Artificial Intelligence

Originally posted by chithappens
Comparing human "negros" with AI is moronic to me. First off, if you understood how labor worked in the U.S. at that time (slaves were not able to do the more dangerous jobs that say an immigrant from Eastern Europe was sent to do because the negro slave was worth too much money) you probably would not say such ignorant stuff. Just look into it in your own time.

What Dwarf is getting at is AI replacing humans in the work force. A machine would be able to do things more efficiently than a very capable human being because that would be what they are specifically programmed to do.

When the technology is available, all humans could be replaced with machines that are much better at the job than a hard working human. The "economist" would cut cost and hire the robot without having to worry about salary(unless robots start having living expenses but that's another topic altogether). It would have to be a serious, serious concern.

And this:

is greatly oversimplifying the issue.

I am not sure what you are getting at. I wasn't comparing black slaves to robots (or their working conditions), I was comparing the arguments for not granting rights to blacks to those WD puts forth to not granting Self-Conscious Robots rights. Sorry if it offended you, wasn't my intention.

Additionally I think it is ridiculous to assume that we would built sentient robots (similar to humans or above) which can feel and be creative, just to make them work low-wage factory jobs. I am sure if it ever is an issue, it won't be for robots that carry boxes and drill holes in plastic cups.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't have a problem to admit that I misunderstood your post, I just still don't see a different interpretation. I get what you were saying in the whole context (I think), but I don't see how it changes the fact of what seems to be said in that first sentence. Could you explain it to me like I was a five year old.

Okay. How about I treat you like a college attending adult and use some logic?

"is arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market"=a

a is a justification for p

p=conclusion

Alone, a does not logically conclude to p.

However...

"only because you believe his arguments are pathetic or rather, of the things you two arguing about, his arguments are pathetic"= b

if b proceeds a, then a=p However, in the absence of b, a does not always = p

In other words, because (as you supposed) his arguments were weak and feeble, when he tried to further justify his position as being capitalist, you saw through his facade and you were able to call his argument for himself as pathetic. (Again, that's what you thought...not that I think WD's arguments were weak or strong.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thanks for your asskissing, btw, positively noted.

At first, I figured just to include a thing about English not being your original language. Then I thought that you may make a counter argument to null that point by saying that you can speak English better than most others whose native tongue is English. I also concluded that you may say, "thanks, but I don't need your patronizing excuses." So instead of leaving it with an open ended interpretation of patronization, I figured I would leave other little tidbits so that, holistically, your conclusion would lead you to think that I wasn't passive aggressively insulting you.

Now....

After reading all that about my ass kissing, you may want to again conclude, "there he goes again...pretending to have masterful plans". If you concluded that, you'd be utterly wrong. That would be a very pessimistic and close minded interpretation. The correct interpretation is actually in the from of another compliment. You would be concluding correctly if you concluded as follows: "Wow. He thinks so highly of my intelligence that he has to go through great lengths to make sure that, even if I'm just joking with him, his positive comments can be just that, positive."

Originally posted by chithappens

What Dwarf is getting at is AI replacing humans in the work force. A machine would be able to do things more efficiently than a very capable human being because that would be what they are specifically programmed to do.

When the technology is available, all humans could be replaced with machines that are much better at the job than a hard working human. The "economist" would cut cost and hire the robot without having to worry about salary(unless robots start having living expenses but that's another topic altogether). It would have to be a serious, serious concern.

Thank you chit! Those things trouble me for the future.

This is just babbling....

But in Star Wars....the Empire isn't evil. They still employ humans to do the work....or use clones. Droids are for service.

Ha! Bardock should read Dune. Great novel.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay. How about I treat you like a college attending adult and use some logic?

"is arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market"=a

a is a justification for p

p=conclusion

Alone, a does not logically conclude to p.

However...

"only because you believe his arguments are pathetic or rather, of the things you two arguing about, his arguments are pathetic"= b

if b proceeds a, then a=p However, in the absence of b, a does not always = p

In other words, because (as you supposed) his arguments were weak and feeble, when he tried to further justify his position as being capitalist, you saw through his facade and you were able to call his argument for himself as pathetic. (Again, that's what you thought...not that I think WD's arguments were weak or strong.)

Do you understand now why I replied to you what I replied. And why it was correct to call you wrong about what I said?

Oh, and don't worry about the ass-kissing thing, just a little joke. I don't think you were scheming much there, seems natural to add that, as I obviously would have objected to a comment solely aimed at English being my second language.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Thank you chit! Those things trouble me for the future.

This is just babbling....

But in Star Wars....the Empire isn't evil. They still employ humans to do the work....or use clones. Droids are for service.

Ha! Bardock should read Dune. Great novel.

I read Dune.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I read Dune.

hug

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
hug

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure what you are getting at. I wasn't comparing black slaves to robots (or their working conditions), I was comparing the arguments for not granting rights to blacks to those WD puts forth to not granting Self-Conscious Robots rights. Sorry if it offended you, wasn't my intention.

Well I was not really offended about the negro part (we are talking about all humans anyway), but the example does not work when complete context of pre-Civil War labor in the U.S. is included.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well I was not really offended about the negro part (we are talking about all humans anyway), but the example does not work when complete context of pre-Civil War labor in the U.S. is included.

I am not referring to a "Robots would steal jobs" vs. "Blacks would steal jobs", but "Robots will do our work cheaper so they shouldn't have rights" vs. "Blacks would make our production more expensive, so they shouldn't have rights".

Meaning, just a monetary issue, not one about what is humane for sentient beings.

Jesus. I need to be clearer with what I say, I have way too much explaining to do.

No no. I understood that. But slaves WERE THE ROBOTS OF THE TIME. That's the part you are misunderstanding.

In this sense, you pay for a slave: they work until their dying day. The hard jobs were reserved for poor whites and unfortunate immigrants.

*If this still does make sense yet excuse me. I can be more thorough later but the girlfiend wants to talk... sorry

Originally posted by chithappens
No no. I understood that. But slaves WERE THE ROBOTS OF THE TIME. That's the part you are misunderstanding.

In this sense, you pay for a slave: they work until their dying day. The hard jobs were reserved for poor whites and unfortunate immigrants.

*If this still does make sense yet excuse me. I can be more thorough later but the girlfiend wants to talk... sorry

I...I don't get it.

Robots would be slaves.
Blacks were slaves.

In that way it is similar...is that what you are saying?

That's what I mean also but there is more to it. (again doing this half assed)

I can't go into great depth now but the pre-Civil War situation does not necessairily fit as a direct contrast because of different variables.

If applied today though, machines (who would obviously be programmed as job specific) would drive the price of human labor down because humans would have to take whatever was given to them because machines could do it way better.

Originally posted by chithappens
That's what I mean also but there is more to it. (again doing this half assed)

I can't go into great depth now but the pre-Civil War situation does not necessairily fit as a direct contrast because of different variables.

If applied today though, machines (who would obviously be programmed as job specific) would drive the price of human labor down because humans would have to take whatever was given to them because machines could do it way better.

So?

I am sorry, but you don't seem to form a coherent thought yet. I am not sure what exactly I said you disagree with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, that's how I understood it. And my answer to that was that you misunderstood, because I never called that pathetic. I only called our argument pathetic (our argument being about Robot rights). If you remember I called the "investing in free markets" thing "classic" in a sarcastic manner.

Do you understand now why I replied to you what I replied. And why it was correct to call you wrong about what I said?

Oh, and don't worry about the ass-kissing thing, just a little joke. I don't think you were scheming much there, seems natural to add that, as I obviously would have objected to a comment solely aimed at English being my second language.

I completely understand now. It makes perfect sense. It all fits together. Your second sentence, which had the word pathetic, was basically unrelated to his comment on free markets. Your "classic" comment was a mockery of his using it as an example, again, unrelated to your next sentence.

Damn. I don't think you could have done anything to make your second sentence less confusing...even if you pressed enter a bunch of times to try to indicate you were commenting on something else, it could still be confused as another comment on free marketing.

I think that this is another example of you excluding specific references like pronouns or nouns that has caused me to misunderstand you. This stuff happens all the time with me to you. DAMN IT! You could have said, "Sorry, this argument about AI is just to pathetic to me, I am sure someone else will hand you your ass some more in due time."

You had what I'd call another ambiguous pronoun reference. I erroneously interpreted "this" to reference the free market argument. If you would have said "Sorry, this whole argument..."...it would still have made more sense.

All of this is tangential...but still, it would have bugged the hell out of me until I understood it. Luckily, you guys dropped that argument, or else it would have bugged me even more.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I completely understand now. It makes perfect sense. It all fits together. Your second sentence, which had the word pathetic, was basically unrelated to his comment on free markets. Your "classic" comment was a mockery of his using it as an example, again, unrelated to your next sentence.

Damn. I don't think you could have done anything to make your second sentence less confusing...even if you pressed enter a bunch of times to try to indicate you were commenting on something else, it could still be confused as another comment on free marketing.

I think that this is another example of you excluding specific references like pronouns or nouns that has caused me to misunderstand you. This stuff happens all the time with me to you. DAMN IT! You could have said, "Sorry, this argument about AI is just to pathetic to me, I am sure someone else will hand you your ass some more in due time."

You had what I'd call another ambiguous pronoun reference. I erroneously interpreted "this" to reference the free market argument. If you would have said "Sorry, this whole argument..."...it would still have made more sense.

All of this is tangential...but still, it would have bugged the hell out of me until I understood it. Luckily, you guys dropped that argument, or else it would have bugged me even more.

I do make too ambiguous statements.

I am glad we cleared it, though.

Suppose a man is struck by a car while crossing the street. He is rushed to the hospital, but the doctors are unable to resuscitate him. To save his life, the doctors upload his mind into a sophisticated android. Is he less a man, because he is now made of silicon and wires, then of flesh and blood, and if so, why?

Did he lose his penis also? This is the key question

Originally posted by chithappens
Did he lose his penis also? This is the key question

Indeed. Life without being lead around by my androgens(tee hee) would not be the same.

I don't see how putting a person's brain inside a machine would be any different than a person plug to a life support machine. As I recall some people are in favor of pulling the plug on someone who is on live support. So....

As for the penis...I would be more worry about the person losing his sanity. Last thing we need is a human with an android body seeking revenge.....Oh gawd! This would make a sweet Sci-fi/Detective novel.

(gets copyrights)