I dunno, the thought give me a lot of dread lately as it seems like the hopeful future I grew up believing in turns out to be the opposite. SO far tech just makes life either more complicated or worse.

Our downfall, maybe just speeding up our fall?
Do you see any benefits of AI for humanity? Maybe,we should work towards a curtailment of AI to them?
The genie is already out of the bottle, now maybe is the time to ask the right questions or curb its potential harms?
So no, not a downfall. Just, like all new techs, more and different work to do to minimize its faults/flaws and maximize its better qualities/potentials.

A skeptic approach? Perhaps?

smile

Imho, "Skynet" is more likely to save us from our worst selves as a species – a much more complex and interesting problem to solve even for its higher order of intelligence – than enslave & terminate us. :nerd:

Consider these recent posts from a topic-related thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/964651

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/965021

I don’t think those posts hold any water, especially given how ai is lately.

Our downfall, maybe just speeding up our fall?
Do you see any benefits of AI for humanity? Maybe,we should work towards a curtailment of AI to them?
The genie is already out of the bottle, now maybe is the time to ask the right questions or curb its potential harms?
So no, not a downfall. Just, like all new techs, more and different work to do to minimize its faults/flaws and maximize its better qualities/potentials. — kazan

We can’t even manage social media let alone cars. We also, despite the tech, work more than previous generations

The problem I see lies in the "creative" part of AI. I don't mind if AI takes over boring non-creatice tasks. But when AI makes movies, paintings, music etc. it just copies fragments of what humans have made before. Aside from the fact that it's a copyright problem, it also accumulates human errors like fake news etc. This uncontrolled error accumulation makes the entire AI system unstable. AI does not really create things on its own and it doesn't really know what's fake and what's true. Thirdly, when humans become less creative due to AI taking over, AI will get less to eat. So AI will feed itself with its own used crap instead of eating fresh human ideas. If this principle continues, AI will end up in an incestuous circle.

What’s gonna happen when you replace most jobs with AI, how will people live? — Darkneos

What will that AI be producing? For whom? If there is nobody earning, there is nobody buying, the machines stop making money for owners, while still using up energy. Meanwhile, people who have been losing their income have no health insurance, their homes are repossessed, their debts won't be paid, the banks will go bust while houses and apartments stand vacant and families are on the street. The economy collapses. (You don't need more than 5% unemployment to trigger a recession; in the Great depression it reached 25%. 40% is sufficient to bring down an economy.)
When the economy breaks down, so does law and order and thus government.

People scramble for food and shelter; some choose to co-operate and form communities; they squat in abandoned buildings, plant gardens, pool skills and resources. Others rely on raiding the productive ones. So the productive communities learn to defend themselves. There is widespread armed conflict, until a groups of communities form federations of trading partners and allies, establish laws based on shared value systems... and a new civilization grows.
The wealthy who have benefited hugely from sudden advancements in technology for which no compensating social arrangements were made find themselves in possession of very large numbers in a data base that can't be traded for a pot of beans. They're reduced to doing their own drudgery. Unless they jump off tall buildings.

....

yet on Twitter I see people thinking it’s gonna lead us to some utopia unaware of what it’s doing now. I mean students are just having ChatGPT write their term papers now. It’s going to weaken human ability and that in turn is going to impact how we deal with future issues.

What we have is artificial, but not intelligent. A chat bot sounds clever by parroting words written by humans. They're kind of like the white plastic face on a robot, to make it more appealing.
The real function of self-teaching or adaptive computer programs is in operating machines for industry, commerce, transportation and communications. That's where the jobs go. There is no point in a diploma that can be earned by parroting a parrot and there is no job at the end of it.

The only way computing could bring about a utopian - or at least, reasonable - arrangement for humans is if it were genuinely intelligent and took over control of the economic and political organization of society. But it won't bring about our downfall, either: we're doing that ourselves.

[deleted]

What we have is artificial, but not intelligent. A chat bot sounds clever by parroting words written by humans. They're kind of like the white plastic face on a robot, to make it more appealing.
The real function of self-teaching or adaptive computer programs is in operating machines for industry, commerce, transportation and communications. That's where the jobs go. There is no point in a diploma that can be earned by parroting a parrot and there is no job at the end of it. — Vera Mont

What about with AGI?

I was more motivated by this post:

https://www.quora.com/What-ethical-dilemmas-should-we-consider-as-technology-evolves-rapidly/answer/David-Moore-408?ch=15&oid=1477743839367290&share=118d711a&srid=3lrYEM&target_type=answer

Where it suggests AI will solve the purpose of human existence and he lists some things like of pleasure is the goal then we’d just be hooked up to drugs all the time without needing to bother with experiences. That sounds like either ruining the human experience or “revealing” it for what it is, that being just chemical reactions with our storytelling to make it seem like more.

Where it suggests AI will solve the purpose of human existence and he lists some things like of pleasure is the goal then we’d just be hooked up to drugs all the time without needing to bother with experiences. — Darkneos

Is that what you see as the purpose of human existence? (assuming it has one) Is that what you desire for yourself? Being blissed-out on drugs and lying around in a sustained orgy of self-gratification? The notion doesn't do a thing for me. It sure wouldn't for a baseball player, an engineer, a psychologist or a composer. There are pleasures far more complex and satisfying than the chemical. People have talents and ambitions. Most don't have the time and opportunity to reach their potential - or even try to reach for their imagined potential.

In order to eke out a living, so that they can have their own basic necessities and some aspects of what makes them happy: material comfort, a family, social standing. Those who can, make whatever compromise is necessary to attain at least part of what they they ideally want. The other half have no choices at all, except attempting to avoid one bad situation or another peril and stay alive, seizing those moments of respite, play or affection that make life worthwhile.

That sounds like either ruining the human experience or “revealing” it for what it is, that being just chemical reactions with our storytelling to make it seem like more.

Is that what you observe in your own daily contact with people? There may well be a fair whack of escapism these days, but look around and you'll understand what people are escaping from. The far greater danger we're increasingly witnessing is the degeneration of youth into brutality and blood-lust - savagery. Social media as Lord of the Flies.

Is that what you see as the purpose of human existence? (assuming it has one) Is that what you desire for yourself? Being blissed-out on drugs and lying around in a sustained orgy of self-gratification? The notion doesn't do a thing for me. It sure wouldn't for a baseball player, an engineer, a psychologist or a composer. There are pleasures far more complex and satisfying than the chemical. People have talents and ambitions. Most don't have the time and opportunity to reach their potential - or even try to reach for their imagined potential. — Vera Mont

It's more like trying to expand on the quora answer and what he's getting at and extending things to their logical conclusion. I don't think such a thing is appealing but I find it hard to argue against since it does come down to chemicals when emotions are involved. I don't agree with his conclusions but I can't argue against them. I mean...why go through all those experiences? Just cut out the middleman.

Is that what you observe in your own daily contact with people? There may well be a fair whack of escapism these days, but look around and you'll understand what people are escaping from. The far greater danger we're increasingly witnessing is the degeneration of youth into brutality and blood-lust - savagery. Social media as Lord of the Flies. — Vera Mont

Does it matter what I observe? What if I am mistaken about what's happening and our justifications are just storytelling trying to run from it just being chemicals. Why care about the process of doing something or the journey if it's just the chemicals making us feel that way and driving us toward it? Again I don't like thinking that but can't argue against it.

The only way computing could bring about a utopian - or at least, reasonable - arrangement for humans is if it were genuinely intelligent and took over control of the economic and political organization of society. But it won't bring about our downfall, either: we're doing that ourselves. — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

↪180 Proof I don’t think those posts hold any water, especially given how ai is lately. — Darkneos

Okay, you didn't read the posts or the thread.

I mean...why go through all those experiences? Just cut out the middleman. — Darkneos

Drugsare the middleman. I don't know about you, but I enjoy my experiences first-hand, directly. Emotions may be partly chemical, but they're also cerebral: what you think and remember is as much of your experience as what you taste and smell. Sight and hearing are more than simply chemical, too. Drugs and entertainments are an escape from experience that is unpleasant or tedious - not an acceptable substitute. The Quora poster is wrong, afaic.

Does it matter what I observe? — Darkneos

It should. What more reliable information will you ever get about reality than what you know?

Why care about the process of doing something or the journey if it's just the chemicals making us feel that way and driving us toward it? Again I don't like thinking that but can't argue against it. — Darkneos

There is a whole lot more to life than "just chemicals". There were plenty of chemicals floating around in the primordial ooze before some of them bumped into one another and formed complex molecules and eventually RNA. We've come a considerable way since then. You can't reduce human experience, thought, feeling, aspiration and activity to chemical reactions.

There is a whole lot more to life than "just chemicals". There were plenty of chemicals floating around in the primordial ooze before some of them bumped into one another and formed complex molecules and eventually RNA. We've come a considerable way since then. You can't reduce human experience, thought, feeling, aspiration and activity to chemical reactions. — Vera Mont

Some would argue that's just storytelling, making things out to be more than what they really are.

It should. What more reliable information will you ever get about reality than what you know? — Vera Mont

Well our observations and experience could be mistaken.

Drugsare the middleman. I don't know about you, but I enjoy my experiences first-hand, directly. Emotions may be partly chemical, but they're also cerebral: what you think and remember is as much of your experience as what you taste and smell. Sight and hearing are more than simply chemical, too. Drugs and entertainments are an escape from experience that is unpleasant or tedious - not an acceptable substitute. The Quora poster is wrong, afaic. — Vera Mont

That's what I hope, though I find it hard to argue. I think what he's trying to get at it with the thermodynamics bit and the simplest solution being "best" is that bit about how if pleasure is the goal of human existence then just being hooked up to drugs is simplest instead of "living". Did you read the link?

Some would argue that's just storytelling, making things out to be more than what they really are. — Darkneos

Chemicals that invent stories are far more interesting than chemicals that just want to experience physical pleasure. Still not an explanation for human complexity, of course.

Well our observations and experience could be mistaken. — Darkneos

As compared to what? If all experience is just chemicals and stories, why be concerned about their accuracy? OTOH, if you don't buy that explanation, your observations can provide an alternative theory.

I think what he's trying to get at it with the thermodynamics bit and the simplest solution being "best" is that bit about how if pleasure is the goal of human existence then just being hooked up to drugs is simplest instead of "living". — Darkneos

As so often happens, the operative word there is if. I argue that this assumption is simply wrong. So I go on to investigate why I think it's wrong and rely on my own observation, experience and reading to find alternative explanations.

Did you read the link? — Darkneos

No. I was only interested in your original thoughts on the subject.

No. I was only interested in your original thoughts on the subject. — Vera Mont

Maybe you should as it explains it a bit more.

As so often happens, the operative word there is if. I argue that this assumption is simply wrong. So I go on to investigate why I think it's wrong and rely on my own observation, experience and reading to find alternative explanations. — Vera Mont

Maybe, but if we do things we enjoy isn't that more or less the same thing?

Chemicals that invent stories are far more interesting than chemicals that just want to experience physical pleasure. Still not an explanation for human complexity, of course. — Vera Mont

Maybe not or maybe we just want it to be more than it really is. I don't really know.

I was only interested in your original thoughts on the subject. — Vera Mont
Maybe you should as it explains it a bit more. — Darkneos

Simple enough. Thre guy who wrote that article didn't start this thread; you did. I asked you some questions early on, because I was interested in what you think.

Maybe, but if we do things we enjoy isn't that more or less the same thing? — Darkneos

Less. Much less. There are things we enjoy on a simple physical level, like chocolate or the smell of roses or a cold drink after a run. They're quite wonderful, for the few minutes the sensation lasts. But if we prolonged those experiences, they would become cloying, irksome or downright uncomfortable.
Then, there are emotional - we can say animal - pleasures, like a trusting relationship with a friend, the thriving of healthy offspring, the esteem of one's pack. These can give satisfaction for a lifetime.
Then there are things we enjoy on several levels, like making pottery (which is both sensual and creative), repairing airplane engines (which requires both dexterity and detection) or researching a cure for some illness (which takes discipline and meticulous observation). These pursuits can go on giving intellectual pleasure for years or decades - even in intervals of frustration and setbacks.

Maybe not or maybe we just want it to be more than it really is. — Darkneos

Some people do want life to mean more than it does, so they make up religions and nationalism and a lot of people follow those ideas. But, all the while they're doing that, they're also living experiences that nobody tells stories about. Like the burgher who sits in the front pew and his crotch itches during the service but he dares not scratch or even squirm in his seat because it would be undignified, people might notice and snicker and he would lose respect in the community. That man's experience is complex, acutely felt both physically and emotionally and accompanied by a train of conscious thought.
Experience is multiform and varied.
If you choose to reduce it to chemical narrative, you are much the poorer for that decision.

Simple enough. Thre guy who wrote that article didn't start this thread; you did. I asked you some questions early on, because I was interested in what you think. — Vera Mont

Yeah but there is a reason I linked and quoted it.

Then there are things we enjoy on several levels, like making pottery (which is both sensual and creative), repairing airplane engines (which requires both dexterity and detection) or researching a cure for some illness (which takes discipline and meticulous observation). These pursuits can go on giving intellectual pleasure for years or decades - even in intervals of frustration and setbacks. — Vera Mont

But doesn't that boil down to just pleasure like he's saying it is. It reminds me of a thought experiment meant to argue against hedonism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

If you choose to reduce it to chemical narrative, you are much the poorer for that decision. — Vera Mont

I keep saying I don't want to do that but no matter what I do I always end up coming back to it.

Could I ask, have you spent any time interacting with any of the new AI systems? ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude or one of the others? I think whether you like them or are apprehensive about them, there are some insights to be gleaned from actually using them.

For interest's sake, I used your OP as a prompt for ChatGPT4, which provided this response.

I keep saying I don't want to do that but no matter what I do I always end up coming back to it. — Darkneos

Oh well, maybe you can can learn to take pleasure in it.

For interest's sake, I used your OP as a prompt for ChatGPT4, which provided this response. — Wayfarer

Good abstracts of articles on the subject - including some points I made in my original response - well presented. Shows that everything on the subject has already been written and posted on the internet. But it's remarkable how the bot chose and organized the relevant bits.
I don't see it pleasuring anyone to death.... or running the world.

Thousands of parents were falsely accused of fraud by the Dutch tax authorities due to discriminative algorithms. The consequences for families were devastating. — B. Kuźniacki

That was in 2013, but I think it exemplifies the kind of Ai-related disasters that will plague us for another decade or so. Eventually it will be common knowledge that the technology is neither "training" nor "learning" in the true sense of the words.

Every time we advance technology that replaces tons of jobs we come up with new things we didn't think of before that requires humans. We'll still need oversight on AI, manual labor, and who knows what else.

What we probably aren't prepared for is AI without morality. We have no objective morality that AI can reference, therefore it may usher in one of the deepest immoral eras of human history.

Could I ask, have you spent any time interacting with any of the new AI systems? ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude or one of the others? I think whether you like them or are apprehensive about them, there are some insights to be gleaned from actually using them. — Wayfarer

I have not, mostly because it doesn't really answer questions well from what I see. That prompt you listed is a key example.

Nor does it have anything to do with what is being discussed.

Good abstracts of articles on the subject - including some points I made in my original response - well presented. Shows that everything on the subject has already been written and posted on the internet. But it's remarkable how the bot chose and organized the relevant bits.
I don't see it pleasuring anyone to death.... or running the world. — Vera Mont

Well the thing is this is more getting into advanced AI, like AGI that the link is talking about. The issue is sorta "solving" human purpose by just giving the most immediate explanation.

If you think about it a lot of our lives and goals do revolve around pleasure, so much so that happily ever after is a common ending in a lot of media. So why not just cut to the end and never have to experience or do anything to get to pleasure or happiness? Right now everything we do and assign meaning to is just a roundabout way to get to pleasure. Even the goals of building a better society and human flourishing and wellbeing just seems like the same thing.

So if AI (AGI) could determine the purpose of human existence is pleasure from looking at all that then why wouldn't the simplest solutions just be to do the drugs instead of the uncertainty of life?

Like I said, I can't argue against it, and the more I think about the more it has me doubting the meaning of human existence and my reason for doing things. That all that stuff about love, meaning, and everything is just fanciful storytelling to avoid the reality that pleasure is what drives it all. It's very...bleak.

That maybe AI would just give it to us straight and cut through the stories we tell ourselves.

Every time we advance technology that replaces tons of jobs we come up with new things we didn't think of before that requires humans. We'll still need oversight on AI, manual labor, and who knows what else.

What we probably aren't prepared for is AI without morality. We have no objective morality that AI can reference, therefore it may usher in one of the deepest immoral eras of human history. — Philosophim

Not really the main thing I'm getting at, again read the links.

Well the thing is this is more getting into advanced AI, like AGI that the link is talking about. The issue is sorta "solving" human purpose by just giving the most immediate explanation. — Darkneos

I don't think human purpose is a problem to be solved.

If you think about it a lot of our lives and goals do revolve around pleasure, so much so that happily ever after is a common ending in a lot of media. — Darkneos

The central mistake of that hypothesis is the inaccurate equation of pleasure with happiness. As I've attempted to demonstrate earlier, pleasure is simple and fleeting; happiness is sustained and complex. While some short-term goals may focus on some particular pleasurable experience, long-term goals are aimed at individual varieties of happiness.

Like I said, I can't argue against it, and the more I think about the more it has me doubting the meaning of human existence and my reason for doing things. That all that stuff about love, meaning, and everything is just fanciful storytelling to avoid the reality that pleasure is what drives it all. It's very...bleak. — Darkneos

I looked at the quora entry. It's a too-heavily illustrated opinion piece.
So? If you're convinced, go with it.

The central mistake of that hypothesis is the inaccurate equation of pleasure with happiness. As I've attempted to demonstrate earlier, pleasure is simple and fleeting; happiness is sustained and complex. While some short-term goals may focus on some particular pleasurable experience, long-term goals are aimed at individual varieties of happiness. — Vera Mont

Aren't they just both chemical responses? It's everything we do just a vehicle for our own pleasure. Whether it's love, relationships, a job we like, hobbies...

This comic gets at the heart of things:

https://x.com/Merryweatherey/status/1516836303895240708/photo/1

I looked at the quora entry. It's a too-heavily illustrated opinion piece.
So? If you're convinced, go with it. — Vera Mont

It's not like I want to be, I want to think that life is more complicated than that. But what if it really just boils down to that?

It's not like I want to be, I want to think that life is more complicated than that. — Darkneos

It is.

But what if it really just boils down to that?

It doesn't.
If you don't get out of this loop, I have nothing further to contribute.

The central mistake of that hypothesis is the inaccurate equation of pleasure with happiness. As I've attempted to demonstrate earlier, pleasure is simple and fleeting; happiness is sustained and complex. — Vera Mont

:100: