Artificial Intelligence

[ShawnDriscoll]

And who has the money to control governments to suit their needs? It's not even secret.

What secret? Depends on your sci-fi movie. If someone is so rich that they can control a country's government, that would be a dictator. But that campaign theme is so overdone.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, which is why reality is more frightening than fiction!

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Ah, which is why reality is more frightening than fiction!

AIs in fiction will always be frightening compared to actual enhanced phone spell-checkers.

 

[Jacqual]

As I recall, Dredd was an extrapolation of Thatcherite England, though the high unemployment was probably a prevailing mood existing before that.

It was a satirical comic book.

If there were seven trillion robots on Earth as smart as humans and as capable, then every human being could be rich! I think that would be nice!

People are only as rich as their governments will allow.

On everyone being rich if everyone had 1 million, I bet a loaf of bread would eat up a lot of that. For society to function we have to have poor people to keep the cost of goods down, or a law that does that.

 

[Condottiere]

Roombas are going to evolve to do most rudimentary below knee level cleaning; I already see them manicuring the lawn.

 

[Condottiere]

Security researcher Charlie Miller attempts to extract a Jeep Cherokee from a ditch after its brakes were remotely disabled in a controlled test.
Andy Greenberg/Wired

In the wake of the demonstration of a vulnerability in the "connected car" software used in a large number of Chrysler and Dodge vehicles in the United States, Fiat Chrysler NV announced today that it was recalling approximately 1.4 million vehicles for emergency security patches.

The company has already issued a patch on its website for drivers, and on Thursday it performed an over-the-air update of some vehicles to block unauthorized remote access, Bloomberg Business reports. The vulnerability, revealed in a report by Wired earlier this week, allowed security researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek to take remote control of a Jeep Cherokee's onboard computer and entertainment system, remotely controlling the throttle of the vehicle while a Wired reporter was driving it at 70mph on a St. Louis-area interstate highway. Miller and Valasek also demonstrated that they could take control of the vehicle's brakes and (in some cases) even its steering, as well as the vehicle's windshield wipers, navigation, and entertainment systems.

The vehicles covered by the recall include the 2015 model year Dodge Ram pickup, Dodge's Challenger and Viper, and the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee SUVs. While Fiat Chrysler officials said that there was no known real-world use of the vulnerablity (outside Miller's and Valasek's proof of concept), they were taking the recall step out of "an abundance of caution."

 

[Jacqual]

Security researcher Charlie Miller attempts to extract a Jeep Cherokee from a ditch after its brakes were remotely disabled in a controlled test.
Andy Greenberg/Wired

In the wake of the demonstration of a vulnerability in the "connected car" software used in a large number of Chrysler and Dodge vehicles in the United States, Fiat Chrysler NV announced today that it was recalling approximately 1.4 million vehicles for emergency security patches.

The company has already issued a patch on its website for drivers, and on Thursday it performed an over-the-air update of some vehicles to block unauthorized remote access, Bloomberg Business reports. The vulnerability, revealed in a report by Wired earlier this week, allowed security researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek to take remote control of a Jeep Cherokee's onboard computer and entertainment system, remotely controlling the throttle of the vehicle while a Wired reporter was driving it at 70mph on a St. Louis-area interstate highway. Miller and Valasek also demonstrated that they could take control of the vehicle's brakes and (in some cases) even its steering, as well as the vehicle's windshield wipers, navigation, and entertainment systems.

The vehicles covered by the recall include the 2015 model year Dodge Ram pickup, Dodge's Challenger and Viper, and the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee SUVs. While Fiat Chrysler officials said that there was no known real-world use of the vulnerablity (outside Miller's and Valasek's proof of concept), they were taking the recall step out of "an abundance of caution."

I love my new Jeep Wrangler but when reading things like this, I really miss my 1969 Impala. I just wish the folks that made cars thought a little more before adding things that could be dangerous if attacked by a Hacker types whether terrorist or just an arse.

 

[dragoner]

For society to function we have to have poor people to keep the cost of goods down...

Fucking what? Not only is this completely wrong, poor people have nothing to do with pricing, or inflation, or AI.

Security researcher Charlie Miller attempts to extract a Jeep Cherokee from a ditch after its brakes were remotely disabled in a controlled test.

This has to do with what?

At this point, I'd settle for any intelligence.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

This has to do with what?

At this point, I'd settle for any intelligence.

BIOS instead of AI.

 

[Condottiere]

Safeguards.

As organic beings with free will and some time to mature, we apparently develop consciouses, the capability to analyse outcomes, and how they affect us.

An AI might not have that same perspective.

 

[dragoner]

As organic beings with free will and some time to mature, we apparently develop consciouses, the capability to analyse outcomes, and how they affect us.

And still do an utter crap job, look at Germany, an AI could hardly do a worse job.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Simple morality rules would fix that, without having to explain too much for an AI. But it depends on if your goal is to have AIs simulate humans perfectly (no morals) or not. In schools today, humans are taught moral relativism. Should AIs be taught the same?

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

"Is that really an accurate depiction of what a post human labor economy would be? Judge Dredd is a work of fiction after all, and is subject to the author's interpretation and to his opinions on what things would be like, also consider he was looking for a good story to write, so he needed some conflict to generate some suspense. if you didn't have a job but got paid anyway, would you really choose to be a thug? Being a thug is risky, in that you might get killed, and if the government is paying you money for nothing and that amount is adequate, why should you risk you life?"

A lot of works of fiction are the author seeing and interpreting the real world as a story. Fiction doesn't make it false. Try reading Dredd and really look over events in our past and present to see where he gets his patterns. Most certainly look at todays world with people losing jobs to both foreign labor and, yes, robots and notice how loss and despair losing everything then getting a small stipend to live on. It does drive many to the edge.

" With robots as capable as humans, everyone now has the potential to be the equivalent of Donald Trump. If there were seven trillion robots on Earth as smart as humans and as capable, then every human being could be rich! I think that would be nice!"

That is an incredible rose colored view of business seen only in very optimistic scifi fiction. Robots should replace services dangerous to human and aid rather than replace. Our world today is about replacement and it's very transparent about where the wealth goes. Widening gaps in class and wealth. This is now by dumb bots that pay no taxes or add to the economy with spending. Now add in more sophisticated robotics to replace more and more jobs so there is even greater disparity. Soon you have only an elite class because robots become the lower slave class. They have no need for the 99%. Robots designed to leverage wealth is always a bad idea.

Look at the world today, especially the Third World! One of the things that keeps the third World poor is the fact that various forms of socialism is popular. When you have huge income disparities with large populations of people that have very little, they tend to vote for governments that redistribute towards the masses, they do this too much, and it prevents capital formation required for generating wealth and for job creation. the questions are, "why should I work, if I can just vote to get government to redistribute from the haves and give to me?" and "Why should I work, if all I make and earn gets redistributed away from me and towards the masses. Those who are productive have no incentive to produce and thus the country stays poor. Now if hard AI becomes available, the situation changes, people don't need an incentive to work, every human being can become part of the 1% as the other 99% gets taken up by robot laborers, now if 1% of the output of every robot laborer is redistributed to humans, the humans are fully supported without having to work. The robots hardly notice the burden, they pay a tiny amount in taxes, they accumulate wealth and concentrate capital and make investments to increase their wealth, and the government takes a time percent to support the human population of the planet, the humans vote, the robots don't, the trick is not to redistribute too much or too little.

"A genie can also grant your wishes."

But who creates and owes the genie and who today reaps the wishes?

I guess you need the agency of government to redistribute and see that everyone has a share of this robot economy, there is no reason not to after all, because producing more robots to go around costs the people who already have robots, nothing.

"But AI is hard science fiction, it violates no laws of physics since we don't violate them by existing, something artificial can also be produced that do what we do"

Right now, we have no more evidence of A.I. existence than Jump drives and psionics. The 'science' we see in stories featuring A.I.s still have no actual hard science and most versions tend to violate a lot of physical laws as far as we experience. Traveller A.I. tech is as good or bad as any other perceived and imagined. I wish everyone would stop claiming their version of A.I. is actual reality and should replace the Traveller concept beyond one's own game universe.

How do you explain human consciousness then, a "ghost in the machine?" Does something outside the Universe's laws make us alive, so our brains are all paranormal and directed by ghosts or spirits, do you believe this?

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

As I recall, Dredd was an extrapolation of Thatcherite England, though the high unemployment was probably a prevailing mood existing before that.

It was a satirical comic book.

If there were seven trillion robots on Earth as smart as humans and as capable, then every human being could be rich! I think that would be nice!

People are only as rich as their governments will allow.

On everyone being rich if everyone had 1 million, I bet a loaf of bread would eat up a lot of that. For society to function we have to have poor people to keep the cost of goods down, or a law that does that.

No really, why can't we have robots to be "poor"? Is being "poor" only something a human can do? The thing about robots that are poor and who don't have jobs is we can turn them off. Humans can't be turned off, even if they don't have jobs, they still need food and shelter, robots don't, they can be stored or scrapped if not employed, there is no reason to support robots and keep them running if they have nothing to do. It is a really cynical attitude that the rich need massive amounts of poor humans in order to exist, I think they need a lot of people working for them, producing the goods and services they need to maintain the lifestyle, but robots can supply the necessary labor and plce all humans in the 1%. Humans will still own things after all, including investments, if they invest well, they can get ahead, if they don't there is a minimum wage paid by the government that will give them a leg up no matter what. There is no reason for the government redistribution to be small. If you want a larger redistribution, all you need is more robots to produce the extra goods and services required, this can even go as far as the sex industry. A robot can look human, it can feel human too if made of the proper materials, there is no need for a human prostitute if you have these. One has to be careful of the relationships one develops with robots that look and act human, that is the basis of the movie "Ex-Machina."

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I think you're confusing AI with slavery. I don't see how humans can get rich by doing nothing while the AIs do all the work. The humans don't all own the AIs. But someone does. And they are the one making money from the AIs. Not sure why the rich person would give up their money to other humans that sit at home all day? Unless the government is involved with taking money from the rich and is giving it to the poor to buy votes from them as usual.

 

[Condottiere]

They could store humans in low berths, if they don't need them.

Even androids would need to be prepared for storage, to prevent the deterioration of components.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

They could store humans in low berths, if they don't need them.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think you're confusing AI with slavery.

A robot is by definition a mechanical slave, that is their purpose, to do the work. A robot probably doesn't mind being a slave, because that is the way it is built.

I don't see how humans can get rich by doing nothing while the AIs do all the work. The humans don't all own the AIs. But someone does. And they are the one making money from the AIs. Not sure why the rich person would give up their money to other humans that sit at home all day? Unless the government is involved with taking money from the rich and is giving it to the poor to buy votes from them as usual.

What rich person voluntarily pays his taxes? It is the government which taxes and redistributes, and having robots build more robots is all it takes, it doesn't subtract from the number of robots the rich person has. But if we assume AI is smarter than humans, there is really no economic reason for rich people to be rich that is intrinsic to themselves, rather than to them just having smarter AIs. You see in such a world, it would be AIs running companies because they would make better decisions than humans. Natural talent wouldn't come into it.

 

[simonh]

I have to side with Tom on this to the extent that we're discussing a world with robots and strong AI, one that in some circles would be considered post-singularity. In that end state, it would no longer make sense to think in terms of ownership of capital, or dividing humans into wealth creators, leaders and followers or consumers. We would all be consumers, and the AIs would be the wealth creators and the workers. We would need a fundamentally different model for society.

The problem is that how this plays out in the near term depends on how we get to that end state. Suppose a single company develops the first true AIs smarter than humans, which then develop even smarter AIs, etc. That company would have a massive advantage over everyone else. Look at the way software is ‘eating the world’, AIs would accelerate and magnify that process. Right now Apple is consuming the majority of the global profits in both the desktop computer and the phone markets. A company with super AIs would be able to do that in one industry, after another, after another. It would be the ultimate killer app, in every economic, industrial and financial sector. They could end up owning the world. At that point, our current systems and controls for determining who owns what and why break down. But suppose this AI isn’t developed in the west. What if it’s developed by Russia and is under the control of someone like Putin? Or China?

A post scarcity society in principle could be a paradise where nobody needs to work and everyone benefits from the output of unlimited labour, but it could just as easily be the ultimate police state that would make the world of 1984 look like a libertarian paradise. And it could stay that way forever. It might even be inevitable. After all, egalitarian democracy is inherently unstable. The final steady state for human society might well be permanent repression, even if humans do stay in charge of the machines.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Rick]

Far too many problems with the basic assumptions in this thread for my liking. I find it amusing that most of the comments are equating an AI to a cuddly pet! What makes you think that an AI would have any interest in humans, that you could understand its' motivations, interests or goals. An AI isn't a programmable computer - it is a self-learning construct and once we have built it, we have very little control of what it learns or how it develops. It's more likely to be interested in going off and developing by itself, without any interference by us than helping us out.

As to the development of a benevolent, post-scarcity society of equals - wasn't something similar said of that marvelous workers paradise, the Soviet Union? That didn't turn out quite so well, did it?