'.

Thus, WHY 'you', human beings, WERE IN SUCH THE MESS that 'you' WERE IN, back in those OLD DAYS.

Since we have this particular structure, then we need to consider how AI ought to be used within it.

But ACCORDING to ALL the 'scare mongering' 'artificial intelligence' is GOING TO TAKE OVER, ANYWAY.

SO, what would be THE POINT of CONSIDERING HOW 'ought' some 'thing' be USED, when 'that thing' is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'artificially intelligent', and WILL, SUPPOSEDLY, BECOME MORE INTELLIGENT, than the ones how USE 'it', ANYWAY?

What was the WHOLE POINT in DREAMING UP, INVENTING, DESIGNING, and CREATING 'artificial intelligence' if NOT for 'it' to be ABLE TO START REPLICATING, and thus CREATING MORE and BETTER of "its" OWN 'self', that is; 'self-learning, self-producing, and self-replicating machines'?

And, was NOT the WHOLE POINT of ALL-OF-THIS just SO SOME PEOPLE could OBTAIN MORE MONEY?

Now, if 'that' was NOT DONE so that SOME PEOPLE could OBTAIN MORE MONEY, then WHAT WAS the ACTUAL POINT of CREATING such 'machines'?

You are making overgeneralizations, perhaps engaged in "all or nothing" thinking, Age. Not ALL "scare monger" about artificial intelligence. Some simply wish to ensure that artificial intelligence doesn't fall into the wrong hands and become a tool for "banal evil". If Adolf Eichman can make the trains to Auschwitz run on time in an efficient manner, then it seems to me that some people could make artificially intelligent machines that might do much the same thing.

And there are also some who are so confident that artificial intelligence will solve all our problems and make the world better for us human beings that they harbor no caution at all. Such "scientists" remind me of Robert Oppenheimer. I wonder how Oppenheimer felt about being the creator of a weapon that could destroy all life on Earth, even if only used by accident by an otherwise ignorant person who didn't know what he or she was doing or why.