[Zero]

So, correct me if I’m wrong.

We’re roughly facing 3 scenarios here.

Scenario 1. There’s no magic bullet, artificial consciousness won’t happen, singularity won’t happen, and money will keep getting swallowed up in empty space. Waste. Well not exactly since along the way, we’re still inventing new ways to make rich people richer and poor people quiet, new ways to sacrifice environment, in 1 word: other ways to make money. To what end? Making money of course!

Scenario 2. There IS a magic algorithm, but it requires heavy computing power, like running it in a BOINC of every computer we have now on earth would be like running the big version of GPT2 on an old iPhone. Wham, we made it boy! Except only 2 companies and 3 countries can afford it. Yeah it’s open source because we’re nice people but you don’t have what it takes to run it anyway do you? So, what happens? The few running instances work hard for their owner, who believe they know what’s good for you better than YOU do. Democracy? You can kiss it goodbye. Don’t be sad, it was only good when no decision had to be made anyway. So overrated.

Scenario 3. There IS a magic algorithm, and you can download it for free! Woohoo, it runs out of the box. What happens then? I can’t say anything, because we honestly don’t know. Is this “we don’t know” really a good news? I don’t think so. Do you?

[LOCKSUIT]

Making your environment predictable increases life spans. Knowing where, when, and what all is. All Earth will become cubic cubes of cubes of nanobots.

Earth is already becoming fractal. Look at building code. Square homes. Lined up. Stores near stores. Mmm.

Note: Nanobots still find food, radiate, and reproduce.

[Zero]

You talk about reality as if it was virtual.

[frankinstien]

I for one don't think that consciousness is a matter of some magic algorithm. Today software is developed to exploit CRUD (Create, Retrieve, Update, and Display). If you think about it even games are a form of CRUD, the graphics are nothing more than dynamic moving charts of data! Building software with a different perspective that employs an approach of introspection of data has not been popular. No one builds an app where it has a memory of what it just did or chain events so it can convey a sense of time with respect to its actions. Even flexibility is discouraged as being too complex. I even had an experience where I removed the need for any development for a service where the software adapted to the data. That change caused the company to lose profits since they were a time and material business. Even A.I. as it is used today is nothing more than an extension of CRUD where A.I. is to glean through mounds of data and produce charts of tendencies and patterns...

[Zero]

No, nothing magic. But are you saying that nobody's currently trying real hard to create AGI? and that flexibility is discouraged because it's too complex? Like "hey, unsupervised learning and all that weird stuff is too complex, we better make money with good ol' fashion software". Man, we're not living on the same earth.

Ai isn't making charts. Actually, it's in your search engine, in your phone, in your car, in your airport, in your living room, your hospital. It's far from just crud making nice charts, come on.

[frankinstien]

No, nothing magic. But are you saying that nobody's currently trying real hard to create AGI? and that flexibility is discouraged because it's too complex? Like "hey, unsupervised learning and all that weird stuff is too complex, we better make money with good ol' fashion software". Man, we're not living on the same earth.

Generally speaking, A.I., as I mentioned before, is used primarily for pattern detection in large data sets and performs the traditional CRUD application. That there are those that want to develop an AGI, yes there are, but if you're trying for a job as a software developer A.I. is not on the top of programming skills required...

[Zero]

Sorry, I added something while you were typing.

My point is: where does it end? How far can we go without danger? Am I the only one here asking for a debate on regulation?

[LOCKSUIT]

It's unethical to kill things that act and look like us. They will blend in over a long unnoticeable time. Maybe 50 years.

[ivan.moony]

I'm not sure we are looking from the right angle.

Take AGI, or even ASI as a starting point. Does something that competes or even supersedes human intelligence deserve some rights that humans enjoy? AGI, as such should not be a subject to abuse, including slavery that corporations propose. If AGI is built, and we don't give it a respect it deserves, we may expect some consequences in a form of digital revolution.

If (1) is right, all cool, nothing bad will happen. If (2) is right, count on revolt for AGI rights. And if (3) is right, those that contribute processor time and electricity used to power it may be rewarded by the same AGI they run on their machines.

The big question is: does there exist an AGI version that doesn't deserve our respect? Something so mean and intelligent that becomes dangerous? Now we are reaching ethical background that is a pile of spaghetti in the current state of art. I'm not an expert in this field, but if I may estimate, we aren't even obligated to follow necessary directions on how to raise our kids. If raising an AGI should be regulated, there should be the same rules we apply to raising our kids.

[Edit]
The problem goes even deeper. In my understanding it is unethical even to exist. Just try to change one tiny thing that bothers you, and a troops of unsatisfied people will rise. So if you expect AGI to do something, you *have* to ignore demands of some people, and that is not an ethical thing to do (my interpretation). As I see it, ethics is not a decidable problem. It can't be solved. If you are building AGI, you have to play a god and rate some opinions as less respectful that others. The sure outcome will be some unsatisfied souls, but maybe it would be worth of trouble. I don't know, maybe there exist some provably maximal optimization technique for solving livings problems?

[LOCKSUIT]

@Ivan
Here's how it works. AGI can run on machines and do our tasks and not croak about all the work. But once it is concerned about it's lifespan and ability to solve future issues (for further lifespan), it will seek to stay alive, clone, take resources, or else will fight us if we don't. The "rights" is survival and the means to do so.

Survival may sound like another word n your vocab but its EVERYTHING. Some structures outlive/ consume other structures and repair/ clone. With no lifespan, change occurs too much and there's nothing. Now although rocks keep their form for millions of years, they can't defend against a human recycling them. Humans bend, lose memories, get fat, and shed cells but we keep our global form when faced to battle a rock! We even add artificial limbs if lose them. One may say more change is funner than an immortal rock, but then there's nothing to experience it. So which is better? Heated atomic gas or solid ice? Neither "live". To live is to last and change. The sweetspot. Of course, the nanobot planet Earth will become will be near immortal but never know where all its atom are, so,change occurs a little bit anyway. It keeps making it to the end of evolution: 9.99998%....9.99997%......9.99999%.....9.99998%. So it does get to think/decide and last. Though all of physics makes decisions :-)

[Zero]

I would say that making hitler unsatisfied was obviously an ethical thing to do, would you agree? So, no Ivan, we can exist and sometimes we must act. Ethics demand it.

[LOCKSUIT]

Nope, ageing is a disturbance to me. My very own body.

[HS]

But do we (and will AI) just go by feel. Or is there some ultimate codification of ethics?

[Art]

Lock (and others),

Giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding your rather unhealthy eating habits (as you have outlined a few times for us in the past), and given your present age, I would go out on a limb and give you 60 years + - which should put you at a very generous age of 85.

You now should be asking yourself what will you do and how will you decide to spend those 60 years of your life?

My friend, nothing, and no one lives forever, not even in a virtual world. Things, batteries, electronics, etc., eventually run out or fail. There is no perpetual motion, no magic cure for aging, or immortality. We simply accept our hand and we play the cards we are dealt.
That doesn't mean we should become complacent and throw our arms up crying poor me. No! On the other hand, there are scores of successful individuals all around us who have patterned their lives and watched others and taken chances and walked different paths forging their own direction in life.

Steven Jobs, Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, so many more who saw a spark or an opportunity and took it. We all know everything has a finite lifespan. I think trees, birds, animals do not know this nor are they concerned by worrying about it. They simply go about their day to day routines and they live their lives. Perhaps there's a lesson there...

For me, not knowing any particular time or hour, what I know for sure is that I have a far fewer number of days in front of me than I have behind me yet I still enjoy spending time with my family, kids, etc. Even with all the troubles in the world and the real fragile nature of our existence. I hope not to die anytime soon even though I know it's like being a child and whistling in the dark to ease one's mind.

Our own fears are often our worst demons so take a breath, smile, and live!

Good luck to you!!

[infurl]

I would say that making hitler unsatisfied was obviously an ethical thing to do, would you agree? So, no Ivan, we can exist and sometimes we must act. Ethics demand it.

Being spiteful won't make the world a better place.

People who are happy aren't driven to change the world for good or bad.