A choice of two "utopias".

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-23 06:54am

By the time proposed that AIs can take us over, I'm sure EMPs will be in the arsenals of many militaries. The idea is to kill it BEFORE it takes total control. And if it has already, just don't have an internet connection near you so it can't see what you're doing.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-23 06:58am

UltraViolence83 wrote:By the time proposed that AIs can take us over, I'm sure EMPs will be in the arsenals of many militaries. The idea is to kill it BEFORE it takes total control. And if it has already, just don't have an internet connection near you so it can't see what you're doing.

The scenario postulates that it is already in control. And if this AI is truly in charge, it will have to control a damn sight more than just what people do on the internet. To be in effective control it will have to run things like the military, law enforcement, all of the various government agencies, etc. It may have robots it uses to help it enforce its decisions, and it may - in fact it almost certainly would - have human agents loyal to it to carry out tasks which it is incapable of by itself. This would all combine to give it the ability to spy out a citizen's activities rather thoroughly whenever it chooses to do so.

This all goes back to that more draconian version of the AI. The more unobtrusive one actually stipulated in the scenario is something else, but I've already given other reasons why I think that would be a bad idea.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-23 07:04am

You must realize that electronics are very fragile. In a system as complex as an uber-AI, the slightest glitch could do incredible damage. I feel that you put too much faith into their strengths. If you mean it has TOTAL, I mean TOTAL control over everything, then that's a problem. A paramilitary organization armed with HERF guns and the aformentioned electronics-killers, could devastate an AI system as well as robots. A single EMP bomb can create a "black hole" in which electronics cannot function, imagine many of them set off at stragetic points crippling the AI's infrastructure. But if we're too screwed to be able to fight back, then we deserve our enslavement due to our stupidity.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-23 07:20am

UltraViolence83 wrote:You must realize that electronics are very fragile. In a system as complex as an uber-AI, the slightest glitch could do incredible damage. I feel that you put too much faith into their strengths. If you mean it has TOTAL, I mean TOTAL control over everything, then that's a problem. A paramilitary organization armed with HERF guns and the aformentioned electronics-killers, could devastate an AI system as well as robots. A single EMP bomb can create a "black hole" in which electronics cannot function, imagine many of them set off at stragetic points crippling the AI's infrastructure. But if we're too screwed to be able to fight back, then we deserve our enslavement due to our stupidity.

If it is that vulnerable, don't you think it would be likely to realize this as well, and have all kinds of layered defenses, decoy locations, etc. laid on to guard against attack, not to mention even stricter monitoring of what the citizens get up to. I'm not disputing the ability of these things to damage a supercomputer, just the ability of human beings to employ them against an intelligence just as inventive and clever as theirs, but able to think millions of times faster. If there were a "Big Brother" type computer in charge, I think it likely that any plan you could concoct would likely have been anticipated ahead of time, and headed off before it ever came close to fruition.

You're envisioning the machine's capability to defend itself against attack. I'm envisioning it's ability to prevent that attack from ever happening in the first place by using spies, infiltrators, monitoring of communications and transactions, control of transportation systems, etc. and nipping your plans in the bud before you can ever get close to carrying them out.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-23 07:25am

Hmm...Well if it would get to that point of ubiquity, then we're probably screwed.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-23 07:44am

UltraViolence83 wrote:Hmm...Well if it would get to that point of ubiquity, then we're probably screwed.

Any kind of really totalitarian government is extremely hard to overthrow. This is why most of them have been brought down by outside forces, or by a combination of internal and external forces, rather than being overthrown solely from within.

Think for a moment what it entails. You are a shadow organization, and do not dare draw the attention of the government. You cannot hope to match the resources of the government, so you stake everything on delivering a single, decisive blow. Once that blow has been struck, that's it; you get no second chance, so you had better get it right the first time.

No what do you need to make that blow decisive? In a word, information. You need to know the target; you need to know exactly what it is you have to do to destroy in order to bring down the government. You need to know just what weapons will be effective, and how many will you need. You need to know the nature of your target's defenses in order to devise plans to elinate or circumvent them. You need to know when the ideal moment to strike will be. Pretty much the only way to acquire this information is either to be high up in the government yourself, or have spies who are. How do you (or your spies) work your way up through the ranks of a totalitarian government, getting high enough to access useful intelligence, without arousing suspicion or giving yourselves away? This all complicates things greatly, and the more complex your plan is, the more likely some slip up or other may give it away.

Following all this, you need to have an organization ready to move in and take control, or all you will have is anarchy and collapse. Were you able to get this organization ready, and able to be effective without attracting attention as well?

All this applies to human governments. Now add into the mix a controlling authority who can think creatively, and can imagine scenarios and plans just as well as you can, but who also has the capacity to examine all the millions of possible permutations on a virtually limitless number of scenarios in mere minutes or hours, and may have contigency plans prepared in advance for all of them. Are you beginning to get a picture of just how chancy an undertaking it would be to try and overthrow this thing?

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-23 07:47am

I understand that. My point is to destroy it before it can take over.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-23 07:50am

UltraViolence83 wrote:I understand that. My point is to destroy it before it can take over.

I would far rather that we never let it get even remotely close to taking over in the first place.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-23 07:52am

Perinquus wrote:I would far rather that we never let it get even remotely close to taking over in the first place.

Hell yeah, now you're talking my language!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-23 12:57pm

Perinquus wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:I understand that. My point is to destroy it before it can take over.
I would far rather that we never let it get even remotely close to taking over in the first place.

A system of checks and balances against its power would work fine. You're still assuming that not only is it in some form of nominal government control, but it also does all the WORK for the people, which is just silly. Now we have armies of robots doing everything? Sorry, but you're still insisting on rewriting the scenario in order to cling to your point.

The people still do the work, still run the factories, etc. The AI is a political leader, not a replacement for all human labour. Even a lunatic human leader could easily be put down by the humans who populate industry and the military if necessary, and the same would happen with this AI.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-23 02:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Perinquus wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:I understand that. My point is to destroy it before it can take over.
I would far rather that we never let it get even remotely close to taking over in the first place.
A system of checks and balances against its power would work fine. You're still assuming that not only is it in some form of nominal government control, but it also does all the WORK for the people, which is just silly. Now we have armies of robots doing everything? Sorry, but you're still insisting on rewriting the scenario in order to cling to your point.

The people still do the work, still run the factories, etc. The AI is a political leader, not a replacement for all human labour. Even a lunatic human leader could easily be put down by the humans who populate industry and the military if necessary, and the same would happen with this AI.

I stipulated earlier that this is all applies to a more totalitarian AI than the scenario this post provides for. And I don't necessarily say its minions must be robots - you can find human beings quite willing to defend even the most odious systems of government; it usually depends how well they make out under those systems. I still wouldn't want to live under a purely political AI, for reasons I've also expressed. Even such an AI as that would still have to be in nominal control of the military, law enforcement, etc. in order to be able to enforce its decisions. And once we start letting machines actually make decisions for us, as well as taking over menial jobs, dangerous work ,and so forth, I don't think it leaves people with much really useful work to do in society. In a case like this, I'd be more afraid of large scale apathy and society devoted to self-gratification than I would of seeing a cowed, repressed population.

SHODAN · Post by **SHODAN** » 2003-02-23 06:56pm

Perinquus, what the hell is this 'useful work' that somehow grants people meaning and direction in life you keep referring to? Selling burgers? Studying copyright infringements?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-23 07:08pm

Good point; why would a society of lazy hedonists necessarily be all that bad, if it is still capable of sustaining itself in a material fashion? Let's suppose the workweek has somehow shrunk to the point that people work for 1 day and take the next 13 days off (this seems a bit ridiculous, but just for the sake of argument); why would that be a bad thing? Laziness is bad if something other than laziness is required in order to function. Self-gratification is bad if it detracts from necessities. But it is a stretch to say that they are intrinsically bad (indeed, where would labour-saving devices have come from in the first place if not for laziness?

)

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-23 07:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:Good point; why would a society of lazy hedonists necessarily be all that bad, if it is still capable of sustaining itself in a material fashion? Let's suppose the workweek has somehow shrunk to the point that people work for 1 day and take the next 13 days off (this seems a bit ridiculous, but just for the sake of argument); why would that be a bad thing? Laziness is bad if something other than laziness is required in order to function. Self-gratification is bad if it detracts from necessities. But it is a stretch to say that they are intrinsically bad (indeed, where would labour-saving devices have come from in the first place if not for laziness? )

One of my company's customers once said that he would hire smart lazy people over smart hardworking people because the lazy ones find better ways to do things.

When laziness results in efficient, streamlined processes, which lower production time while maintaining or improving functionality and safety, laziness is good.

When laziness results in letting your yard turn into friggin bamboo field, laziness is bad (unless your purpose is to sell bamboo).

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-23 08:33pm

SHODAN wrote:Perinquus, what the hell is this 'useful work' that somehow grants people meaning and direction in life you keep referring to? Selling burgers? Studying copyright infringements?

People have to have something productive to do to keep themselves occupied. Even if the majority of your time is devoted to hobbies, recreation, etc. there has to be something for you to do to make you feel like you contribute to society. When you have an artificial intelligence that can essentially replace human intelligence in most endeavors, what is there that is left for human beings can do to give them a sense of worth? What job is there left for people to do that could not be better done by machines?

As far as government goes, if there is a machine taking care of us, rather than people making decisions for themselves... well, I'm sorry, I do not view this as a desirable thing. There is a certain satisfaction and sense of worth that comes from being in charge of your own affairs. Take that away, take all possibility of that away, and I do not think that is good for humanity.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-02-23 10:08pm

Perinquus, what the hell is this 'useful work' that somehow grants people meaning and direction in life you keep referring to? Selling burgers? Studying copyright infringements?

Hmmph, fancy seeing you here! don't trust her, folks- we all know what SHODAN wants.

As far as government goes, if there is a machine taking care of us, rather than people making decisions for themselves... well, I'm sorry, I do not view this as a desirable thing. There is a certain satisfaction and sense of worth that comes from being in charge of your own affairs. Take that away, take all possibility of that away, and I do not think that is good for humanity.

I absolutly agree. Why the fuck have spent the last 20,000 years clawing our way to the top of the foodchain? Sure, an AI is not necessarily a SHODAN style dictator. Certainly, an AI might be in it for us, working to direct it in the best possible path- but what is the point? Modern man is quite free to make his own choices, for good or ill. Computer-controlled society spits on that very ideal. What is the point of existing if you don't make your own choices?

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-23 10:21pm

I agree. I only tolerate laziness and hedonism if it is counterbalanced by people who actually work. We don't need to degrade into a bunch of Homer Simpson/Jabba the Hutt hybrids.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-24 12:27am

The kind of laziness that makes one say: "Fuck this! There's gotta be an easier way." is a good thing. Unfortunately, the kind of laziness that makes one say: "Fuck this! I'll do it later" (and never gets around to it, or does a half-assed job), seems to be more common.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-24 07:07am

Remember what happened to Rome because of that. They let their slaves do all the work and they got lazy and fat, even hiring out barbarian armies to fight for them. Well, everyone else hated them. They died. Same could happen to us. Hell, we're already like Rome in some respects.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-24 08:11am

UltraViolence83 wrote:Remember what happened to Rome because of that. They let their slaves do all the work and they got lazy and fat, even hiring out barbarian armies to fight for them. Well, everyone else hated them. They died. Same could happen to us. Hell, we're already like Rome in some respects.

<OT>Well that's a simplistic summary of Roman history. While there is some truth to it, it does ignore a lot of other things.</OT>

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-24 08:13am

Gee, Rome's entire 1,400 year-plus history summed up in a paragraph. What gave you the idea it was simplistic?

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-24 08:22am

Point taken.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 10:49am

Perinquus wrote:People have to have something productive to do to keep themselves occupied. Even if the majority of your time is devoted to hobbies, recreation, etc. there has to be something for you to do to make you feel like you contribute to society. When you have an artificial intelligence that can essentially replace human intelligence in most endeavors, what is there that is left for human beings can do to give them a sense of worth? What job is there left for people to do that could not be better done by machines?

An AI running the government is not the same as AI's taking over every conceivable aspect of human life.

As far as government goes, if there is a machine taking care of us, rather than people making decisions for themselves... well, I'm sorry, I do not view this as a desirable thing. There is a certain satisfaction and sense of worth that comes from being in charge of your own affairs. Take that away, take all possibility of that away, and I do not think that is good for humanity.

See above. The AI wouldn't be balancing your chequebook or telling you when to take a dump or arranging your sex life for you, just running the government. There's no reason to embark on some slippery-slope fallacy and conclude that this must lead to annihilation of all levels of human self-determination.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-24 11:00am

Nevertheless, I think the knowledge that the most important decisions in society had been taken out of human hands would not be a particularly good fact of life for humans beings to have to live with. We are used to regarding ourselves, rightly or wrongly, as the lords and masters of all we survey. If you put human beings under a non-human authority, it suggests we are too stupid and/or incompetent to be allowed to make our own decisions any more, and have to be cared for by an outside authority like not-too-bright children.

As I said, not a particularly glorious destiny.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 11:05am

Perinquus wrote:Nevertheless, I think the knowledge that the most important decisions in society had been taken out of human hands would not be a particularly good fact of life for humans beings to have to live with. We are used to regarding ourselves, rightly or wrongly, as the lords and masters of all we survey. If you put human beings under a non-human authority, it suggests we are too stupid and/or incompetent to be allowed to make our own decisions any more, and have to be cared for by an outside authority like not-too-bright children.

As I said, not a particularly glorious destiny.

Right. Better to be ruled by venal politicians, wealthy lobbyists, and mega-corporations

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A choice of two "utopias".

Who do you want running the show?