I'm out of the loop. What's with the Elon hate? I mean apart from his political views.
Well yeah it's going to suck to not be able to drive anymore. But if it does it safer than humans and it massively reduces casualties, it's going to be a pretty hard to beat argument.
I think 90's and 2000's were as good as it got for us from certain points of view.
I think 90's and 2000's were as good as it got for us from certain points of view.
Not sure where we're headed but we will be under increasing control by our own naive submission to the wonders of technology. Do you really want to put your trust in a computer's algorithm? The time will come when passenger jets won't even have a pilot. Nowadays when they go down it's because the the pilot is simply a bystander watching the plane's auto functions with no clue what to do in an emergency or completely misreads what the emergency is due to virtually no training. Want to be the .01% in a Tesla when it takes you into a concrete abutment at 70mph with no way to maneuver out of it? It won't be long before we're all talking to and getting our answers exclusively from machines. It's happening right now.
You are right from some points of view, but a lot of people are dumb and do dumb crap.
When faced with the question "how many people do we chose to die so we can have these and these comforts?" you have to be able to give a clear answer without shying away. I understand the slippery slope argument but in some countries (mine included) there's a lot of carnage on the streets. We (humans) really and absolutely suck at driving, as a whole. People will look back in horror at these last 50 years or so, sometime in the far future. I still enjoy riding a motorcycle but I am aware that I'm a monkey with serious latency compared to a computer.
AI can be programmed to take "humanness" into account when dealing with us. I don't see why you wouldn't ever feel that you're talking with a human and not an AI. For all intents and purposes it would "feel" just like us. Just that it's more reliable in "cognitive" functions. There was that study where judges would give lesser/harsher sentences (on average) depending on if he/she ate or not. I don't know how real it is but sounds about right from how I see other humans behave in similar circumstances. I'd take the AI route any time. As long as it's sufficiently advanced.
I don't think it's easy to conclude if we need/have to switch to AI for certain things, but I am pretty sure they'll at least test AI and it will prove more useful than humans in many areas. Like it or not. All we can do is make sure AI as a tool is not used nefariously.
This thing is happening way faster than we could biologically adapt to have a better time with the tech. It will be at the very least extremely interesting in human history.
When faced with the question "how many people do we chose to die so we can have these and these comforts?" you have to be able to give a clear answer without shying away. I understand the slippery slope argument but in some countries (mine included) there's a lot of carnage on the streets. We (humans) really and absolutely suck at driving, as a whole. People will look back in horror at these last 50 years or so, sometime in the far future. I still enjoy riding a motorcycle but I am aware that I'm a monkey with serious latency compared to a computer.
AI can be programmed to take "humanness" into account when dealing with us. I don't see why you wouldn't ever feel that you're talking with a human and not an AI. For all intents and purposes it would "feel" just like us. Just that it's more reliable in "cognitive" functions. There was that study where judges would give lesser/harsher sentences (on average) depending on if he/she ate or not. I don't know how real it is but sounds about right from how I see other humans behave in similar circumstances. I'd take the AI route any time. As long as it's sufficiently advanced.
I don't think it's easy to conclude if we need/have to switch to AI for certain things, but I am pretty sure they'll at least test AI and it will prove more useful than humans in many areas. Like it or not. All we can do is make sure AI as a tool is not used nefariously.
This thing is happening way faster than we could biologically adapt to have a better time with the tech. It will be at the very least extremely interesting in human history.
New and dangerous tech is exactly what many think one of the great filters is. There's a serious fear that most intelligent life wipes itself out by misusing new tech.
I mean what's the alternative? Bury a lot of useful tech on the fear that we might do bad things with it? Where does that get us?
I mean what's the alternative? Bury a lot of useful tech on the fear that we might do bad things with it? Where does that get us?
That's the reality of our environment. If you don't speculate all options other will, for sure. There's a lot of us and we came with bad default settings. Education and a lot of societal struggles are meant to switch those defaults. You can't possibly hope we can all move as one, we're not exactly a hive mind. I mean isn't exactly having agency the thing that defines how free we are/feel? When you take that into account and the environment we all share then it becomes pretty obvious that the first one that's going to do it/use the new tech or whatever will have an advantage over the others. Someone will do it, it always happens. It's not so much our innate evilness as it is rather an environmentally imposed necessity. It does look like evil, but it might just be a sort of virtual-evil, kind of like a V shaped flock of birds. The V is not real, but looks real from a distance. Can be used for info, but it's an illusion.
You were talking about this?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ad...an-made-says-threats-increasing-exponentially
I just saw it now. Yeah, pretty bold to say it might be aliens. I wonder what aspect of those encounters made them think of that as a possibility. Their seemingly inertia defying movements or?
The interesting jump straight to "overwhelming evidence of highly advanced tech" and "(mis)understanding of physice". Skipping right past the lack of a decent cellphone quality image, that most are simple debunked, and a few are don't knows, as the evidence is so weak...
Trileru - that Osho guy is, to use his words, definitely retarded.
And Mr Musk - can't stand the guy, but Spacex is an impressive organisation.
I doubt it, the cult of Elon over promises and under delivers, contrary to what his fan club believes.
I would not trust him with this at all. So many other are better suited. Elon is just a crazy entrepreneur set up to make money - he doesn't care sh*t for you.
I much better proposition is to cater and nurse the one we got (hint: earth) - trust me, for a very long time ahead (hundreds of years) - its the best we got so sort your trash and save on electricity and be kind to you neighbour.
//
Dave: " HAL, open the doors please"
HAL: " No Dave"
😱
And even if we lock systems to not be able to develop 'selfconsiousness' this rise some interesting paradox and ethic's rules to be defined ( do i kill my driver/passengers or the 3 ones in the facing vehicules i'm gonna hit?).
Last edited:
You're not going to see any facts about UFO's from a document written by politicians that relates to budget spending that favours vested interests.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
He's far from perfect but I admire him for many things and he'll be remembered long after the rest of us have disappeared. Let's face it, most of the hate is simply envy.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
that HAL 'moment' was a classic. Reminds us that in trying to create AI in our own image we may also re-create our own weaknesses and in creating AI in our own image, we become the Creator.