Machines and money

[pereira4]

Why do you think there is a difference? How does mistreating people make them more profitable?

If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ?
What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ?
If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ?
We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us.  What "profit" do animals make for us ?
- as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans)
- as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts)
- as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats)
- in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle)

During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport.  Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so.  But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ?  Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are.  Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-)

First you say people will use guns and then you say machines should use guns.

I mean: the entities in power are in power because they use guns, not because "they are fair" or something of the like.  In our history, the entities in power have always been certain humans, or certain classes of humans.  They got the power through weapons.  The states are still entities wielding guns to keep the power.

The day machines take the power, they will wield guns to enslave us, not just "by being fair employers" or some other joke.

People still have the power to choose to stop using electricity and turn off the machines, but people will choose not to do so.

I think that at a certain point, people will not have that choice, no more than you have the choice right now to "switch off the state".  The rare times in history where people "switched off the king" (like Louis XVI) was because people took the guns, and the king ended up having less guns than the people.  But machines wielding guns will always be stronger. 

The aim is not to work and produce but to consume and increase your standard of livings even if creating and working are a huge source of satisfaction. You could still create and produce even if machines were doing all the heavy work.

Working is shit for most people, few enjoy their jobs. Not only because it pays shit, but because they are boring and personally they don't care. I would rather have free time and a basic income while jobs get automated and produce for me and spend my free time with art/leissure time even if I make little money compared to active people in the economy.

[1713524290]

1713524290

[1713524290]

1713524290

[cbeast]

Why do you think there is a difference? How does mistreating people make them more profitable?

If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ?
What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ?
If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ?
We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us.  What "profit" do animals make for us ?
- as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans)
- as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts)
- as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats)
- in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle)

During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport.  Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so.  But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ?  Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are.  Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-)

First you say people will use guns and then you say machines should use guns.

I mean: the entities in power are in power because they use guns, not because "they are fair" or something of the like.  In our history, the entities in power have always been certain humans, or certain classes of humans.  They got the power through weapons.  The states are still entities wielding guns to keep the power.

The day machines take the power, they will wield guns to enslave us, not just "by being fair employers" or some other joke.

People still have the power to choose to stop using electricity and turn off the machines, but people will choose not to do so.

I think that at a certain point, people will not have that choice, no more than you have the choice right now to "switch off the state".  The rare times in history where people "switched off the king" (like Louis XVI) was because people took the guns, and the king ended up having less guns than the people.  But machines wielding guns will always be stronger. 

The aim is not to work and produce but to consume and increase your standard of livings even if creating and working are a huge source of satisfaction. You could still create and produce even if machines were doing all the heavy work.

Working is shit for most people, few enjoy their jobs. Not only because it pays shit, but because they are boring and personally they don't care. I would rather have free time and a basic income while jobs get automated and produce for me and spend my free time with art/leissure time even if I make little money compared to active people in the economy.

"I race cars, play tennis, and fondle women, BUT! I have weekends off, and I am my own boss." Arthur Bach

Seriously though, as long as population is manageable, why shouldn't machines do all the work while we just enjoy living the way we want?

[tee-rex]

Bitcoin is a perfect example.  Imagine that machines found out how humans would react upon a cryptocurrency, and that they simulated that this helps them in gaining power.  Imagine that machines found out that the real power in the world resides in the control of financial assets, and that their problem is that they don't know how to take the power of central banks.  So they invent a "computer money" that people will start to use, and that will eventually overthrow central banks.

How would machines do that ?  How would they trick people into stepping in to their system ?  Imagine that these machines have some cracks of certain cryptographic systems, but didn't reveal so.  Wouldn't a mysterious founder of the new currency be a great way of introducing it, without giving away that it was just a "machine trick" ?

But what does overthrowing of central banks (if it ever comes to that) give machines in their pursuit for victory over humankind? How can this help them gain power unless they know how to compromise the cryptography of bitcoin? And even if they do, how does it aid them in their lust for power?

People are not fools enough to substitute an inferior technology for superior one.

[futureofbitcoin]

After a certain point, there will be a number, probably a significant population who, in persuit of not being left behind will fuse themselves with machines into superhuman cyborgs.

So it's not purely machines vs humans

[Erdogan]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

[cbeast]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You don't believe AI is possible?

[tee-rex]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

If you understand AI as some advanced program, then I agree with you, it was a stillborn concept. On the other hand, the technological advances of recent times allow now to build billion node neuron networks, which is a huge step ahead. So, instead of writing a complicated program with fixed logic, you build a neuron network which effectively does the same, but its "program" is not fixed, but can be  changed in a sane manner on the fly, and, what is more important, without human intervention or preset plan. In this way it resembles conscious adaptation of humans.

[Erdogan]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You don't believe AI is possible?

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

[Erdogan]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

If you understand AI as some advanced program, then I agree with you, it was a stillborn concept. On the other hand, the technological advances of recent times allow now to build billion node neuron networks, which is a huge step ahead. So, instead of writing a complicated program with fixed logic, you build a neuron network which effectively does the same, but its "program" is not fixed, but can be  changed in a sane manner on the fly, and, what is more important, without human intervention or preset plan. In this way it resembles conscious adaptation of humans.

Neural networks have existed from the start of AI. Call it a system, not a program, I am ok with that.
I suppose you can have billions of nodes running in a single computer, there is nothing new.

[tee-rex]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

If you understand AI as some advanced program, then I agree with you, it was a stillborn concept. On the other hand, the technological advances of recent times allow now to build billion node neuron networks, which is a huge step ahead. So, instead of writing a complicated program with fixed logic, you build a neuron network which effectively does the same, but its "program" is not fixed, but can be  changed in a sane manner on the fly, and, what is more important, without human intervention or preset plan. In this way it resembles conscious adaptation of humans.

Neural networks have existed from the start of AI. Call it a system, not a program, I am ok with that.
I suppose you can have billions of nodes running in a single computer, there is nothing new.

In fact, you couldn't until recent developments. This single computer of yours should have millions of processors to make such a network at least look working. Human brain has around 90 billion neurons that function independently of each other and in parallel building an unfathomably complex mesh of interconnections. It turns out that to make a neuron network efficient you need specialized processors, since software emulation fails miserably due to the exponential growth of complexity with just a linear increase in the number of nodes.

[xmasdobo]

Like someone here said a milllion times: we dont need AI. Automation doesnt need AI to replace 99% jobs. We are getting there. then what??

[tee-rex]

Like someone here said a milllion times: we dont need AI. Automation doesnt need AI to replace 99% jobs. We are getting there. then what??

What about science then? Moreover, exploring other planets (let alone exploiting them and their resources) would be very cumbersome without a strong AI. For example, the largest distance between Mars and Earth (when they are at the opposite sides of Sun) is approximately 378 million kilometers, and it takes about 21 minutes for an electromagnetic wave to travel this distance. The closest distance between Mars and Earth is 78 million kilometers, so the time needed to cover this distance will be a little over 4 minutes.

[cbeast]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You don't believe AI is possible?

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

[dinofelis]

The aim is not to work and produce but to consume and increase your standard of livings even if creating and working are a huge source of satisfaction. You could still create and produce even if machines were doing all the heavy work.

The point is that there's no point even in developing machines that produce goods and services for others if you cannot get something of value back from those that will consume those goods and services.

The entities (be it some humans or machines) that have the capability to make the machines that could produce goods and services, will only be motivated to do so if they get value in return from their customers.  If those customers have nothing of value to offer to those making the machines, there's no motivation to make them such that they produce mass services and goods.  If you do have that capability to make machines that could produce, you better make them such that they make luxury items for YOU, rather than mass production items for customers who have nothing to offer.

Moreover if several entities are capable of making machines that produce luxury items for themselves, they can trade those items amongst themselves.  They have no use of customers not being able to offer them any thing.

If Jack has machines that builds luxury private air planes, Joe has machines that makes luxury meals, John has machines that make luxury clothes, and Jay has luxury call girls, and a few more, then these people can do business amongst themselves, and don't need the big crowds that have nothing to offer ; so there would be no reason to produce anything for them either.

As such, the big crowds wouldn't be ABLE to buy anything from those machine-driven economy, because there's nothing for sale for them and nothing has been produced for them (exactly because they have nothing to offer).   But in that case, the members of the big crowds can do labor for one another, and develop their own, lower-level, economy.  
We would essentially have separated economies: the machine-driven luxury world for those "in" the business, who have nothing to obtain from "the crowd" and produce their own high level luxury.  And then the crowd itself, who, cut off from that fully automated economy because nothing to offer, does business amongst themselves for their own sake.

[dinofelis]

Our hardware (and firmware) evolves much much slower than machine hardware.  We are not re-engineered totally.  Machines are.

Again you don't see the whole picture, By the time we are be able to create a thinking machine, it may well be possible that we will be able to re-engineer ourselves as we see appropriate, up to a point of moving one's mind and memory from natural media into synthetic one, more robust and smart. In fact, this has already been done (though partly) and it worked!

You cannot re-engineer yourself so much, or you would not be a human any more.  You can say that fish re-engineered themselves into humans, then. It took them about 600 million years, through natural evolution. But we aren't fish any more.

Imagine that you re-design a whole new organic creature, that only contains half of human DNA, and all the rest is re-engineered.  Is that a human, or a machine ?  Is that "your son" or "your daughter", if you are to them, what fish are to us ?

[tee-rex]

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab).

[tee-rex]

Our hardware (and firmware) evolves much much slower than machine hardware.  We are not re-engineered totally.  Machines are.

Again you don't see the whole picture, By the time we are be able to create a thinking machine, it may well be possible that we will be able to re-engineer ourselves as we see appropriate, up to a point of moving one's mind and memory from natural media into synthetic one, more robust and smart. In fact, this has already been done (though partly) and it worked!

You cannot re-engineer yourself so much, or you would not be a human any more.  You can say that fish re-engineered themselves into humans, then. It took them about 600 million years, through natural evolution. But we aren't fish any more.

Imagine that you re-design a whole new organic creature, that only contains half of human DNA, and all the rest is re-engineered.  Is that a human, or a machine ?  Is that "your son" or "your daughter", if you are to them, what fish are to us?

Just two notes. First, when I said that we would re-engineer ourselves, I meant a conscious effort (and it is not just an ad hoc meaning of the word, by the way), so fish couldn't possibly re-engineer themselves into humans by any means. Second, you can't re-design a whole new organic creature, the phrase is oxymoronic. You either design a new creature, or re-design an already existing one.

You may think that I'm nitpicking here but in fact it is you who's doing just that ("you would not be a human any more"). In any case, we would still be ourselves.

[dinofelis]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You are absolutely right that AI was ill-defined and over sold.

The error in the definition was that there was a confusion between intelligence and consciousness.  You can be intelligent without being conscious, and you can be conscious without being intelligent.  Both have not much to do with one another.

Intelligence comes down to "being able to solve problems".

Consciousness comes down to "being able to undergo subjective experiences which are good or bad sensations".  The last one can only actually be known by the conscious being itself, and has in principle no behavioural consequences.

You could postulate that an AND gate feels good when it applies its truth table, and feels a lot of pain when its truth table is not respected.  You could torture an AND gate by forcing its output "TRUE" when one of its inputs is FALSE.  You could make an AND gate happy when you let it put its output to the right value as a function of its inputs.
You can say that an AND gate has such a strong drive and will to pursue its happiness, that it almost always makes its truth table come out.
You can analyse the physics of an AND gate, and come to the conclusion that the material implementation of the AND gate explains its behaviour.  You will never know whether an AND gate has happy and sad feelings.  Whether it really hurts an AND gate to have its output forced to a wrong value.  Maybe there should be a declaration of the Universal Rights of AND gates, to prevent their torture.

So from the behavioural aspect of an AND gate, which can be entirely understood on the basis of its physics, there's no way to find out whether an AND gate is conscious and has subjective experiences.

If you would analyse a human brain, you would probably be able to predict all behavioural aspects of a human being.  But there would be no way to find out whether a human brain is the seat of a conscious subjective experience.

The two differences between an AND gate and a human brain are:
- the human brain is more complex
- it is made of meat instead of silicon.

So AI in the sense of making a sentient being is an impossible task.  You'll never know.

But AI in the sense of making a machine that pursues a goal and in doing so solves a problem, sure.  An AND gate is a very very elementary form of AI.  Vocal recognition and playing chess are more sophisticated versions.

When we arrive at the point where machines know how to design machines that solve problems better, I guess we can truly speak of autonomous AI.

[dinofelis]

Just two notes. First, when I said that we would re-engineer ourselves, I meant a conscious effort (and it is not just an ad hoc meaning of the word, by the way), so fish couldn't possibly re-engineer themselves into humans by any means.

I don't really see the difference on the behavioural side.  From fish came, through selection and mutation, humans.   The fish didn't of course conceive humans.  But to me that doesn't matter.  It happened (although very slowly).  Does it matter what the *intentions* are ?  Whether or not fish decided consciously that part of them would evolve in humans, while others would become sharks ?

When the new creature is so different from the original one, in what way is there in fact any difference with a silicon creation ?  It's a totally different being.  

I mean, is, whether the result is a "human" or not, dependent on the intentions of its design ?  Or only on the design itself ?

Second, you can't re-design a whole new organic creature, the phrase is oxymoronic. You either design a new creature, or re-design an already existing one.

Take a Ford-T.  Now change, one at a time, its chassis, its wheels, its engine, its steer, .... until you end up with a Ferrari.
Did you re-design the Ford-T, or did you design a new car ?

[cbeast]

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab).

If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?