I guess the difference is, I wonder if you label a person an idol before they are influential, or after they become influential. Is there some progression of 'i

I guess the difference is, I wonder if you label a person an idol before they are influential, or after they become influential. Is there some progression of 'idolness gain', or is it a constant attribute? I don't believe in idols. I believe in ideas, in that I have ideas, and I am skeptical about them, sometimes. I have no doubt that some people 'have idols', but I don't know whether they choose those idols because they identify with the idol, or because they need an idol to worship. I don't think there is an absolute answer, because I can not know anyone's mind aside from my own. > Not that I think AI has to be used that way. But if we do that stuff with soccer teams and bands and software, AI seems just like too big a temptation for humanity to handle in our current state. If people were actually educated about AI, and how simple it actually is, and how simplistic the principles are that construct AI, then I do not think that will be a problem. AI is a construct of probability and discrete state change, with discrete attributes that denote humanly interpreted meaning. AI begins with human definitions, and it ends with human interpretation. That is all it is. Anything you extrapolate onto 'what AI can do' is no different than what a Turing machine or light switch can do. If the whole world thinks turning a light switch on means some deity exists, and turning it off means that deity does not exist, then congratulations, you can officially call your house God. All computers are is lots and lots and lots of switches and numbers. Humans choose what the numbers and words mean. Humans choose which way the circuits are connected, irregardless of whether those circuits are manipulated via symbolic expression or physically. Now, if you are arguing that somehow, magically, AI will do 'magic' things that can not be explained by analysis of modern computational systems, iterated over and refined consciously, then that argument is deus ex machina literally. All you are saying is you no longer can tell the difference between a human and a machine. And to be honest, between the abstractions that define biology and the abstractions that define computers, I don't know whether there actually is a difference. If people want to do bad things, they will do bad things. If people are convinced that doing a bad thing is a good thing, then the world is complicated exactly the same way it always has been. I love my machines like I love myself. If you trust people to build big red buttons that accidentally can do horrible things, then you are basically asserting that the entire structure and organization of large organizations is incompetent, and that every individual within the structure and organization is incompetent. Code checks. Software testing. Formal specifications. Iterations. Checking. Iteration. Checking. Conversation throughout variously. Checking. Testing. Checking. Testing. Testing Environments. Deployment Environment Modeling. And SO ON. Big picture, little picture. I personally think it is as difficult to create hell as it is to create heaven. They are both ideas. Yes, a machine can be like flipping a billion dominos down in a row with one push. But someone had to set up all those dominos in order for them to get flipped. I agree there is crap in the world currently. The best I can do is hope I am doing the right thing by building machines that help educate people and improve society. > Would you love it and care for it forever, because it made you? Yes, I code, therefore I grok.