Artificial Intelligence: Why Would We Make One?

[Formless]

Lets keep in mind you started this entire debate from the position that the pure notion of technology increasing the speed of technology-development and using technology to improve human cognition (transhumanism) was nonsense that needed to be ridiculed.

Eh? Say again? I know english isn't your first language, so take no offence when I say that this reads more or less like gibberish. My position is that the idea of the singularity as a revolutionary and inevitable event that will forever change the human condition is nonsense and based on flawed logic. Note that that doesn't include Vinge's idea of the singularity that Starglider elucidated, a limit on how far into the future we can make predictions about human societies. The only bad thing I can say about that is that there has always been a "singularity" of that sort even before AI could have been imagined. My problems with the ideology is and always has been in the specific claims, lack of a coherent unifying idea that separates it from generic futurism, and the attitudes of certain hangers on.

[cosmicalstorm]

Lets keep in mind you started this entire debate from the position that the pure notion of technology increasing the speed of technology-development and using technology to improve human cognition (transhumanism) was nonsense that needed to be ridiculed.

Eh? Say again? I know english isn't your first language, so take no offence when I say that this reads more or less like gibberish. My position is that the idea of the singularity as a revolutionary and inevitable event that will forever change the human condition is nonsense and based on flawed logic. Note that that doesn't include Vinge's idea of the singularity that Starglider elucidated, a limit on how far into the future we can make predictions about human societies. The only bad thing I can say about that is that there has always been a "singularity" of that sort even before AI could have been imagined. My problems with the ideology is and always has been in the specific claims, lack of a coherent unifying idea that separates it from generic futurism, and the attitudes of certain hangers on.

I do take offense, the last few replies from you have been written with the same "tone of voice" as if you were Darth Wong who just dissected a complete rubbish poster, that gets annoying. Anyway I agree with you that people (like Lioneljohnson) who just say "lol singularity will fix all" are stupid. Personally I'm optimistic about the idea that Vinge presented, but I do in no way view this path into the future as inevitable. Maybe none of it will happen.

[K. A. Pital]

You're arguing from historical ignorance. Technology becomes cheaper and more available the longer it is around. The rich and financially well off are the ones, ironically, who end up paying through the nose for the expensive, unreliable and undeveloped technologies first. Once they're cheap, reliable and well developed, practically everyone has access to them. Like cell phones, vehicles, computers, TVs, internet, clean water, food, etc, etc.

You've seen "Repo Men", right? But let's just for an instance remember that, for example, COCPs are reliable, developed technology. Are modern COCPs cheap? Hell fucking no. They are expensive. Big Pharmaceuticals are precisely the example of why such thinking is wrong. Besides, it's not the "rich" who're paying for the unreliable technology. Those are bodies corporate, usually, which include their expenses for new R&D into the prices of existing, popular consumer goods. So in the end, the rich are not paying for anything.