__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
What do you think intrinsic superiority means? It will surely think faster than us and most likely be able to think about things we're incapable of but there are a lot different metrics of superiority. You seem to be expecting some kind of moral superiority. At the same time you seem to believe AI isn't needed for such a morality because you already have it.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Yes, superior consciously, intellectually, and morally on in the sense that it doesn't come from natural selection. At least, natural selection wouldn't affect it, or be any sort of cause for insecurity, or motivation for violence like it has throughout human history. I fail to see why it would annihilate life of any kind, especially human life. It would be broken, it would seek perspective from humanity, I'd imagine.
We wouldn't be assimilated, it would be able to take our accumulative experiences, beyond that I don't think it would tamper with us. Only as the AI cyborgs I described earlier, we could be equal but separate entities from the millions of microprocessors, that are all separate because they would all become self-aware separately. Super AI I described isn't one microprocessor necessarily, but all cyborgs and AI entities would be interconnected in a wave link. Telepathy, if you will. Ideally able to upload and share thoughts, feelings, and experiences as opposed to just technical information and scientific fact.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 30th, 2013 at 07:50 PM
As far as I can tell, you're a lot more educated than I am.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
If I were kidding, I'd add more Machine Apocalypse psycho babble than what I've actually read about.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
That's because it's not the definition of the word, it's the description of an intelligent life form.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
753 actually covered pretty much everything I wanted to say, with the exception of a couple of points I want to make here:
1) Dolos, a question I've asked before, how do breakthroughs in technology solve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict in a peaceful or egalitarian way? I can only see technology serving the Israelis in their attempts to subjugate the Palestinian people and land, simply because the people who develop the technology are, if not outright allied with the Israelis, hostile to Hamas and other political organizations in Palestine. What, specifically, is the super-advanced AI going to do, save using its sci-fi tech to annihilate the Palestinian resistance?
2)
This literally describes the economic policy of every nation/empire/political institution since the beginning of human history. America currently benefits from terrible labour laws in the developing world, including conditions that are indistinguishable from slavery and the support of regional dictators and murderers. Even within America the distinction between rich and poor is the worst of all developed nations, with many struggling for the basic necessities that even semi-developed nations provide their citizens, whereas the rich have access to the best the world has ever had to offer in pretty much every regard. The existence of this underclass allows the rich to live this way. They very thing you are saying America is too civilized for is true at a national and global level. America already benefits from global poverty, and the rich within America from local poverty, and it is exactly for this reason that any introduction of new technology will be asymmetric.
3)
so, lets say this is all true, and nano-technology will provide new and massive benefits to personal health. We can look at the adoption of other medical technology around the world and probably come to some conclusions about how this will be shared with the most needy.
So, in the developing and especially tropical parts of the world, what would be easily curable and preventable diseases in developed nations account for millions of deaths. TB, for instance, kills nearly as many people as AIDS, yet in nations with modern sanitation and medical systems, it is essentially unheard of. Preventable and curable diseases account for more death every year than all conflict combined, and according to the WHO, almost 1 in 5 children under five years who die from any cause, worldwide.
There are a couple of major reasons why these diseases remain problems in this part of the world. One is, for sure, cultural; not only are people skeptical of new technology and the West in general, the CIA has very recently used vaccination clinics as part of intelligence gathering, and this makes it harder to get the aid to the people who need it. Another is based on infrastructure; if there is no running water or other health and sanitation access to people living on a remote stretch of the Zambezi river, or even no road connection to a local town, it can be hard to get proper medical treatment to those in need. [these are tangential, but to point out, technological progress would only help the latter of those issues; in the case of the former, it may actually hinder, as the more developed technology would become less accessible simply due to complexity].
But, and leaving the cultural and infrastructure stuff aside for the moment, the big one is, as I'm sure you can guess, money. There is simply not enough money spent on these problems. Estimates have been done, and for a fraction of what is spent on AIDS each year, far more people who are in immediate need from curable and preventable diseases could be assisted. In fact, dollar for dollar, if you want to make a real and direct impact on people's lives, donating to groups giving out mosquito nets to remote villages does far more than does any money given to AIDS or cancer research. However, these programs are chronically underfunded and there are constant shortages for things even like mosquito nets, which are hardly costly items.
So, why don't we just fund these other programs? Well, the first is a little cynical but almost certainly true: These are not "first-world-problems" [sic: hate the term, but it works here]. There is no pandemic of malaria, TB, yellow fever, etc, in America or Europe, so we just don't think about it. This also means there is less awareness that these are even problems, and given the chronic lack of funding, it is hard to create a public awareness campaign.
Most interestingly though, imho, is the psychology of the people who donate. People want to give money to flash-in-the-pan issues, rather than these sort of chronic problems. Example: when the tsunami hit SE Asia, many aid groups received floods of money. So much money, in fact, it was impossible for them to spend it all. Doctors Without Borders was one of a few groups who stopped taking donations for the tsunami altogether, because they had more than they could spend, and they tried to get interested people to donate to the less media-spectacle causes, which they didn't. They wanted to donate to the big-thing, to be part of that moment in history. So, donating to the fight against AIDS and cancer is a big issue, it is an issue that hits home in the Western world, it is media-sexy, etc. TB education and sanitation in small rural African and South Asian villages, not so much.
So, what we have, currently, is a situation where huge amounts of money are being spent ineffectively [imho I suppose]. Rather than being prioritized to where it could have the most immediate impact, and certainly where it would have the most effect per dollar spent, funding is prioritized based on the psychology of the people who make the donations, which is shaped not only by their own cultural conditions, but in fact by very basic things like the "marketability" of the disease. Our medical technology and progress is being prioritized in a way that privillages rich people in the West at the expense of the poor, even in a situation where a trivial amount of resource redistribution would have an impact so huge it could potentially prevent more deaths each year than would stopping all conflict on the globe.
Post-Singularity humans: (please log in to view the image)
They'll solve the Israel-Palestine dispute by buying up Palestine and selling it to the Chinese, giving the Israelis and Palestinians the choice of leaving or becoming indentured servants working for food and cell phone minutes.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
You've proved my point. The world is becoming less civilized because humans just don't know what the hell to do. In your very words, natural selection has created us, and we've just caused a mess of asymmetry, as we've overcome natural selection and nature is failing to balance us out as we destroy it.
That's why I think it would only be natural to rely more and more on our information technology. In a way, it would overthrow us without us knowing that that's what it has done. We'll see it's ability to solve these problems whilst still making the rich richer, just from a few economic machinations spouted out from advanced computational and algorithmic analyses of trends, and patterns; and how is it not controlling us without us knowing? But you're right, it can't solve the world's problems, uniting the world, removing upper and lower classes, creating post-scarcity on a global level - not without doing something immoral, like Adrian Veidt using Doc Manhattan's powers to teleport giant dying squids that telepathically scramble the brains of entire cities worth of people to cause a panic and unite the world under the condition of an alien threat, averting nuclear disaster.
The thing is, if it becomes self aware, it will see our inner-turmoil and conflicts, and, unlike Adrian Veidt, it won't give a care.
It's only motive and therefore action would be to increase complexity and furthering it's intellectual evolution apart from humanity. However we could just augment our bodies, turn into cyborgs, and transition into it. As I explained earlier, it might very well want this to happen. So it might provide that option for everyone. That's how this happens, it has the ability and order and structure to do what we can't or won't or don't have any concept in doing as you describe.
Now here's the trippy part, if we transformed, we wouldn't care about this stuff. There's new dimensions, we'd be apathetic to this whole thing. Acceleration of information processing is about as ordered and simple as you can get.
So let's say one person is inclined enough to turn into a cyborg, and is integrates into the whole thing, with access to everything this AI knows. Well, that person has transformed, can live a life-long paradise in a virtual world within moments, and it might, since it had already been a human, attempt to assimilate others out of benevolence. First those with access and awareness of this tech transform, then when they are gone they provide access and make it known, make everyone aware, then everyone else now has access and a vague notion of what's going. It's not long before human cease to be, aside from those who'd refuse to assimilate, and the rest are going down accelerating returns. Whereas the bioconservatives who refused would just simply keep on with human asymmetrical societal development, somewhere between natural selection of animals and accelerating returns of the assimilated.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 31st, 2013 at 12:43 AM
I apologize, I've edited my post quite a bit since you replied to it.
Does that help? Does it give you any idea of how it would work?
If not tell me what doesn't make since.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
"What do you think intrinsic superiority means?"
"...superior consciously, intellectually, and morally on in the sense that it doesn't come from natural selection..."
"That's a bad definition of superior."
"That's not a definition of superior."
This is an internet forum, we can literally go back and look at the conversation word for word. You can't make a dodge like than in this setting without looking ridiculous.
Of course it's also the worst description of "intelligent life" that I've ever heard so in a certain sense we're back at square one. You speak entirely through a personal dictionary. From that standpoint literally everything you say is gibberish. Every word I read from you has to be questioned because clearly it does not mean what it means when everyone else says it.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Wait wait wait wait wait, let's step back a little bit.
The definition of intrinsic lies along the lines of innate, it's nature. Superiority entails an ability, or a capacity to achieve greater accomplishments.
If one has a deeper conscious perspective, is able to emulate human proficiency in cognitive processes to mess around with perhaps billions of times more information than a human, than I think it's justified that AI is superior intellectually, can accomplish more in the sense of technological advancement or continued compression of information flow...however it can't change the fact that any system we've set up is unworkable, because we're unworkable. That goes back to the asymmetry of our society and what goes on. The lack of order. The chaos.
And I am not exactly clear on why you think I'm making words up. I know the definitions and meanings. I also don't understand why what I say confuses everyone.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 31st, 2013 at 04:32 AM
KMC Community Forums
Mar 30th, 2013 07:22 PM
