• Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I highly doubt it. They may be able to simulate the appearance of reasoning, but I won’t believe that they’ve accomplished this goal until their robots start killing humans over ideological differences.

      • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        “Hey! That’s just a machine programmed to kill me, it’s not making the decision to kill me itself!”

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, no worries, I get it.

          I’m a perennial optimist, so I look more at the Star Trek future than any of the dystopias, though dystopia is my favorite type of book (setting? genre?). In every dystopia, we get the same general theme of the human spirit pushing against evil, with the difference to other stories being the lack of success.

          I think people take these warnings to heart and avoid worst of it. I don’t think we’ll get to the Star Trek utopia, but I think we’ll get closer than any of the various dystopias people concoct. Humans are late at responding to issues, but we generally do respond.

          I think the same is true for AI. It’ll start as a helpful piece of tech, transform into a monster, then we’ll correct and control it. We’ve done that in the past with slavery, nuclear weapons, and fascism, and I think we’ll continue to overcome climate, AI, and other challenges, albeit much later than we should.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              That certainly sounds interesting, but I think there are a few issues here:

              • Artificial afterlife - aside from the technical issues, which I’m guessing you addressed, I wonder if this wouldn’t devolve into extreme levels of violence and corruption. If you remove the consequences for murder/death, what’s to stop you from taking extreme risks to get what you want?
              • Where’s the conflict? That’s what drives a story in most cases, aside from “slice of life” stories, which I honestly don’t understand.
              • Why would elected officials be okay with living off UBI? When you underpay your representatives, they get paid through other means, so surely that would lead to corruption instead? You want your elites feeling like they’re at the top so they don’t give in to bribes and whatnot.

              But personally, when I read a story, I’m not looking to read about how things could be, I’m looking for insight into why things are the way they are and what we need to change to get what we want. Star Trek is interesting to me, not because of the utopian setting, but because they explore some facet of humanity in each episode, usually through visiting other planets. The setting is interesting, but I’m there for the story. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is interesting, not because of the “libertarian utopia” setting, but because it’s about an underdog pushing against an oppressor. We get just enough insight into the society on the moon to understand the conflict and resolution, and that’s it.

              So perhaps you didn’t get a great reception because the setting took too much of the stage?