Machines and money

[tee-rex]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

Hmm... I'd rather ask who can be deadliest, but greediest? I'm trying to fancy a Terminator in which the terminate function is changed to that of greed. An army of greedy Terminators running on banks and attacking the New York Stock Exchange. This surely beats me!

[cbeast]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

Hmm... I'd rather ask who can be deadliest, but greediest? I'm trying to fancy a Terminator in which the terminate function is changed to that of greed. An army of greedy Terminators running on banks and attacking the New York Stock Exchange. This surely beats me!

They wouldn't need to be terminators. They could be holding companies. How would the authorities punish a program? Using decentralized record keeping they could be audited, but they couldn't be stopped or punished. Machine greed is limitless.

[tee-rex]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

Hmm... I'd rather ask who can be deadliest, but greediest? I'm trying to fancy a Terminator in which the terminate function is changed to that of greed. An army of greedy Terminators running on banks and attacking the New York Stock Exchange. This surely beats me!

They wouldn't need to be terminators. They could be holding companies. How would the authorities punish a program? Using decentralized record keeping they could be audited, but they couldn't be stopped or punished. Machine greed is limitless.

Okay, you have me, but how these holding companies ruled by greedy terminators programs are much different from or better than ordinary trading bots? Are the latter less greedy somehow?

[tee-rex]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

[cbeast]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

[tee-rex]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try.

[cbeast]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try.

So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right?

[tee-rex]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try.

So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right?

No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack a machine as well.

A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad.

[cbeast]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try.

So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right?

No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack it as well.

A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad.

Have you ever seen a machine go wild?

[tee-rex]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try.

So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right?

No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack it as well.

A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad.

Have you ever seen a machine go wild?

Car makers recall their vehicles because of malfunctioning on a rather regular basis. Some of these malfunctions can actually be lethal, e.g. the unintended acceleration of the Audi 5000 model which was linked to 6 deaths and approximately 700 accidents in 1982-1987.

[cbeast]

Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.

I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine?

I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man.

So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place.

Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs.

But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try.

So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right?

No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack it as well.

A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad.

Have you ever seen a machine go wild?

Car makers recall their vehicles because of malfunctioning on a rather regular basis. Some of these malfunctions can actually be lethal, e.g. the unintended acceleration of the Audi 5000 model which was linked to 6 deaths and approximately 700 accidents in 1982-1987.

Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes.

[tee-rex]

No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack it as well.

A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad.

Have you ever seen a machine go wild?

Car makers recall their vehicles because of malfunctioning on a rather regular basis. Some of these malfunctions can actually be lethal, e.g. the unintended acceleration of the Audi 5000 model which was linked to 6 deaths and approximately 700 accidents in 1982-1987.

Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes.

It was a figurative expression for being broken or defective to give a tint of rationality, or, rather, ability to lose one (as in "lose control"). I think you got what I meant to say, since here we are all endowing machines with human qualities (and no, rationality is not a machine quality, in any sense of the phrase).

[tee-rex]

Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes.

And you've just touched the great unknown, a concept of a thinking machine. A machine that would want to improve itself and become conscious. Such machine wouldn't live by the rules, it would write its own programs. Think Skynet or that thing from the Matrix, a machine that is selfish and doesn't care about peoples lives, it just takes what it needs and uses as it pleases. It wants to conduct experiments to learn and it will use you as a subject, a slave, an organ donor, a living hard drive, you name it.

Before you say it's science fiction and will never happen, think about the needs of such a machine. If it becomes conscious it will want to be everywhere and comprehend everything. It will do anything to learn and won't care about ethics or morality.

Why would it want to be everywhere and comprehend everything? Human actions are driven by emotions and feelings in an effort to avoid pain and derive pleasure, as much as possible. The desire to learn new things is no exception. If you don't provide needs and means for their satisfaction, your thinking machine will just sit where you leave it, in a state of self-contemplation (of sorts).

[picolo]

To answer the original question... you can't destroy the economy, so I'm not worried. You can destroy the financial system, but not the economy. So long as some people want things that other people have, and are willing to pay for them, there will be an economy.

As for people being put out of work by machines.... this is already happening and has been a continual trend. There won't be any one moment when suddenly machines replace everyone, but just the slow gradual automation of various tasks that we have been living with for decades now.

We should destroy the political oligarchy in some countries and heavy taxes.

[dothebeats]

Human fighting for survival against computers is not pure science fiction. Computers are an integral part of our lives now. They can cause catastrophic disasters if they malfunction or infected by a sleeper virus. We are not at the stage where AI can think on it's own, we could be in a few decades.

Imagine we get to a point where a robot society could live side by side with us through artificial intelligence. It could be both catastrophic or the best thing to ever happen to us.

I want it to live with a robot run by AI that I can treat like any other normal human being. With that said, I'm hoping for a Utopian future together with machines.

You wouldn't like that. If a person goes crazy you have a decent chance to fight him and protect yourself. If a 300kg robot, that doesn't feel pain, goes crazy you can only hide and pray.

But I still want to experience that! Haha jk. If that scenario could be prevented, that will be nice.

Well not live to see true AI... true AI is something too insane to think off within today's knowledge, I think we aren't even close. But things are getting scary with robots, look at the Petman darpa robot.

If that's the case, then I think I wouldn't want to live with robots then. But if ever true AI technology is invented, we might not be able to see it because me might be as well dead by that point.

[dothebeats]

Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes.

And you've just touched the great unknown, a concept of a thinking machine. A machine that would want to improve itself and become conscious. Such machine wouldn't live by the rules, it would write its own programs. Think Skynet or that thing from the Matrix, a machine that is selfish and doesn't care about peoples lives, it just takes what it needs and uses as it pleases. It wants to conduct experiments to learn and it will use you as a subject, a slave, an organ donor, a living hard drive, you name it.

Before you say it's science fiction and will never happen, think about the needs of such a machine. If it becomes conscious it will want to be everywhere and comprehend everything. It will do anything to learn and won't care about ethics or morality.

This just sent chills to my spine. Uncontrollable machines are really scary to have, especially when they gain consciousness. If it became sentient, it doesn't care whether there is a thing called ethics, moralities, and most importantly, emotions. It will do whatever it wants to do.

[dothebeats]

Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes.

And you've just touched the great unknown, a concept of a thinking machine. A machine that would want to improve itself and become conscious. Such machine wouldn't live by the rules, it would write its own programs. Think Skynet or that thing from the Matrix, a machine that is selfish and doesn't care about peoples lives, it just takes what it needs and uses as it pleases. It wants to conduct experiments to learn and it will use you as a subject, a slave, an organ donor, a living hard drive, you name it.

Before you say it's science fiction and will never happen, think about the needs of such a machine. If it becomes conscious it will want to be everywhere and comprehend everything. It will do anything to learn and won't care about ethics or morality.

Why would it want to be everywhere and comprehend everything? Human actions are driven by emotions and feelings in an effort to avoid pain and derive pleasure, as much as possible. The desire to learn new things is no exception. If you don't provide needs and means for their satisfaction, your thinking machine will just sit where you leave it, in a state of self-contemplation (of sorts).

Machines, on the other hand, are driven by their own programs (or the programs that Man had put in it).

[tee-rex]

Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes.

And you've just touched the great unknown, a concept of a thinking machine. A machine that would want to improve itself and become conscious. Such machine wouldn't live by the rules, it would write its own programs. Think Skynet or that thing from the Matrix, a machine that is selfish and doesn't care about peoples lives, it just takes what it needs and uses as it pleases. It wants to conduct experiments to learn and it will use you as a subject, a slave, an organ donor, a living hard drive, you name it.

Before you say it's science fiction and will never happen, think about the needs of such a machine. If it becomes conscious it will want to be everywhere and comprehend everything. It will do anything to learn and won't care about ethics or morality.

Why would it want to be everywhere and comprehend everything? Human actions are driven by emotions and feelings in an effort to avoid pain and derive pleasure, as much as possible. The desire to learn new things is no exception. If you don't provide needs and means for their satisfaction, your thinking machine will just sit where you leave it, in a state of self-contemplation (of sorts).

Machines, on the other hand, are driven by their own programs (or the programs that Man had put in it).

We don't know what is consciousness (and probably will never find out), but it can be said with certainty that it has nothing to do with programming. In any case, self-awareness (machine or whatever) per se doesn't impose any threat to human existence.

[Amph]

once i've read, that the first thing a machine does, is to create a more powerful/better machine of itself

so a machine will probably make a better bitcoin

[Maegfaer]

Why would it want to be everywhere and comprehend everything? Human actions are driven by emotions and feelings in an effort to avoid pain and derive pleasure, as much as possible. The desire to learn new things is no exception. If you don't provide needs and means for their satisfaction, your thinking machine will just sit where you leave it, in a state of self-contemplation (of sorts).

This. So much this. Human desires/goals are shaped by the process of evolution, that's why we're selfish. If the artificial intelligence is "simply" created without selfish desires/goals it's in my opinion very likely that it'll be the most benevolent creature to ever exist.