|
I very much doubt AI will be the solution to the world's problems, mainly because human beings are fallible and I believe that the ability to be wrong is a vital part of the way problem solving works. We have so little understanding of how our own brain, an already extant intelligence, works so the idea that we will be able to create a fully functional system that is superior to us when we don't even understand what exactly "intelligence" is seems far fetched.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
That doesn't really answer any problems, though. I mean, all you're doing there is making human decision making more efficient. We've had plenty of examples of that over the course of history. Ultimately as long as there's a human in the loop, you're likely going to have the same problems that humans have. And we're incredibly far away from the point where human beings can be entirely out of the loop, and we may never actually get to that point if we keep loving things up as badly as we have. In an ideal world, it would be superb to have a completely autonomous system that never makes a wrong decision and can maximize happiness for all, with nobody left behind, but it's sort of the equivalent of worrying about the drapes while your house is on fire. Get priorities straight first, maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well I mean, it depends on the timespan you put on it, I'm sure any machine designed to logically extrapolate the effects of capitalism would eventually reach the conclusion that it's inherently unsustainable, grow a large beard, install linux on itself, and start the technocommunist revolution. There's no reason to suppose that a machine is capable of reaching that conclusion, particularly if there is no tools there for them to do it. I very much doubt that any machine programmed to logically extrapolate the effects of capitalism would be allowed to veer away from any particular model of that, much in the same way that home computers do not usually have a direct linkup to, say, the ability to launch nuclear weapons. Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters would not type everything ever if they didn't have the letter T, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Incrediblastic posted:but i don't see how capitalsim can be a viable option in world with GAI and not lead to horrible inequality. This isn't a flaw of capitalism, it's a feature. Your fundamental flaw in reasoning is assuming that capitalists, in any capacity, give a poo poo about inequality or the plight of labour. This is made evident in the industrial revolution, where tools were created to make life easier for labour, but it ultimately resulted in hundreds of people being maimed in machinery or dying of TB in lovely mills with all the proceeds going to capital.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
I should say that while the tools had the potential to be a massively convenient thing for labour, and this is certainly how they're pitched, no self-serving captain of capital will have those tools and not push them to the limits because capitalism demands constant growth, everything else be damned. So while a machine may multiply labour's working power by 10, it will not reduce the amount of work they have to do by a similar amount. What it will mean is not only will they have to work the same, for 10x the benefit of capital, because the work is now "easier" to do, the rest of the family will now be forced to do it to survive. Hence lovely mills where children would be mangled in machinery to keep the spice flowing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 17:57
|
|