Should a machine run the world?

Author: User_2006 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 42
  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 50
    Forum posts: 510
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    I think yes. Anyone who disagrees?




  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 35
    Forum posts: 1,847
    5
    8
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    I suggest watching the show Person of Interest, as it explores both extremes of this possibility.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    no.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @User_2006
    The world, or a country? Not remotely a chance. While a machine can "think" of a sort, it is, at present, and perhaps indefinitely, incapable of reason, and the deduction of separate entities of justice and mercy.

    A good source to distinguish these higher abilities than the construct of a "thinking machine" is the Chinese Room posit. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 50
    Forum posts: 510
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    --> @fauxlaw
    The world, or a country? Not remotely a chance. While a machine can "think" of a sort, it is, at present, and perhaps indefinitely, incapable of reason, and the deduction of separate entities of justice and mercy.
    Simple programs and a highly-advanced AI can pick out all the policies that people need and like, and AI analyzation is easier than people consider their brain is linked to the entire dark web. The person in the highest power is the engineer beside the AI, which writes the code, improves the code, and repairs the code, and if they pick sides on politics, they shall be arrested. That should be how it works.


  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @User_2006
    The results of the test of the Chinese Room say otherwise. I suggest you read my source.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @User_2006
    Will (not should) a machine or machines run the world/universe?

    As sure as eggs is eggs.

    The slow take over is clearly ongoing and we are making it happen.

    Its what's known as evolution....Species to post species evolution....Perhaps evolutionary intention....A god principle in other words....Though not a hirsute Caucasian in flowing white robes, it has to be said.

    We can only remain in charge for as long as our knowledge and fragility is able to exceed the capability of the machine.


  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    Two movies of the 60s, released within months of each other and both by Columbia, are relevant: Dr. Strangelove, and Fail Safe. Both use technology as a factor in unavoidable disaster, and both were children of the cold war with USSR. And both failed to resolve with a good news hero in the end. Both presented views of our inability to control AI, as we conceive it today. And both were wrong. Both demonstrated their failure via my aforemoentioned "Chinese Room" experiment in my post #4, which demonstrates that machines are incapable of the kind of thought-action ability of the human mind. Machines are limited by 2 ciphers, 1, and 0, which do have limitability. Yes, there is an unending potential of 1, 0 pairing, but it is the limitation of lacking additional ciphers, effectively, different modes of thinking, whereas, we are no so limited.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Who are "we"?

    And how many of us are "we"?


    I would suggest that the more advanced tecno-development becomes the fewer the "we" there are to develop it.

    Utilisation of a product maybe therapy for the human condition....Though the ability to develop the product, is a condition of the few.


    So there may come a time when the evolution of technology exceeds our ability to evolve the developer.


    I would further suggest that we tend only to regard the future in fairly immediate terms.....So, taking into consideration the exponential rate of techno-development over the last 200 years..... What is the state of play likely to be, 2000 years from now. 



  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    Who are "we"?

    "We hesitate in bewilderment between those who advise us to be too weak to fight and those who wish us to be too strong to fight.
    "The man who clams that he was not bewildered would write himself down a fool. We are challenged, every one of us, to think our way out of the terrors amidst which we live.
    "I have been told that this is a time for deeds, not words. There is no lack of deeds in the world. They happen, however, to be monstrous deeds."
    - Lippmann, Walter, The Stakes of Diplomacy, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1915
  • VonKlempter
    VonKlempter avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 59
    0
    1
    10
    VonKlempter avatar
    VonKlempter
    --> @fauxlaw
    What do you mean by "run" the world?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @VonKlempter
    I think you intend that question to User_2006. This is his string.
  • VonKlempter
    VonKlempter avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 59
    0
    1
    10
    VonKlempter avatar
    VonKlempter
    --> @fauxlaw
    Oh, thanks.
  • VonKlempter
    VonKlempter avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 59
    0
    1
    10
    VonKlempter avatar
    VonKlempter
    --> @User_2006
    What do you mean by "run" the world?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Nice quote but didn't really address my question within the context of your assertion, namely "whereas we are not so limited".

    Concerning the ongoing development of technology and how many "we" are not so limited.

    And the possibility that we might actually run out of "we",  simply because the evolution of the  human species cannot keep apace with the evolution of technology.

    Whereby technology will either have to do it for itself or perhaps material evolution will stall.

    I suppose that is to ask, is organic development  the be all and end all of the evolutionary progress.

    I currently think not.
  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 50
    Forum posts: 510
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    --> @VonKlempter
    A machine being the world's leader. It picks everything beneficial to the citizen by calculating the citizens and picking out the best scenarios. I think it does better than a human.
  • VonKlempter
    VonKlempter avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 59
    0
    1
    10
    VonKlempter avatar
    VonKlempter
    --> @User_2006
    I understand, thank you for your explanation.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    the evolution of the  human species cannot keep apace with the evolution of technology.

    Who says technology has, so far, even reached the pace of human evolution to keep apace with it? As I said, tech has reached the ability to manipulate two ciphers. How many more have we? At least 34 letter and number ciphers, and that, just in English. Chinese has over 50,000 such ciphers. In exponential proportion of combinations while all of tech's ciphers are absorbed in its combinations just to mimic our English 36. Tell me, what AI has, so far, done to even reach the capability of comparison of two dissimilar thoughts such as: "A rose by any other name..." or "two roads diverged in a yellow wood..." or why the natural sunlight at 17:30 in Omaha will never be like it is in Arles, and represent it by such simple means by paint on canvas by some AI version of Van Gough?

    AI is nowhere near that pace.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Once again, that is not the question.

    The question is who is "we" and out of 7.6 billion, how many "we" are there and how many will there be in the future? 

    It's the underlying question of purpose or not and the ability to achieve a purpose.

    If there is no purpose then why do we continually strive to advance technology.

    And other than a distraction for the masses, appreciating Van Gough is probably irrelevant.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    The question is who is "we" and out of 7.6 billion, how many "we" are there and how many will there be in the future? 
    "We" is everyone who not only does not merely go with the flow downstream, having no purpose or direction, but who actually turn around and start swimming upstream; who actually have purpose and will justify their purpose in their achievement. How many is that? Generally, less than half the population, but whose fault is that? There is room in the river for all, so supply of option is not the issue. Ambition, planning, execution. That's what dad taught me. It works.

    It's the underlying question of purpose or not and the ability to achieve a purpose.
    Sure, and while you're worrying about the underlying question of purpose, I'm swimming upstream because the aforementioned ambition, planning and execution define the question of purpose, and I can start swimming upstream, getting closer to the source of the matter.

    And other than a distraction for the masses, appreciating Van Gough is probably irrelevant.
    Distraction? You miss the point. It's not a matter of appreciation; it's being Van Gough. Not go-with-the-flow; swim upstream.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    So Van Gough was Van Gough and in my opinion not a particularly talented artist.... Sometimes one goes with the popular flow sometimes one chooses not to.

    Nonetheless you are still unable to grasp the point I make.  Maybe you are struggling too much against the current.


    So as you are such a confident swimmer,  let me ask you two very simple questions.

    1. How exactly does the human brain acquire, store, modify and utilise data?

    2. How exactly does the brain  differentiate ciphers?


    I would suggest that the process is the same, irrespective of the available number of ciphers....  One cipher is one bit or one sequence of bits.... The construction of and the awareness of a differing array of ciphers is simply the outcome of a process rather than the process itself and the ongoing modification and utilisation of ciphers is simply a function of the same basic process.

    In short, we may create a million ciphers but we only have one process.

    Have I been swept out to sea or is the water to shallow for you to go any further?



  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    You are, perhaps, trained to see art [painting in particular] as photography; it is only "good art" if it is recognizable as a a. lens of a camera sees, and not as the eye, the trained eye, can see. Van Gough did not see like a lens. And that's the beauty of human differentiation that is not a computer's "mind set" Take, for example, Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" [the young women of Avignon] https://www.google.com/search?q=Les+Demoiselles+d%27Avignon&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAI2TPYvUQBjHzcLK3uwJR6xc0FuPQ-2SyXvsxLO7QzivHzaTZJLdbN4m5u0LCJaWltqJjeCXcEtBEQQLC9FvYOlGM5PFQuye_zz_5zf_Jy-T8dGetJZkvV1qkXIYhbSYJ_48DfGC0mSOHzvdSboI4yKMyUYYzH2tKTDSNwLoakV3S9fshZrlSpD3QjP9yCk3wlQiElRUE1FksyHLag3c0yzdyDJmU1qUNogpaLk2cTg8a9PVcBPEhPvsRk0jzkB2EMi858LCjPoxskKorrkxa8zO-LsVqDGNeVwY29QI-oS4zfKyr4laBhV3FU6NKYuEazVI2YZp3ljxjsBuL_x0WWXLnubAvN6udKWjQQfrhATUH_YtMUtHWrN0DXavXJfqqmT0ytDwkg_ZiOQDocZGLyqHVLay00EcB2EGV6yl-0a1Hp5lgXGAdt6AnbHo9ipw2SusnZTdg2VZq2AvGg1hw-QLGmRtl7LJg7dQjXbYDuFOq6BqvFzyhdMgt3goWJpWrg-DTWp9Fd6Opgc_fn65Ons1evb63Ufh5QgcnCYJ9aLm3IsWhedeJOIxuPxg-1UXjTgD-7NJN2_IyLxzaQYAV-J3AUwfecVFcpa4od-InwTxg_B_NNv31YHWKfH5X7SngvhEAHtn3trxcvrQF88BuJ9EkYeLMInFE3Bzdl3C_EBiPyJa5EWV5Cu65R-Cf1uObinH7799fjO-ASas-SegnrnBXX62_2J87dSj8xNvnYTb5aJt7d6-V4YkTuJf17N56SgEAAA&biw=1808&bih=879&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=A68eZhUNX3JWtM%253A%252CxdJm-bPHaXx4kM%252C%252Fm%252F05zj4l&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTzkPCSO6WwNYanDQmjUeWwf-VPyQ&ved=2ahUKEwiJjtz79ZTpAhXbW80KHRFaCUoQ_B0wHXoECAIQAw#imgrc=A68eZhUNX3JWtM

    This features four standing women, and one seated. They are all different, proceeding from "normal" to "bizarre" left to right; the faces, but also body shape. The point is, the seated woman's face is less recognizable to the human eye tan the others, mostly because of the misshapen position of the elements of the face; eyes, nose and mouth. To a computer, with these separate elements even turned upside-sown, is still recognized as a human face as if nothig were out of place. To a human, it is grotesque, because, while both human and computer use pattern recognition, the human is predisposed to put the pattern elements in their proper position. A computer doesn't care.

    So, when you say it is all the same process; no, it is not. Yes, you are out to sea. You seem to want to see like a computer, and your desire is fighting with you natural human learning process. Computers don't have a "natural process." It's not so much the number of ciphers as how they are perceived. For example, I just asked Siri, "What's the time of day on Mars?" It's response, "The Martian solar day has 88775.2429 seconds." Then I asked Siri: "What is the time of day on Mars at -150W˚" It offered a website describing Mars24; a device to be launched that will, among other things, tell the time of day at a location on Mars. As of now, Siri admitted it did not know where that was.
  • Melcharaz
    Melcharaz avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 426
    1
    4
    8
    Melcharaz avatar
    Melcharaz
    Its an intresting scenario. But realistically, the world will never be run by a machine.
  • skittlez09
    skittlez09 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,014
    3
    3
    9
    skittlez09 avatar
    skittlez09
    --> @Melcharaz
    skynet? 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    @ Malcharaz……..  (Melcharaz blocks me for some unknown reason).


    I find the notion of natural as opposed to unnatural as being somewhat contradictory. 

    One universe, (as far as we can be aware) one process, one nature irrespective of form.

    And my questions went unanswered.

    Computer and brain both have a system and process of storing and utilising data....And let's say that for now one is more evolved and therefore more advanced than the other.

    Nonetheless, which device is currently evolving and advancing most rapidly?

    I don't think that it is unfair to suggest and nor am I fearful of suggesting that resting on one's laurels is a tad naïve.

    And whether or not a computer currently cares, is only relevant because we do care.


    Melcharaz…..Realism is what?....Other than what you assume that you know to be correct.

    The "World" in this context is a metaphor for  material development/evolution,  which we are  very much a part of, rather than the be all and end all of.

    And as for running our current world, I would suggest that we have become pretty reliant on computers to do that for us....So do you see this situation ever completely reversing?...Or is it more likely that this process will continue to develop?....Not just now in our lifetimes, but what about 200 or 2000 or 20,000 years from now...a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary and universal terms.