Can we build AI without losing control over it?

AlienView

Noble
Scared of superintelligent AI? You should be, says neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris -- and not just in some theoretical way. We're going to build superhuman machines, says Harris, but we haven't yet grappled with the problems associated with creating something that may treat us the way we treat ants.

See Video here:

 

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
Very simple answer:

can we grow human children who don't have mind of their own?

essentially all intelligence will always have free will.
 

Todd Feinman

Historic Encounters: tinyurl.com/4atm83v4
We are a long way away from creating a "generalized AI". What is more worrisome is autonomously controlled AI weapons.
We may need AI to develop the tech to be able to leave this planet and become interstellar --though I think we'll do ourselves in before then --unless our watchers intervene.....
 
Last edited:

AlienView

Noble
Very simple answer:

can we grow human children who don't have mind of their own?

essentially all intelligence will always have free will.

"essentially all intelligence will always have free will" ???
- Prove it!
Free will is an often debated subject in philosophy - Can you 'prove' it exists ???
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
can we grow human children who don't have mind of their own?

That was the problem in Virginia. The Wokeholes decided to try and get themselves and their agenda backed federal government into school systems between the parent and their child. Labeled parents who objected domestic terrorists. Can't have actual independent thinking or anything like that, too dangerous.
 

RPG254

Novice
Have we already lost control? We can program the AI with certain learning parameters but can we ultimately control that expansive process and ensure biases are not perpetuated? Intelligence without wisdom can be a dangerous thing and we cannot teach the AI to be wise.
 

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
That was the problem in Virginia. The Wokeholes decided to try and get themselves and their agenda backed federal government into school systems between the parent and their child. Labeled parents who objected domestic terrorists. Can't have actual independent thinking or anything like that, too dangerous.

That's problem in UK as well. It seems that ( in a democracy ) state still thinks that children ultimately belong to her. I find that repulsive to the core. How can somebody else own your children? That's why I think right to bear arms should be constitutionally guaranteed.

I have nothing against homosexuality, its form of individualism and I am all for it. Just suit yourself and don't impose your choice on others. But in UK schools non-homosexual kids are coerced into "experimenting" with their sexuality.

That's as bad as it gets. On the lesser side, here, if you send your child to a very prestigious Catholic school than you can not choose weather your child attends religious classes. Brainwash guaranteed, no option to pull out.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
"essentially all intelligence will always have free will" ???
- Prove it!
Free will is an often debated subject in philosophy - Can you 'prove' it exists ???

Existence of "free will" is not binary choice, but more of shades of grey choice.

Our choices depend on our individual situation, and everybody is in a different situation, so that appears as a free will, although most people will behave in a very similar way in the same situations.

Another shade of grey that goes against free will is DNA. Try not looking down the cleavage of Hollywood actresses when they pose on red carpet and you'll know what I'm talking about.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
That's problem in UK as well. It seems that ( in a democracy ) state still thinks that children ultimately belong to her. I find that repulsive to the core. How can somebody else own your children? That's why I think right to bear arms should be constitutionally guaranteed.

I have nothing against homosexuality, its form of individualism and I am all for it. Just suit yourself and don't impose your choice on others. But in UK schools non-homosexual kids are coerced into "experimenting" with their sexuality.

That's as bad as it gets. On the lesser side, here, if you send your child to a very prestigious Catholic school than you can not choose weather your child attends religious classes. Brainwash guaranteed, no option to pull out.

In the '70s I remember when they mandated teaching sex education in school. In Grade school K-6 at the time you had one teacher all day. In 6th grade when this started this person was a nice but crusty character that had seen his share of action in heavy bombers in WW2 and was perhaps, a tad flustered to have to speak about this in front of children. He liked to tell war stories and I lapped them up. As a result I remember describing a 'short arm inspection' to my Mom. Military term for venereal disease check. Imagine how THAT would go over today. I recall two years later having a more formal approach in Junior High as one of several classes during the day with actual homework and stuff.

I am not a parent but it seems common sense to give kids some sort of formalized learning since they are likely to be doing their own informal learning anyway. For the same reason they sued to send kids to Driver's Education - there was something you should learn and the school is supposed to teach you. Inflicting a Woke agenda on kids too small to understand is criminal. Explaining basic biology isn't a problem if you lose the Woke horseshit. No wonder those parents in Virginia are so damned mad, and no wonder the people that started that are no longer in office.

As for the right to bear arms, well that's a sticky wicket. Whatever the hell a sticky wicket is :) Couple ways to look at this. One is as an armed citizen with the right to self defense and that I believe is inviolable and some of what is behind the 2nd Amendment. In any era people are people and some hurt others; we're entitled to protect ourselves accordingly. I think the heart of it though goes back to continental Europe, the UK and centuries of feudal civilization. Can't have the riff raff getting their hands on weaponry can we? Might cause strange ideas to form. As I recall the regulars were sent out to collect various cannon and shot and other weaponry from the riff raff at Lexington and Concord and that didn't end well. In the UK you couldn't deny a man who lives in the woods a stick and the local Sheriff ( of Nottingham maybe .....) or tax collector might get a nasty knock on the head before he's forced to come back with more help. Over here they lived in a howling wilderness, were required to form militias to deal with natives and other European powers and knew how to make their own rifles. That right there is - in my opinion - where the concept of gun ownership started for Americans.

It's the latter - the extremists that think they can in 2022 actually use small arms to oppose the government. What was possible two hundred years ago just isn't. Waving AR style weapons and proclaiming Freedom and so forth is counterproductive. It smacks of the armed thugs who first seize and then become the government of small third world dumps. Ain't gonna happen here and enough with waving around those goddamned useless rifles. If that nonsense didn't result in deadly weapons being commonly available to teenage kids who subsequently go of shooting sprees then I wouldn't care, but it does and it's at the root of the problem. The 2nd Amendment says what is says but as I always say context is important - it doesn't conflict with the Preamble which states the full intent right up front. Unlimited access to weapons that have little purpose beyond killing people doesn't make me feel any domestic tranquility or that my general welfare is being considered. Even back then they'd think you're nuts if you suddenly decided to hoard rifles, cannon and shot, powder and so forth and proclaim your Freedoms. Even back then they might quietly take them away from you so they might sleep at night. They certainly would if people were shooting each other up en masse for no reason.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

Todd Feinman

Historic Encounters: tinyurl.com/4atm83v4
Things change, and things have changed a lot in the USA. Our laws must adapt or they become unworkable or even dangerous. If one wants to anachronistically interpret the laws as folks would have 300 years ago, then perhaps they should only be allowed to use the equipment that was available at that time. Thank god there is no mention of keeping artillery in that document.... Though I'd argue that even grenades are less dangerous than what folks can get today in half an hour; grenades go off once, and are imprecise... But the cat will never go back into the bag in this country. Everyone should have asked their grandads a second time before they passed away --why they were fighting Hitler and other tyrants, and were willing to give their lives to preserve our democracy. God bless them.
 
Last edited:

Standingstones

Celestial
I just did a search on the number of firearms in the US. As of 2018 there were 393 million firearms. The number of registered firearms, 6 million. The states with the most guns: Texas, California and New York.
 

AlienView

Noble
maybe we should give this one to an AI and see what it comes up with
Here is what 'it' came up with:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)​

"On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention."


Schools are notoriously 'soft targets', the type of target that these terrorist punks seem to love to shoot up.

Schools should not only not be 'gun free' zones au contraire they should make sure they are well armed
by trained security, teachers, and maybe even a few of the older students {properly vetted and trained}.

Draconian gun control might have gone over in the UK - Mainly initiated by one lunatic who shot and killed a bunch of kids some years ago.

In the USA, part of whose Second Amendment being brought into the Constitution was because Great Britain tried to disarm the Colonists before the Revolutionary War - Gun control, except when it is reasonable {ie. the current legislation that makes for better background checks of those under 21} will not fly.

Accept this:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED - ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"
 
Top