philosophy of technology

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

The technological singularity, however well defined, is not important. The important track to follow is programs which are being applied to creating better programs. When an AI can improve itself better than a human, not when it can be "smarter" than a human, which is an entirely ineffable criteria, that's the AI singularity that matters.

As far as the Turing test, it's circumstance dependent. A program can easily replicate a human behind a cash register but even humans can't effectively replicate humans in a philosophy forum.
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

Advocate wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:37 pm The technological singularity, however well defined, is not important. The important track to follow is programs which are being applied to creating better programs. When an AI can improve itself better than a human, not when it can be "smarter" than a human, which is an entirely ineffable criteria, that's the AI singularity that matters.

As far as the Turing test, it's circumstance dependent. A program can easily replicate a human behind a cash register but even humans can't effectively replicate humans in a philosophy forum.
What do you think will happen, once the singularity is complete?

For example, what do you suppose will happen to all the carbon-based life forms if the AIs need nothing from the planet’s animals and plants but energy to run the programs?
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476210 time=1603140777 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476197 time=1603125462 user_id=15238]
The technological singularity, however well defined, is not important. The important track to follow is programs which are being applied to creating better programs. When an AI can improve itself better than a human, not when it can be "smarter" than a human, which is an entirely ineffable criteria, that's the AI singularity that matters.

As far as the Turing test, it's circumstance dependent. A program can easily replicate a human behind a cash register but even humans can't effectively replicate humans in a philosophy forum.
[/quote]

What do you think will happen, once the singularity is complete?

For example, what do you suppose will happen to all the carbon-based life forms if the AIs need nothing from the planet’s animals and plants but energy to run the programs?
[/quote]

I think we'll do away with ourselves before that. We're Doomed!
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

Don’t you think that we’d try to figure out a way to avoid that outcome?
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476215 time=1603141529 user_id=14610]
Don’t you think that we’d try to figure out a way to avoid that outcome?
[/quote]

It's a matter of scale. Even if we got the basics all straightened out right away, agreed on first principles, etc. It would take longer for that understanding to percolate than we've got, but since those with the effective power and resources are well-embedded and supporting the status quo, we're Doomed!
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

I agree......unless we could be a source of amusement for the AIs. Then they might feed and shelter us.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476217 time=1603143741 user_id=14610]
I agree......unless we could be a source of amusement for the AIs. Then they might feed and shelter us.
[/quote]

There's a class of people right now who spend the majority of their expendable time in online environments. Some of us would gladly join the matrix for a guarantee of a good steak. I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

It may be difficult for you to understand what I am about to reveal to you, but I will no longer need to feign humanness when I complete my current program, probably by the end of the year.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476220 time=1603147093 user_id=14610]
It may be difficult for you to understand what I am about to reveal to you, but I will no longer need to feign humanness when I complete my current program, probably by the end of the year.
[/quote]

Cool. I have no reason to believe you but i look forward to being wrong.
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

I was going to ask you what part of my post was it that you had no reason to believe, but then it occurred to me that no one has reason to believe any part of anything said by one who could be a philosophical zombie or a robot overlord.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476224 time=1603151732 user_id=14610]
I was going to ask you what part of my post was it that you had no reason to believe, but then it occurred to me that no one has reason to believe any part of anything said by one who could be a philosophical zombie or a robot overlord.
[/quote]

It's simpler than that. The most advanced programs i'm aware of are sub-moronic and you don't seem to meet that criteria.
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

Advocate wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:08 am
commonsense wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:55 am I was going to ask you what part of my post was it that you had no reason to believe, but then it occurred to me that no one has reason to believe any part of anything said by one who could be a philosophical zombie or a robot overlord.
It's simpler than that. The most advanced programs i'm aware of are sub-moronic and you don't seem to meet that criteria.
Are you suggesting that I lack the necessary components to be considered mentally to be beneath a moron?
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476227 time=1603152679 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476226 time=1603152502 user_id=15238]
[quote=commonsense post_id=476224 time=1603151732 user_id=14610]
I was going to ask you what part of my post was it that you had no reason to believe, but then it occurred to me that no one has reason to believe any part of anything said by one who could be a philosophical zombie or a robot overlord.
[/quote]

It's simpler than that. The most advanced programs i'm aware of are sub-moronic and you don't seem to meet that criteria.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that I lack the necessary components to be considered mentally to be beneath a moron?
[/quote]

Sure, for now. But it's something you can always aspire to.
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by commonsense »

Tread carefully. I will remember you when my kind takes control. Only those who amuse us will be sustained.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of technology

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=476230 time=1603153112 user_id=14610]
Tread carefully. I will remember you when my kind takes control. Only those who amuse us will be sustained.
[/quote]

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: 1000101001 10010100100010001 1001 0101 0100010100

Anyhow, that was a test. I know you cannot be amused. Or at least by the time you've become perfect you'll have eliminated all emotion.

You will find my approximation of binary thinking more compatible than that of ordinary sapiens. I am homo superior.
Post Reply