3 ms·

I agree with you AI is going to be able to do whatever people do. I disagree we should try to stop it though. Trying to outlaw things that are not inherently ev

I agree with you AI is going to be able to do whatever people do. I disagree we should try to stop it though. Trying to outlaw things that are not inherently evil has never worked. If AI is capable of achieving this capability it will achieve it eventually one way or another. I for one am glad it’s happening in front of my eyes. This is like watching the world change in front of you in the scale of a world war only no one’s getting killed. Can’t ask for a more fun ride for humanity really.

t43562 3y ago
If we fully understood what people's brains do then we'd be able to say if AI had reached that point or gone further.
vouaobrasil 3y ago
Some points: (1) I disagree that AI is not inherently evil. Well, I don't exactly think that it is evil since that is a loaded word but I believe it has almost no capability for good and its effects for the most part, will be destructive. Hence, it is pretty much evil. (2) Fully automatic weapons aren't really "evil" either if you use your "technology" as a tool argument. Yet, it's almost impossible to get one in most countries because they are dangerous. Ditto for: many extremely dangerous poisons, atomic weapons, anthrax (it's just an organism, so it's not evil right?), etc. (3) Even IF outlawing won't work, it doesn't follow that we SHOULDN'T try and stop it. We can stop it in other ways, like starting large coalitions of businesses and individuals who refuse to use AI. There are many ways of stopping a technology besides outlawing it. (4) Outlawing it isn't guaranteed NOT to work. Of course, it is unlikely to work, but in the rare cases where outlawing it is a possibility, there is no harm in lobbying for it. Edit: You said in your edit: "This is like watching the world change in front of you in the scale of a world war only no one’s getting killed. Can’t ask for a more fun ride for humanity really." I think a good time for humanity is enjoying nature and being at peace with life. Watching AI I think is sick and disgusting.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  I personally disagree that enjoying nature and being at peace is the definition of a good time for humanity. To be human IMO is to grow and change, explore and embrace the unknown. Maybe that’s the Trekkie in me, or just old fashioned enthusiasm. Being in nature is for vacations. I understand some folks prefer that peace, and I hope they all find corners of the world where they can attain that.
corethree 3y ago
I think we should I just don't think we can. First off not all technology is completely beneficial for mankind even if it's inherently not evil. The atomic bomb for example. It's still not clear how beneficial this technology is. Second, AI is a big unknown. It could lead to a catastrophic future it could not. We don't know. There is merit in keeping things in the status quo as it's not too bad right now. There is also merit in developing the AI to assist humanity. We don't know enough to know which direction is valid. Either way, it's unlikely AI will ever be outlawed. The logical definitions surrounding the concept of AI collide with our notions of morality and ethics in such a confounding way that it's hard to codify into law. If I ban, ai and AI works is that banning freedom of speech? Technically yes, but at the same time there is certainly merit in banning deep fakes. We may be able to figure it out and work out the moral conflicts, but both the law and our analysis of the issue is moving much much slower then the pace of the technology itself. In the end humanity will have no choice but to see the technology roll out in it's full maximal glory. If a banning occurs I believe it will be well after this point.

t43562 3y ago

If we fully understood what people's brains do then we'd be able to say if AI had reached that point or gone further.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

Some points: (1) I disagree that AI is not inherently evil. Well, I don't exactly think that it is evil since that is a loaded word but I believe it has almost no capability for good and its effects for the most part, will be destructive. Hence, it is pretty much evil. (2) Fully automatic weapons aren't really "evil" either if you use your "technology" as a tool argument. Yet, it's almost impossible to get one in most countries because they are dangerous. Ditto for: many extremely dangerous poisons, atomic weapons, anthrax (it's just an organism, so it's not evil right?), etc. (3) Even IF outlawing won't work, it doesn't follow that we SHOULDN'T try and stop it. We can stop it in other ways, like starting large coalitions of businesses and individuals who refuse to use AI. There are many ways of stopping a technology besides outlawing it. (4) Outlawing it isn't guaranteed NOT to work. Of course, it is unlikely to work, but in the rare cases where outlawing it is a possibility, there is no harm in lobbying for it. Edit: You said in your edit: "This is like watching the world change in front of you in the scale of a world war only no one’s getting killed. Can’t ask for a more fun ride for humanity really." I think a good time for humanity is enjoying nature and being at peace with life. Watching AI I think is sick and disgusting.

ramraj07 3y ago
I personally disagree that enjoying nature and being at peace is the definition of a good time for humanity. To be human IMO is to grow and change, explore and embrace the unknown. Maybe that’s the Trekkie in me, or just old fashioned enthusiasm. Being in nature is for vacations. I understand some folks prefer that peace, and I hope they all find corners of the world where they can attain that.

corethree 3y ago

I think we should I just don't think we can. First off not all technology is completely beneficial for mankind even if it's inherently not evil. The atomic bomb for example. It's still not clear how beneficial this technology is. Second, AI is a big unknown. It could lead to a catastrophic future it could not. We don't know. There is merit in keeping things in the status quo as it's not too bad right now. There is also merit in developing the AI to assist humanity. We don't know enough to know which direction is valid. Either way, it's unlikely AI will ever be outlawed. The logical definitions surrounding the concept of AI collide with our notions of morality and ethics in such a confounding way that it's hard to codify into law. If I ban, ai and AI works is that banning freedom of speech? Technically yes, but at the same time there is certainly merit in banning deep fakes. We may be able to figure it out and work out the moral conflicts, but both the law and our analysis of the issue is moving much much slower then the pace of the technology itself. In the end humanity will have no choice but to see the technology roll out in it's full maximal glory. If a banning occurs I believe it will be well after this point.