Here is an example of a piece of logic.

Premise 1: I get letters if and only if the postman visited
Premise 2: I got letters today

Conclusion: The postman visited

If the two premises are true, then logically the conclusions must be true as we understand it.

Now what about if contradictory things can happen? "I get letters if and only if the postman visited" and "I got letter without the postman visiting" can both be true in such a world. The two premises no longer logically result that the conclusion must be true. — PhilosophyRunner

That's what I'm saying: if God messed up the logic in the donkey example, at least, we would know because the logic wouldn't work. If we can do the logic and verify the new statement is true, God has not messed with that particular piece of logic.

But if we can confirm that the appropriate application of logic always leads to correct outcomes, or almost always, then why do we have reason to doubt its integrity?

If the logic still can be used to describe reality, is it even faulty?

I'm saying that we wouldn't be able to use the donkey logic at all, but we reliably can, and that would indicate that our logic is not faulty. If the logic is faulty then why would one be able to use that logic to come to correct conclusions? And if you are saying faulty logic would have no effect on our ability to form arguments then why would there be an issue for the arguments applied to God?

Then that we see donkeys are grey and donkeys are small can both happen at the same time, does not mean they are non-contradictory. I.e if a being exists that can make contradictory things happen, then the very basis of logic that we use everyday, would be suspect. — PhilosophyRunner

If the logic didn't work, we wouldn't be able to combine the separate statements that donkeys are both small and gray to describe a donkey. The logic is just as necessary to the donkey example as the fact that they are indeed observably small and gray. If God had changed the rules of logic in such a way as to make the combined statement about donkeys false, we would not be able to use the donkey logic to come to any conclusions about donkeys or other things at all. But we can - merely with the premises that donkeys are small and gray.

If I'm wrong on this one, someone who knows more about logic correct me, please.

I don't think you can make a logical argument against an entity that can make two contradictory thing possible at the same time, as such a being would be able to invalidate the most perfect piece of human logic. — PhilosophyRunner

I actually made this argument against Bartricks. But we have no reason to think God has made any important logical statements contradictory. Although, yes, we cannot know for certain unless the intersection of the discussed logical statements is verifiable somehow.

For instance, if we can verify the claim that donkeys are small separately from the claim that they are gray to come to the conclusion that they are indeed both small and gray, then we know that the statements "donkeys are small", and "donkeys are gray" are non-contradictory.

That might seem pretty basic, but it demonstrates that we have a means of knowing if God has made two logical statements contradictory.

If we are talking about him making, for instance, certain rules of logic false or contradictory with other rules or what have you, then he could just explode logic. But logic works still for describing reality, so it appears he has not done so. Thus, he is still subject to logical arguments, even if they are somehow external to him through his own doing.

Could god not be both a person and the universe simultaneously? — Benj96

Yes. God, if he exists the way theologians formulate, could be anything at all, and could even just be a human with no powers if he so desired, and could just make himself God again whenever.

you cannot have justice and good without its opposite — Benj96

The potential for injustice and good is all that must exist for justness and good to exist. There doesn't actually have to be any real evil for good to exist, or any injustice for justice to exist, as per my definition - everyone must just get what they deserve.

But sadly in this duality god as the universe is ambivalent - because the system contains both good and evil, both chaos/destruction and order/creation - you cannot have justice and good without its opposite, and you cannot have free will either if only one or the other existed in isolation. — Benj96

But God could just give himself free will even if he existed as the universe and not a person. He could make any two contradictory things possible at the same time if he so desires. You might say then that God could just make human suffering and injustice just. But that makes little sense from a human perspective, because we humans still have a stubborn intuition about what constitutes justness that exists apart from God, and I can say that I believe murderers should be punished with no consequences.

That would mean that either God is allowing us to contradict his idea of justness with our free will or arranged the universe in such a way as to guarantee we would defy him on this one.

the truth doesn't change. It's the truth after all. And such a fundamental constant/ law/ principle as truth - which is unchanging.. Must therefore be inaccesible to systems that change/are under the influence of change. — Benj96

The position of a projectile in motion can be derived from unchanging equations - or just one when combined - that govern its trajectory. We have a system in which the position of the projectile, measured against time, changes, but is still governed by those equations. The changing position represents a (more contingent) "truth", and the immutable series of equations governing the trajectory represent a "truth".

And because the truth cannot change fundamentally or it wouldnt be true - it must have something to do with energy and time (the ability to do work/cause change as well as quantum uncertainty - heisenbergs uncertainty principle in science) and perhaps (in spirituality/ religion - being, consciousness, ethics and god). — Benj96

Why can't truth change? You make that claim multiple times but don't really back it up.

Don't get me wrong - suffering and hardship builds character, but not in gratuitous amounts.

We have free will and it is our responsibility to create just outcomes in society. — Hallucinogen

Would you say that adults should allow their children to suffer injustices at each other's hands merely so they can be judged by adults? That we should allow children to suffer so we can test them?

What if the people responsible for enacting justness refuse to enact justice correctly? Because it seems to me humanity is mostly incapable of enacting justness consistently, otherwise war criminals like George W. Bush would be in prison. Even though he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and the destruction of a country he gets to retire to his ranch and paint self-portraits. Same goes for Putin and every other authoritarian asshole never held responsible throughout history.

And what about good people that get cancer? How are we supposed to enact justness there? If we can't enact justness, then shouldn't God protect good people from injustices we cannot rectify if he is even remotely just?

Expecting God to do everything for us so we needn't do anything is lumping the means by which we show God who we are onto God's lap, which would be pointless because God created creation to see how we react to life. — Hallucinogen

Then God really half-assed creation. We could demonstrate our worth, compassion, bravery, ingenuity etc. in a world with significantly less suffering.

You're going to have to define God in your syllogism as that which eliminates the possibility of injustice. I'm not sure that is a generally accepted notion of God. Most religions accept that there is injustice. — Hanover

Most religions deal with injustice by suspending typical moral reasoning, something I am speaking out against doing in this post. We should treat God the way we would treat anyone with a significant amount of power over others, even if, as some have argued, he is almost totally ineffable. Furthermore, even if one wants to postulate that God exists, he could be unjust as easily as just - even according to some standard only he can recognize. That cuts against the popular idea of God, given we strip away the bullshit.

I suppose if people are cool with God not caring about justice my argument would do little to persuade anyone to think critically about God or their religion.

Have we taken up too much time on this? — Tom Storm

Definitely not, I thought we actually have been having a good conversation.

Is this an insult? We are exploring an argument, not trying to slight each other, right?

We disagree (partly) in a discussion forum - nothing wrong with that, right? — Tom Storm

I didn't intend it as an insult, sorry if it came across that way.

I'll concede one thing here - you're right to say God may not be just by a human understanding of what is just. — Tom Storm

No, he definitely isn't. Not "maybe". As soon as God is invoked many people seem to suspend any sort of decent reasoning on moral matters - including on what is just. They just claim that either God's plan is incomprehensible or that he has special reasons for suspending justice (the guilty will be judged in the afterlife, the existence of original sin, etc.).

My problem is not this part of the argument, rather the implication that god is in some way a moral monster or 'choosing not to intervene'. — Tom Storm

I didn't claim him to be a moral monster, but it definitely looks like he is a moral monster from where I'm sitting.

From the perspective of omniscience what humans understand as injustice might look to be something utterly different. God may not consider intervention to be appropriate. — Tom Storm

Then we should stop drawing any sort of positive wisdom or assurance from any personal ideas of what God is too, it seems to me - especially given that the arguments for a just God are weaker than those for an unjust God merely by virtue of the fact that human injustices are allowed.

Btw - I never claimed that God couldn't have special reasons only they have knowledge of for allowing injustices. But I fail to see any, and it wouldn't change the fact that they allow injustices. Having a special reason for killing someone doesn't negate the fact that you killed someone, for instance - it just might be justified somehow.

Just in saying that demonstrates to me you don't understand the argument.

Do you want to keep going in circles or have we reached the end for now? — Tom Storm

Are you even trying to understand what I am saying?

Why does God potentially being totally incomprehensible mean that he isn't responsible for the injustices we suffer? I'm saying that relative to any human idea of justness God is not just. How is that wrong?

You've probably missed the argument about the nature of god then. You're approaching this in human terms and thinking of god as a kind of very special human, with the same frame of reference. — Tom Storm

No. I haven't. God could be that unfathomably complex machine yet still be a being that cares not for enacting justice at all. And that makes him unjust. You are dodging the argument, hiding behind some idea of God that, ironically, has more in common with the fundamentalist version of God than you seem to understand.

Mainly just for the kinds of anthropomorphic, cartoon gods of evangelicals.

I'm not sure how you have determined god's state of mind to conclude it doesn't give a fuck. :smile: — Tom Storm

If God cared, you don't think they would do something? Would God pussyfoot around so that we can have arguments like these? I think not. If God doesn't care, God doesn't care, no matter how inscrutable or unfathomable their nature is. If they wanted to enact justice, they could - and they don't. So, they must have some really great reason for allowing injustice that none of us can think of.

I get that, but I think this narrows the scope and nature of both god and evil. That's all I am saying. The world may be much vaster than this small fence around matters moral and metaphysical would suggest. — Tom Storm

If you knew that there is no way to make a perpetual motion machine that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics regardless of how you rigged it up, would you claim that an extraordinarily complex one - verging on unfathomably complex, even - might actually have some chance at achieving perpetual motion? Or would you hold to the principles of thermodynamics as humans understand them?

The problem for me is that these kinds of formulations only really work if God is a person - some old guy in the sky, with a personality and an almost human approach and is subject to a literalist/fundamentalist interpretation. — Tom Storm

But largely that is the God people actually argue for, not some deistic/agnostic formulation, and, thus, that is what I am addressing.

b) We have no good evidence about the nature of any god/s. — Tom Storm

We have plenty of evidence, however, that God does not give a flying fuck about people getting what they deserve, at least as we understand it. The claim that God may have some greater understanding of justice in which child rapists don't deserve to be punished is on par with the claim, in terms of arrogance, that everything is going according to some celestial plan laid out just for us - beings who are as insignificant as ants compared to God.

a) It is unwise to reach conclusions in the absence of good evidence. — Tom Storm

I agree.

c) Therefore we can make no claims about god/s as being just or unjust. — Tom Storm

But it seems to me that we can because the world is not perfectly just - which it would have to be for God to be just. I am defining justness as people getting what they deserve - and they largely don't - and you are circumventing that definition and making the claim that God is so incomprehensible that we can make no claims about his nature. You need to address my definition, because, according to that, we can indeed declare him to be unjust.

a - If god exists we seem to have no demonstrable way of knowing what their nature is, or if god is even present in the physical world.

I guess I would ask, what exactly is the correlation between our world and the reality (or not) of a deity? — Tom Storm

My point is that if one argues that God exists - and since all of the arguments that apply for the existence of any type of God apply for an unjust god - God must be unjust according to any plausible standard compatible with any human understanding of justness. My arguments for an unjust God do not affect god's nature, but rather are an artifact of human reality. So, it is a relative thing, ultimately.

So if there is such a good God and they are able to be a person for a limited time and speak the truth now would be a good time for them to reveal themselves — Benj96

What an odd thing to say. I doubt God would suddenly intervene now of all times.

That's a terrible shame. I do agree that probably most people at this stage in time would have to "see it to believe it" rather than blindly trust that such a good god exists. — Benj96

Maybe it's time to give up on notions of being guided by some benevolent, all-powerful, cosmic father-figure? I honestly think we are on our own.

What I am saying is that if you are starting off with an omniscient God (as you did mention in your OP), then by the very attribute you ascribed to God, God has a superior understanding of what is just than you. — PhilosophyRunner

Yes, but divine command theory is a bitter pill to swallow. So much so that many theists won't even entertain its implications.

I think no one good wants the second type of God to exist. — Benj96

Indeed. I just really doubt that a good God exists.

Exactly. He or she would have to demonstrate it instead of just saying so/dictating. They would have to show everyone what it means to be ethical (good) or unethical (bad) by utilising themselves (the truth - if they are indeed omniscient). — Benj96

If God desires to even be ethical, that is.

Are we referring to God as a person here or god as the universe?
Because god as a person could be just. They have free will to make good or bad decisions. God as the universe cannot be just as the universe is everything: thus including both justices and injustices as a whole. — Benj96

God is not limited to being the universe according to any theist, at least as far as I know. Perhaps God is omnipresent, but he exists as an entity with free will according to most - he is just everywhere.

He can do anything or be anything and can even make two contradictory things true (square-circle). He can exist as an entity yet permeate every corner of the universe simultaneously if he so desires. The unfettered kind of God that modern theologians talk about has basically unlimited power, but that doesn't mean that God can't act unjustly.

Then I'm not alone here.

In that frame work, we would have to assume that your understanding of who is an asshole is wrong compared to God's superior understanding of who is an asshole. — PhilosophyRunner

Not really, unless God were threatening me with death, or an eternity of damnation for defying him.

Or that everything ethical or just is what god understands as ethical and just, regardless of whether humanity understands it as ethical or just. — PhilosophyRunner

It would be arbitrary if God said what is ethical is ethical merely because he says so. If what is ethical is just understood to be ethical by God we have no need for God.

But from my point of view, this is all moot as I see no reason to believe an omniscient God in the first place. — PhilosophyRunner

Agreed. But this is directed at theists who have a sense of fairness that is still divorced at least a little from their belief in God.

to play devils advocate (in a post about God!), if you take God to be omniscient then God has a better understanding of what is just than you do (as your knowledge is not perfect, God's is). And as such it make no sense for you to judge God's actions as unjust, this is merely your limited human mind not being able to comprehend true Godly justness. — PhilosophyRunner

Then we have to accept that God is an insane asshole that actually believes that serial rapists should not be punished except when caught? Are we allowed to have any conception of justice? Or should we allow ourselves to be buffeted by the injustices we perceive to be happening all around us and merely whisper to ourselves that it's all part of God's plan?

If I find God to be unjust by my understanding of justness - this means my understanding of what is just and God's understanding of what is just differ. As God cannot be wrong in his understanding of anything, it is my understanding of justness that is wrong. — PhilosophyRunner

Then everything ethical and just is absolutely arbitrary. Or we don't need God. Read this for clarification.

Are you educated in anything other than philosophy? And like T Clark said: your English is good.

reading along with an occasional reply entering those discussions which I'm actually able to participate in without getting eaten alive :nerd: — Seeker

I think we could all stand to be a little less cantankerous with each other ... or maybe not? Nevertheless, my favorite threads, and the most productive ones - imo - are the ones in which people find common ground, eventually, through argumentation.

BTW, if you ever change your mind and want to do an OP and you don't know if it's good enough/direct enough/concise enough, free of fallacies, etc., I think someone might be willing to give it a read before you post it.

Of course, plagiarism isn't allowed, but I think a quick read over would be fine.

Honestly, you probably couldn't do worse than some of the people I've seen post just based on this OP alone.

If the OP claims that rationality is a force that negates/limits free will, I'd have to agree but with the proviso that as per some sources it (rationality) also liberates in the sense that if a particular factor that influences our decisions is identified, we can take (logical) steps to counter it (effectively). — Agent Smith

I sort of agree with that, at least insofar as it expands choices. But one can act freely without having any more than two options really. Because that way you could have chosen otherwise.

I don't see that you have properly distinguished between rational and irrational. You seem to be saying that an irrational act follows from some kind of "internal logic", which is logic that may be faulty, and this is the means by which you can say that an irrational act is actually in some sense rational. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm saying that an act is definitely irrational if it possesses no internal logic, and that if it has internal logic and consistent reasoning - especially with non-contradictory premises - it is definitely rational. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

So, the fault in (b) is that what you call a "rational action", may actually be irrational, because the internal logic may be faulty, yet the irrational act qualifies as a "rational action" by your definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I said "and", not "or". It must have both internal logic and consistent reasoning given as set of premises, but these premises need not be strictly true. If the internal logic is faulty, it cannot be rational even with consistent reasoning given a set of premises according to my definition.

Then, in premise (c) you go way off track. The selection of a course of action, does not necessarily "preclude" all other possible courses of action. One may set out on a course of action, being somewhat unsure of oneself, and ready to change course at a moment's notice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not deny this. I'm saying that if we are talking about someone actually being rational and making a rational decision, they must eliminate all other possibilities because of reasoning - even if that reasoning is faulty. Otherwise, a rational decision is not being made. And what is rational could change and it would be relevant up until a course of action is selected. But while actions are limited by our intent to act rationally, act a is not free, or every action becomes rational.

I am discussing what is the case in a perfect instance of rational decision making. Considerations of whether or not humans make decisions irrationally is irrelevant.

Therefore "p" as the possible courses of action, in an irrational action, is completely backward in your representation. You represent the possible courses of action as having been considered by the acter, when in reality, the irrational acter does not consider those possible courses of action, hence the irrational act follows. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps, but one need not consider every possible irrational course of action to come up with one that is while deliberating. I didn't say that p represents all irrational courses of action, but rather those considered. And even if one does not consider many irrational actions because irrational people don't think before acting, and thus are acting irrationally, people almost always deliberate and consider multiple courses of action if they are acting rationally.

Once again, I am talking about people who are by definition making rational decisions. They are not being irrational if they are looking to spot errors in internal logic or consistent reasoning and, thus, eliminate certain irrational courses of action.

Thanks for the quick reply!

It would probably help if you gave the definition of FW with which you're working here. — noAxioms

FW is the ability to choose between different courses of action unimpeded. This would imply autonomy and the ability to have done otherwise.

It seems to vary considerably depending on one's biases. I for instance define it as being able to make my own choices, and not having an external (supernatural?) entity do it for me. Pretty biased, I know. No, I'm not a materialist, but again, maybe you have a different definition of what being a materialist means. — noAxioms

I admit I didn't really spell out the way the OP relates to materialism because I was getting bored re-reading and refining the post. If the only thing that is relevant to rational discussions is science, math, and logic, that sounds a lot like some sort of materialistic view. Although maybe there is a better word for that?

My more typical example is one where somebody is trying to cross a busy street. There's more than one time to do it safely, but one must still choose a safe one over one that puts you in unreasonable danger. Some people's definition of free will would get this person killed almost every time. The rational robot should have no trouble with the task, because it has the sort of free will that I defined. — noAxioms

Yes, and a smart, rational person that could exercise their free will and get themselves killed could also hit the button that lights up the sign that indicates to them that it is safe to cross the street, because people are often rational or think rationally when making decisions that involve not dying, for instance. So, the presence of free will does in no way imply that humans cannot be as rational as a rational robot when necessary.

a. Humans are somewhat inherently rational and take some actions based upon reasoning and internal logic.
So we love to believe, but I've found it to be otherwise. It is actually a good thing that we're not particularly rational. — noAxioms

I think we should always be rational when we can be, but maybe that's just me. And I think people are consistently rational when it matters.

d. If actor x has free will, they can choose combinations of courses of action that are subsets of p that are not otherwise available to actor x even with the intent to act rationally.
A simple mechanical device can make such choices. Does such a device have free will then? — noAxioms

If the machine is conscious and is actually considering and choosing between different courses of action, then maybe. But a mechanical device cannot think, and thus cannot have free will.

e. By necessity, all actions p + a that are considered with the intent to act rationally and those that are precluded by reasoning/faulty logic must be rational or action a is unfree depending upon whether or not free will exists.
Don't understand this. It seems to suggest that all possible actions considered must be rational ones. If one considers an irrational one, the choice eventually made (even of a different action) is not free. That makes no sense, so I probably got it wrong. — noAxioms

You did. p + a includes both the rational decision made - a - and also the collection of other rational decisions and those that are also not rational - p. So, the whole group together represents the collection of possible actions. I just grouped the possible rational actions not taken with the irrational ones not taken in p. The other irrational actions grouped into p are not able to be deliberately taken because they are precluded by the intent to act rationally.

One can choose another rational course of action, but it will ultimately be unfree, or all of the choices - even the ones precluded by the intent to act rationally - become rational if free will exists.

each's premises must be differentiated in terms of subsets of the collection of infallible premises q.
The premises are infallible now. Does that means they're necessarily true (which would defeat them being called premises at all), or they're not open to debate, in which case they're irrational biases instead of premises arrived at via rational choice. — noAxioms

Yes, the premises must be based on verifiable truths because that way we can sidestep the whole thing about rational actions having false premises yet still being rational. If you have an issue with that it is an issue of definition. To repeat the definition: one can reason with faulty premises and come up with something rational given those premises. I think there is something between irrational biases and things that are necessarily true.

To begin: when discussing “rational” actions, “rational” means in accordance with reason or logic, which are two very different things. A belief that results in an action can have internal logic but be the result of poor reasoning and still be rational according to some faulty premises. I will define rational as such:
An example of something that involves reasoning that is not logical would help clarify this. Maybe something else that is logical but lacks reasoning. — noAxioms

One might assert that the covid vaccine is a death serum intended to reduce the earth's population and that if you don't want to die you shouldn't take it. Logically makes sense, but obviously the vaccine isn't a death serum.

Rational: A reference to any belief that possesses internal logic and reasoning consistent with a set of premises that may or may not be accurate.
It's only about beliefs? Not choices? Must the logic be valid? Plenty of supposedly rational choices are made by poor logic skills, resulting in actions inconsistent with their premises. Reaching for the next cigarette for example, despite knowledge (premises) that doing so will ruin one's health. — noAxioms

If one starts with the false premise that cigarettes are worth ruining one's health then maybe it is rational to smoke a cigarette. And I explain that I also apply the term rational to actions and decisions later in the OP. And yes, the internal logic should be valid. I get that it isn't always when people are actually making decisions, but I can't really call it rational otherwise. But I think my argument applies when we get it right.

BTW not saying humans are all that rational, but rather rational some of the time quite consistently.

Bodily autonomy? The maximization of fulfillment of preferences? The future of the human race?

Can't answer that since it seems to be dependent on a selected goal. Being human, I'm apparently too stupid to select a better goal. I'm intelligent enough to know that I should not be setting the goal.
But I can think of at least three higher goals, each of which has a very different code of what's 'right'. — noAxioms

What are those goals?

Right. But we'll not like it because it will contradict the ethics that come from our short-sighted human goals. — noAxioms

I think I might find it acceptable, whatever the AI might come up with. Maybe.

DARPA actually is investigating Targeted Neuroplasticity Training for teaching marksmanship and such things.
That perhaps can improve skills. Can it fix stupid? I doubt the military has more benevolent goals than our hypothetical AI. — noAxioms

Okay that was funny. Yeah if they are doing their jobs right they can't really be described as benevolent. And no, TNT obviously can't fix stupid. Just look at Jocko.

Human ethics are based on human stupidity. I’d not let ‘anything the humans want’ to be part of its programming. — noAxioms

What do you consider to be acceptable ethics and/or meta-ethics? Maybe the benevolent AI could come up with some good stuff after being created?

Honestly at this point it sounds like the best thing to do would be to find the most intelligent, impartial and benevolent person and integrate their mind with some sort of supercomputer. Who knows what that would feel like, though. It would probably be fucking horrible.

Also, I appreciate the historical analysis. It's a perspective I hadn't heard before.

edit: it would be interesting to see the jiu-jitsu gains on TNT though, for sure.

Perhaps, but then they're also incredibly stupid, driven by short term goals seemingly designed for rapid demise of the species. So maybe the robots could do better. — noAxioms

I'm certain robots could do better, especially given we could mold them into just about anything we want, whether or not doing so is ethical. To mold a human even into something as seemingly mundane as an infantryman is orders of magnitude harder than it would be to simply create a robot capable of executing those functions, once the programming is complete, and would result in less or no trauma from seeing combat.

Speaking of which, the training process is so imperfect and slow - turning people into soldiers - that DARPA actually is investigating Targeted Neuroplasticity Training for teaching marksmanship and such things. And, while the military always gets the cutting-edge tech first, it could offset our soon to be dependance on robots in the future in many professions.

In fact, if we were all walking around all big-brain with our extra plasticity, we would be able to excel at jobs unrelated to the mundane work executed by robots in the near future.

Sorry for getting a little off course there.

Take away all the wars (everything since say WW2) and society would arguably have collapsed already. Wars serve a purpose where actual long-term benevolent efforts are not even suggested. — noAxioms

Can you back this up at all? Not necessarily with studies or anything, I just thought that the Vietnam War, for example, didn't even accomplish its goals, as it didn't really prevent the spread of communism, which was indeed its goal?

Disagree heavily. At best we've thus far avoided absolute disaster simply by raising the stakes. The strategy cannot last indefinitely. — noAxioms

I think you are right, at least partially. But we are talking about rational people when we talk about Biden and Putin, or at least largely rational. Putin is, of course, a despicable war criminal, but I don't think he wants to see the demise of his country and everyone in it. And so long as he doesn't press the button, he is tacitly acknowledging that he has some sort of twisted idea of what he wants for humanity.

Maybe they get smarter than the humans and want to do better. I've honestly not seen it yet. The best AI I've seen (a contender for the Turing test) attempts to be like us, making all the same mistakes. A truly benevolent AI, smarter than any of us, would probably not pass the Turing test. Wrong goal. — noAxioms

Agreed. It need not be indistinguishable from a human.

I at least thought it was good.
— ToothyMaw

That's unfortunate. — Baden

Yes, it is unfortunate - now that it has been consigned to oblivion. I'll leave it alone.

Whoever deleted it obviously claimed it was low quality.



Can he repost his old OP? I don't mean to get in the way but I at least thought it was good. Not trying to interfere here or anything.

Holy shit that is hilarious

there's a sophos who can predict the future accurately. — Agent Smith

That's a really weird thing to say.

What gets me stoked is this: the skill set the OP wishes robots to have may require computing power & programming complexity sufficient to make such robots sentient (re unintended consequences). — Agent Smith

I think it would be hard to accidentally make a sentient robot. We don't even understand consciousness in the human brain. And the most powerful computer we have probably has enough computing power to create something sentient, yet we do not have sentience.

The robots would refuse to comply if they're anything like us. — Agent Smith

Why, though? Why would they be like us, and why wouldn't they comply, given they would be treated well?