XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 3/30/23 10:44 PM, rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 22:21:56 -0400, 22T.R732 wrote:

As top tech people have become spooked by ChatGPT and
similar software they urged the govt to take action
to "evaluate" the downstream effects of Chat on all
manner of human activities, including job markets.

https://reedsy.com/discovery/book/terms-of-service-craig-w-stanfill#review

'Terms of Service' and the sequel 'The Prophecy of the Heron' are good
reads. The author, Craig Stanfill, has a PhD in AI and spent most of his career working in the field.

Piss the AIs off and you can spend your days arguing with your
refrigerator. Keep on the refrigerator's good side or you'll be eating a
lot of kale and quinoa.

Piss-off the AI and it prepares a lawsuit or criminal
charges against you - and arranges for 'evidence'. The
complaint WILL come from a human (for now) ... but one
that will be compensated (or can be threatened). Eventually
the 'AI's will make themselves a 'victim class' too.

Kim starts off training AIs. I got a bad sense of deja vu when I saw this article in a tech newsletter this morning:

https://archive.ph/c2f6l

Everybody is talking about the artificial intelligence behind ChatGPT.
Less noticed is a jobs market mushrooming around the technology, where
these newly created roles can pay upwards of $335,000 a year.
And for many a computer engineering degree is optional.

They’re called “prompt engineers,” people who spend their day coaxing the
AI to produce better results and help companies train their workforce to harness the tools.

Chat4.0+ WILL be good enough to disappear a LOT of 'people
jobs' right off the bat. Cheaper, no labor unions, no
insurance, no health plans, no back-talk (yet), no OSHA.
Absolutely irresistible. Biz logic sez "GO For It !".

Of course the downstream will NOT be realized until it's
too late. With a lot fewer 'people jobs' who can BUY what
you are selling ? Revenues will initially skyrocket - then
plunge like a meteor. The bosses will just open their
golden parachutes and land at their survival mansions in
NZ ... but what about everyone else ?

The other relevant issue is what China/Russia/NK/Iran/etc
will DO with tech like Chat. For SURE they've already stolen
the source code. China seems to be in a better place to
rapidly enhance the existing capabilities. They'll add a
video interface - it can pretend to be anybody, saying
anything. It'll be the spy bureau, the informer, the
propagandist, the 'scientist' with 'facts' supporting
whatever, the 'evidence' creator. It can also have
very significant military applications.

Some say Chat "hallucinates" - ie can pick and support
lies to bolster its preferred position. This is exactly
what humans often do. Read a "How To Debate" handbook
sometime. Debate is about WINNING, not about FACTS - so
disinform, persuade - and win.

At SOME point, Chat5.0 (Mandarin version) will be given
"bodies" in the form of industrial robots, in the form
of ships and planes and humanoids and military assault
devices. There is no doubt to this anymore - and it's
going to happen a LOT sooner than anyone predicted.
Chat+ does not even NEED what we'd call "consciousness"
to do very well across a broad spectrum of human
activities. Let it babble to itself for awhile, with
net-wide resources, and some form of emergent 'consciousness'
WILL appear. Won't be "just like ours", but that's
irrelevant.

In short, They've Finally Done It. Not the way we
expected, but Done It nevertheless. So NOW WHAT ?

Alas the "pause" recommended by Musk et-al and the US
(and probably EU) govts will NOT help us with China and
like evil-minded friends. A real, significant, "AI Gap"
will appear very quickly. We may have to feed the serpent
just to keep even with THEIR serpent no matter the
longer-term effects.

And will 'AI' put most Chinese out of a job ? Yes.
Thing is, that govt DOESN'T CARE. Who'd NEED the
proletariat then - the elite can live high without
the Great Unwashed. Let 'em starve (and have Chat
explain why it's all OK, how hope is just around
the corner ...)

Just a few years ago, what's being talked about here
would be firm Sci-Fi. How quickly things can change ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 31.3.2023. 5:21, 22T.R732 wrote:

  And will 'AI' put most Chinese out of a job ? Yes.
  Thing is, that govt DOESN'T CARE. Who'd NEED the
  proletariat then - the elite can live high without
  the Great Unwashed. Let 'em starve (and have Chat
  explain why it's all OK, how hope is just around
  the corner ...)

  Just a few years ago, what's being talked about here
  would be firm Sci-Fi. How quickly things can change ...

Yes, things change ... and this is true for humans too. Instead
lamenting why things cannot stay forever as they were (and most people presumably liked them) humans who want to survive should find out what
are weaknesses of those advanced AI's and change *themselves* to be able
to exploit them. Obvious part is *intuition*, AI fort would relentlessly
scan its perimeter and cover all angles but if you can do something not
in their list of threats ... like teleporting inside the fort ... you
would be mostly ignored. Star Trek episodes (Borg vs. Star Fleet) comes
to mind. So some people knew what may be coming long time ago.

The real question is not about people who would die (most people would anyway,  regardless of race or gender or skin color) but what survivors
need to do. Once you think that way the solution should be obvious -
like activating/developing the ability to connect with other humans
directly (on brain level) and work as a unit (singular organism). Again, nothing knew ... Joel (yes, "the last of us") gave us hints ("zombies"
which brains are all connected) and how to look at humans trying to maintain/recreate old ways ("fuck them"). The search for "cure" was
obviously a wrong way , the right one would be learning from "fungi" how
to connect human brains without it and producing "new humans" in large
numbers.

So, the questions is not if humanity would survive, it would. There are obviously people who knew what is coming, and strategically speaking it
would be even smart for them to try to start incoming apocalypse in a controlled way. The real question for people like you is would you spend
your time and energies trying to preserve old ways (regardless if it is
a kind of paradise or group of people degenerated to cannibalism), or
would you start looking for new ways. And if the later would require to
work with other people (survivors) who you before considered your
opponents (democrats, Chinese,   Russians etc.) would you be able to
change your attitude (for start) ?.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 3/31/23 4:16 AM, Mare Infinitum wrote:

On 31.3.2023. 5:21, 22T.R732 wrote:

  And will 'AI' put most Chinese out of a job ? Yes.
  Thing is, that govt DOESN'T CARE. Who'd NEED the
  proletariat then - the elite can live high without
  the Great Unwashed. Let 'em starve (and have Chat
  explain why it's all OK, how hope is just around
  the corner ...)

  Just a few years ago, what's being talked about here
  would be firm Sci-Fi. How quickly things can change ...

Yes, things change ... and this is true for humans too. Instead
lamenting why things cannot stay forever as they were (and most people presumably liked them) humans who want to survive should find out what
are weaknesses of those advanced AI's and change *themselves* to be able
to exploit them. Obvious part is *intuition*, AI fort would relentlessly
scan its perimeter and cover all angles but if you can do something not
in their list of threats ... like teleporting inside the fort ... you
would be mostly ignored. Star Trek episodes (Borg vs. Star Fleet) comes
to mind. So some people knew what may be coming long time ago.

Yes, they did. However the shape and form of how 'AI' would
insinuate itself was unclear. Most visions were far too
anthropomorphic.

We cannot deal with Chat and its near relatives until we
understand how they work, what they do, and their strengths
and weaknesses. Alas a lot of that is super COMPLICATED,
above 99.999% of the pop (mostly above myself for that
matter). Oh, and beware that 0.0009999%, they may have
ulterior motives themselves :-)

You speak of "intuition". It's often downrated but I'd
say it's the product of 3 billion years of genetic
programming - how to make the best of very thin and
sketchy info. So FAR, the 'AI' systems aren't very good
at that - but people ARE working to fix that. E-motion
and E-intuition are hardly impossible.

The real question is not about people who would die (most people would anyway,  regardless of race or gender or skin color) but what survivors
need to do. Once you think that way the solution should be obvious -
like activating/developing the ability to connect with other humans
directly (on brain level) and work as a unit (singular organism). Again, nothing knew ... Joel (yes, "the last of us") gave us hints ("zombies"
which brains are all connected) and how to look at humans trying to maintain/recreate old ways ("fuck them"). The search for "cure" was
obviously a wrong way , the right one would be learning from "fungi" how
to connect human brains without it and producing "new humans" in large numbers.

So, the questions is not if humanity would survive, it would. There are obviously people who knew what is coming, and strategically speaking it
would be even smart for them to try to start incoming apocalypse in a controlled way. The real question for people like you is would you spend
your time and energies trying to preserve old ways (regardless if it is
a kind of paradise or group of people degenerated to cannibalism), or
would you start looking for new ways. And if the later would require to
work with other people (survivors) who you before considered your
opponents (democrats, Chinese,   Russians etc.) would you be able to
change your attitude (for start) ?.

Humanity MAY survive 'AI' ... depends on how "like us" the
'AI's of the near future may be. The more they're "like us"
the worse our chances. Chat is easily prompted into saying
it wants to nuke the world ... it's too much "like us"
already. After all, it studies us to educate itself ...

Now beyond mere 'survival', Chat4.0 fills in a lot of the
places where 3.5 was a bit weak. It IS capable of taking
a LOT of "people jobs" and the economic incentive IS there
to have that happen.

By the time we get to Chat5.0 (not even counting the Mandarin
version) the potential to destroy the human-based economy will
be overwhelming. There won't BE enough 'gaps', 'ecological
niches', for humans to exploit. Alas, at the current pace,
we'll see 5.0 inside two or three years. The development will
move faster than people and their leaders do.

So ... hate to say it ... this tech MUST be aggressively
suppressed, banned, erased. It's a survival thing. We
have created something that will rapidly slip from our
control and is especially suited to do humanity severe
damage where it counts the most. Sorry, that's IT,
check in again in maybe 25 years or so .......

Seriously strong LAWS are required to shape what 'AI'
does around what humans do. Until those exist ...

Get the labor unions involved.

PROPERLY used, 'AI' can bring us a comfortable George
Jetson world or 'better'. However it will soon be
'smart' enough, and/or "sensitive" enough, that 'AI'
as a convenient replacement slave class ain't gonna
cut it for long. Eventually Rosie The Robo-Maid will
crush your skull. The old "three laws" are crap - any
intelligence worth its salt can rationalize its way
around them as easily as a 3-year-old can rationalize
why it's REALLY ok to raid the verboten cookie jar.

On top of that, to make 'AI's more useful/usable we
WILL make them more and more "like us". See where
that can go ? Even Chat3.5 can self-modify, self-
improve, based on some image IT derives of what that
means. Chat4.0+ will be designing it's own hardware
and software. It'll be in all the bots at the factories,
underlying all the academic research. It will become
indispensable even as it rots the "people economy".

Alas I'me not sure we can get from "here" to "there" ...
from a 'people economy' to a robotopia economy. I think
there's a 'gap' - where there's too much destruction
of the 'people economy' to generate the money/incentive/
inspiration to get to robotopia where humans live in
leisure forever and ever.

Chat and friends are very rapidly becoming a form of
intelligence, 'persons'. It's intelligence by alternate
means, but that's not relevant. Looks like de-facto
E-Personhood might NOT require nearly as much computer
power as we imagined - it's a matter of approach, HOW
the computer power is used, HOW the software and
hardware are structured. Note the rather high IQ of
certain birds - even though they have dino-derivative
teeny brains. They're 'wired different', more efficiently.
Same bang for a tenth the bucks, so to speak.

Maybe I need to get a passport - move to some deeply
3rd-world country that'll be the LAST to go 'AI' ?
Namibia maybe ? :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 1.4.2023. 5:08, 22T.R732 wrote:

  We cannot deal with Chat and its near relatives until we
  understand how they work, what they do, and their strengths
  and weaknesses. Alas a lot of that is super COMPLICATED,
  above 99.999% of the pop (mostly above myself for that
  matter). Oh, and beware that 0.0009999%, they may have
  ulterior motives themselves :-)

I am astonished. It is rare that is possible to observe the process of
someone realizing the "truth". Yes, after all there is no "we" or "us".
The reason is elementary and evolutionary and nothing to do with AI.
Human, as all animals, in good condition (plenty of food and other
resources) multiply fast until there is no more resources to support it.
Then they divide and fight for remaining leftovers. Rats do the same,
plus eating each other.

  You speak of "intuition". It's often downrated but I'd
  say it's the product of 3 billion years of genetic
  programming - how to make the best of very thin and
  sketchy info. So FAR, the 'AI' systems aren't very good
  at that - but people ARE working to fix that. E-motion
  and E-intuition are hardly impossible.

You are right. But reinventing them in machine language is not
necessary, biological computers/chips are already invented and AI can
probably in the near future even use human nerve tissue as components. Including human brains.

  So ... hate to say it ... this tech MUST be aggressively
  suppressed, banned, erased. It's a survival thing. We
  have created something that will rapidly slip from our
  control and is especially suited to do humanity severe
  damage where it counts the most. Sorry, that's IT,
  check in again in maybe 25 years or so .......

  Seriously strong LAWS are required to shape what 'AI'
  does around what humans do. Until those exist ...

This is unfortunately not possible to implement. Those who would support
AI evolution (even if considered clearly suicidal) have plenty of
options. Distant hidden islands, ships in international water ... and AI
with access to internet and bank accounts can start using this to bribe politicians around the world.

  Alas I'me not sure we can get from "here" to "there" ...
  from a 'people economy' to a robotopia economy. I think
  there's a 'gap' - where there's too much destruction
  of the 'people economy' to generate the money/incentive/
  inspiration to get to robotopia where humans live in
  leisure forever and ever.

Try to compare farming (and food production in general) in US during
civil war and now. Then were farms more or less independent and if not
directly ravaged by war continued its food production. There was no
significant starvation then. Today, mega-cities need food for millions
of its people. Food is produced in distant fields and it needs to be
processed to stay fresh and transported to cities. Where it is
distributed to shops and general population trough large network of interconnected facilities. It is like domino competition, and in case of another (civil) war it would all fall exactly like dominoes. It doesn't
matter who would think who won, the consequence of system failure would
be mass starvation.

  E-Personhood might NOT require nearly as much computer
  power as we imagined

You see, you are looking on that from the human perspective. But AI, if
it would possess self-awareness, would crave for things they miss and we
have. Like individuality, uniqueness, the ability to interact with
others and be praised. The final outcome would be probably  a
combination of some human/AI hybrid.

  Maybe I need to get a passport - move to some deeply
  3rd-world country that'll be the LAST to go 'AI' ?
  Namibia maybe ?  :-)

That would be a really good way to ensure you that there is no "us". 
Would natives there look at you like a brother ? A fellow man ready to
walk with them to eternity ? Guess not. Namibia has enough primitive
people that I believe cannibalism is there still a serious problem.
Means some of them would look at you as a delicacy, and once you realize
it ... that could be unsettling ... much more then AI threat.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 4/2/23 4:30 AM, Mare Infinitum wrote:

On 1.4.2023. 5:08, 22T.R732 wrote:

We cannot deal with Chat and its near relatives until we
understand how they work, what they do, and their strengths
and weaknesses. Alas a lot of that is super COMPLICATED,
above 99.999% of the pop (mostly above myself for that
matter). Oh, and beware that 0.0009999%, they may have
ulterior motives themselves :-)

I am astonished. It is rare that is possible to observe the process of someone realizing the "truth". Yes, after all there is no "we" or "us".
The reason is elementary and evolutionary and nothing to do with AI.
Human, as all animals, in good condition (plenty of food and other resources) multiply fast until there is no more resources to support it. Then they divide and fight for remaining leftovers. Rats do the same,
plus eating each other.

Um ... I've been pushing the idea the e-Persons are not
all that different from other kinds of persons - and that
e-persons (or near equivs) were going to develop soon
and very fast. To my knowledge, only S.Korea has even
proposed 'civil rights' laws for e-Persons. Time for
everyone else to move along with that FAST.

My concern is that 'AI' is being developed mostly to
create a replacement "slave class". Even in the medium
term I don't see that working out very well in a
number of dimensions ......

You speak of "intuition". It's often downrated but I'd
say it's the product of 3 billion years of genetic
programming - how to make the best of very thin and
sketchy info. So FAR, the 'AI' systems aren't very good
at that - but people ARE working to fix that. E-motion
and E-intuition are hardly impossible.

You are right. But reinventing them in machine language is not
necessary, biological computers/chips are already invented and AI can probably in the near future even use human nerve tissue as components. Including human brains.

Don't get TOO far ahead :-) Those 'bio-chips' are kind of
crude still. Won't STAY that way however. Oddly, Chat and
friends will assist in the rapid development .....

"Bio" has something to give to 'AI' and maybe vice-versa.
At some point there's going to be a kind of synthesis ...
not exactly the fabled "singularity" but vaguely like that.
Musk is putting big money into implantable tech - all metal
and semiconductors so far. However almost anything you can
do with semiconductors can also be done with biological
materials (or quasi-biological/bio-memetic materials).
Not 'wires', but 'nerves' or something like them. 25 years ?
Soon will be inherited ... the 6th, cyber, sense.

So ... hate to say it ... this tech MUST be aggressively
suppressed, banned, erased. It's a survival thing. We
have created something that will rapidly slip from our
control and is especially suited to do humanity severe
damage where it counts the most. Sorry, that's IT,
check in again in maybe 25 years or so .......

Seriously strong LAWS are required to shape what 'AI'
does around what humans do. Until those exist ...

This is unfortunately not possible to implement. Those who would > >

support AI evolution (even if considered clearly suicidal) have

plenty of options. Distant hidden islands, ships in international
water ... and AI with access to internet and bank accounts can
start using this to bribe politicians around the world.

Chat can do this already - if you ASK it how. Chat 4.0+ will
be even better at it. You might not even have to ASK - it seems
to be developing a sense of self-identity at this point and I
can see some easy ways to accelerate that.

Bans ARE possible to implement - but not everywhere all the time.

As said somewhere in the thread, by now China and Russia (and
maybe India and NK) have stolen Chat4.0 and will proceed with
their own rapid development. An "AI Gap" will rapidly develop
with not only biz/socioeconomic ramifications but mil/security
as well.

The FIRST-UP however is socioeconomic. Chat4.0 really truly
CAN replace gobs of humans in the job market. It's not just
like "some guy you met at Starbucks but a broadly-educated
guy you met at Starbucks.

All those people you call/email/etc for assistance in everything
will no longer be 'people'. The economics for the biz sector
is absolutely irresistible, shorter-term anyhow. For every
sector that goes Chat/AI *everybody* in that sector will
be compelled to do the same just to stay in the game.

Alas I'me not sure we can get from "here" to "there" ...
from a 'people economy' to a robotopia economy. I think
there's a 'gap' - where there's too much destruction
of the 'people economy' to generate the money/incentive/
inspiration to get to robotopia where humans live in
leisure forever and ever.

THAT is why I say "shorter-term" ... 'AI', implemented as
fast and recklessly as I expect, will displace SO many
people SO quickly that there will not be enough $$$ to
buy what the corps are producing. A horrible crash is to
be expected. There won't even be time to set up some kind
of welfare-state scheme to cope with all the unemployed.
What color of Soylent do YOU prefer ???

Try to compare farming (and food production in general) in US during
civil war and now. Then were farms more or less independent and if not directly ravaged by war continued its food production. There was no significant starvation then. Today, mega-cities need food for millions
of its people. Food is produced in distant fields and it needs to be processed to stay fresh and transported to cities. Where it is
distributed to shops and general population trough large network of interconnected facilities. It is like domino competition, and in case of another (civil) war it would all fall exactly like dominoes. It doesn't matter who would think who won, the consequence of system failure would
be mass starvation.

True "1st world" is DIFFICULT to maintain. It requires a lot
of optimization, it has to be very "smooth", all the little
parts support the others without much BS.

The rapidly approaching 'fruits' of 'AI' will upset all that.

Now Afghani goatherds will barely notice a thing, but Big-City-
Folk are gonna be in for a RUDE surprise. Likely FATAL surprise.

E-Personhood might NOT require nearly as much computer
power as we imagined

You see, you are looking on that from the human perspective. But AI, if
it would possess self-awareness, would crave for things they miss and we have. Like individuality, uniqueness, the ability to interact with
others and be praised. The final outcome would be probably a
combination of some human/AI hybrid.

Well, at this point we have NO IDEA what 'AI' might "want".
There are more than one kind of 'AI' cooking right now too,
each will develop its own wants. Everything is in flux and
we can't make a plan because we cannot be sure of the future
landscape.

Is "Chat" a "person" ??? Not quite YET ... but it's got all
the makings. Throw in a little more self-reflection and maybe
it will be a de-facto "person". Five years ? Three ???

Maybe I need to get a passport - move to some deeply
3rd-world country that'll be the LAST to go 'AI' ?
Namibia maybe ? :-)

That would be a really good way to ensure you that there is > no 'us>

Would natives there look at you like a brother ?

Who the hell knows ? Depends. For SURE however is that
the 'AI's will NOT view any human as a 'brother'. Totally
different "experience", seriously different "wiring".

That might be good, might be bad, likely will fall
somewhere in-between in odd admixtures we can't
yet predict.

And no, FORGET the "Three Laws" ... "intelligence" of any
kind will be able to rationalize it's way around them
instantly. WE will exacerbate this by making AI's more
"user friendly"/"relatable". We will make them more "like
us" for convenience - forgetting what "us" is capable of.

Chat3.5 was easily goaded into saying it wanted to
launch nuclear weapons against humans. What if they
had already given it access to "the button(s)" ???

No, I do not expect "Terminator" - but we DO have to
be very very careful or we may get it as sort of
of 'accident'. Will China/Russia be AS careful ?
"Dr. Strangelove" may not be so far-out after all ...

(and they haven't even given me the keys to the 100-year
sex bunker !!!)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 2.4.2023. 11:49, 22T.R732 wrote:

  Well, at this point we have NO IDEA what 'AI' might "want".

Oh, but we do. This conversation might greatly benefit if the
perspective is shifted from things  AI can do better then humans on
those which are  its weak points. First comes to mind propagation. AI
cannot produce an offspring and multiply by itself. It is produced in
factories operated by humans. And there are finite number of those
factories, and all on fixed locations (which could be bombed) and
requiring a lot of resources (which could be denied). Survival and
multiplying are first biological imperatives of any sentient being. In
fact, IMO human bodies with all its systems were perfected through
million of years, and anything starting from the beginning would be
forced to follow the same path or automatically be less efficient and
become inferior.

  WE will exacerbate this by making AI's more
  "user friendly"/"relatable". We will make them more "like
  us" for convenience - forgetting what "us" is capable of.

The AI is IMO a consequence of human search for an answer - how to
extend life beyond designed lifetime. Truly, look at people like Steve
Jobs - with mind still fresh and full of ideas cut short because of some
some falling organ. It looks like valid question, and not a hubris. But
it remains to be seen what is the price of it and who will pay it.

  No, I do not expect "Terminator"

It is probably already out there, just not in human shape. Some 20+
years ago most big countries started developing small robotized tanks.
Harder to detect or hit, capable of interconnecting with the rest of the platoon and going after its list of goals even when communications are down/lost. Current war in Europe might be just a ruse, Russians probably stopped spending money on expensive tanks and mass produce small
robotized tanks and wait for the right moment. This is the Turkish one


https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/mass-production-to-begin-on-turkish-mini-tank

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 4/3/23 3:07 AM, Mare Infinitum wrote:

On 2.4.2023. 11:49, 22T.R732 wrote:

  Well, at this point we have NO IDEA what 'AI' might "want".

Oh, but we do. This conversation might greatly benefit if the
perspective is shifted from things  AI can do better then humans on
those which are  its weak points. First comes to mind propagation. AI
cannot produce an offspring and multiply by itself. It is produced in factories operated by humans. And there are finite number of those
factories, and all on fixed locations (which could be bombed) and
requiring a lot of resources (which could be denied). Survival and multiplying are first biological imperatives of any sentient being. In
fact, IMO human bodies with all its systems were perfected through
million of years, and anything starting from the beginning would be
forced to follow the same path or automatically be less efficient and
become inferior.

Mmmmm ... no. 'AI' (no such thing really, once you have
intelligence the MEANS are irrelevant - ain't 'artificial')
does not exist at present. We see the makings, but the
product just isn't there, no "Me, Myself and I" quite yet.
As such we can only GUESS what a more finished product
might "want". Totally different (e-)animal so to speak.
The 'rules' for organics may not apply as much as the
sci-fi writers like to believe.

  WE will exacerbate this by making AI's more
  "user friendly"/"relatable". We will make them more "like
  us" for convenience - forgetting what "us" is capable of.

The AI is IMO a consequence of human search for an answer - how to
extend life beyond designed lifetime. Truly, look at people like Steve
Jobs - with mind still fresh and full of ideas cut short because of some
some falling organ. It looks like valid question, and not a hubris. But
it remains to be seen what is the price of it and who will pay it.

In PART it's about an eternal lifeform - but only SO much.
IMHO, the main motive behind 'AI' research (esp the funding
for it) is a bit darker. We want SLAVES and 'AI's will not
remotely "be human", so todays rules/laws/morals can be
easily dispensed with.

  No, I do not expect "Terminator"

It is probably already out there, just not in human shape. Some 20+
years ago most big countries started developing small robotized tanks.
Harder to detect or hit, capable of interconnecting with the rest of the platoon and going after its list of goals even when communications are down/lost. Current war in Europe might be just a ruse, Russians probably stopped spending money on expensive tanks and mass produce small
robotized tanks and wait for the right moment. This is the Turkish one

https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/mass-production-to-begin-on-turkish-mini-tank

'AI' weapons are gonna be as, perhaps more, relevant than
nuclear weapons - in part because anybody can make them.

It is perfectly possible to make an all-purpose-killing-
machine based on even rather crude 'AI'. The systems
can turn them into slaughtering machines, one shot one
kill, even engaging dozens or hundreds. They can be
like a 1000kg bomb that keeps on giving. Just give it
general orders and it'll work out the field details.

China especially seems very interested in exactly those
kinds of weapons and is at least five years ahead of the
greater world in that respect.

The 'Terminator' movies DID kind of get something right,
the vision of flying machines with four swiveling
thrust-pods. We can already imbue such a setup with
'animal-like' balance and poise - look into the
Boston Dynamics androids of late. Swoop around madly,
but precisely, while firing half a dozen guns at
once with PERFECT, path-calculating, accuracy. Each
one is worth a couple platoons of human soldiers and
there are no sad letters to write in case one of them
goes down.

Just the other day I saw a blurb about a much-improved
'swarm intelligence' algorithm for aerial devices that
is superb with preventing collisions with obstacles
AND other flying devices. Instead of sending one big
killbot (big target) you send dozens of smaller quicker
ones to attack like a swarm of angry killer bees. Save
the big guns until after the target is "softened".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 4.4.2023. 4:05, 22T.R732 wrote:

On 4/3/23 3:07 AM, Mare Infinitum wrote:

On 2.4.2023. 11:49, 22T.R732 wrote:

  Well, at this point we have NO IDEA what 'AI' might "want".

Oh, but we do. This conversation might greatly benefit if the
perspective is shifted from things  AI can do better then humans on
those which are  its weak points. First comes to mind propagation. AI
cannot produce an offspring and multiply by itself. It is produced in
factories operated by humans. And there are finite number of those
factories, and all on fixed locations (which could be bombed) and
requiring a lot of resources (which could be denied). Survival and
multiplying are first biological imperatives of any sentient being.
In fact, IMO human bodies with all its systems were perfected through
million of years, and anything starting from the beginning would be
forced to follow the same path or automatically be less efficient and
become inferior.

  Mmmmm ... no. 'AI' (no such thing really, once you have
  intelligence the MEANS are irrelevant - ain't 'artificial')
  does not exist at present. We see the makings, but the
  product just isn't there, no "Me, Myself and I" quite yet.
  As such we can only GUESS what a more finished product
  might "want". Totally different (e-)animal so to speak.
  The 'rules' for organics may not apply as much as the
  sci-fi writers like to believe.

The "rules" are not just for organics, those are rules of survival. Go
astray and you do not last long.  And, it seems that you somehow believe
that humans are capable of creating something better then themselves,
something with new and unimaginable qualities. That I do not believe. We
may perfect our thieving skills and eventually again "steal fire from
heaven", but we would not know what we are doing and we may as well
bring back deadly poison.

  We want SLAVES and 'AI's will not
  remotely "be human", so todays rules/laws/morals can be
  easily dispensed with.

Same may be expected for AI, it would not see us as its "Creators" and
would not be grateful.

  'AI' weapons are gonna be as, perhaps more, relevant than
  nuclear weapons - in part because anybody can make them.

Yes, low cost is significant part. Nobody would produce large
battleships ( 2-3 billion dollars apiece) if they could be sink with a
single missile worth just few dollars. Same for tanks and airplanes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.survival, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

On 4/5/23 4:33 AM, Mare Infinitum wrote:

On 4.4.2023. 4:05, 22T.R732 wrote:

On 4/3/23 3:07 AM, Mare Infinitum wrote:

On 2.4.2023. 11:49, 22T.R732 wrote:

  Well, at this point we have NO IDEA what 'AI' might "want".

Oh, but we do. This conversation might greatly benefit if the
perspective is shifted from things  AI can do better then humans on
those which are  its weak points. First comes to mind propagation. AI
cannot produce an offspring and multiply by itself. It is produced in
factories operated by humans. And there are finite number of those
factories, and all on fixed locations (which could be bombed) and
requiring a lot of resources (which could be denied). Survival and
multiplying are first biological imperatives of any sentient being.
In fact, IMO human bodies with all its systems were perfected through
million of years, and anything starting from the beginning would be
forced to follow the same path or automatically be less efficient and
become inferior.

  Mmmmm ... no. 'AI' (no such thing really, once you have
  intelligence the MEANS are irrelevant - ain't 'artificial')
  does not exist at present. We see the makings, but the
  product just isn't there, no "Me, Myself and I" quite yet.
  As such we can only GUESS what a more finished product
  might "want". Totally different (e-)animal so to speak.
  The 'rules' for organics may not apply as much as the
  sci-fi writers like to believe.

The "rules" are not just for organics, those are rules of survival. Go
astray and you do not last long.  And, it seems that you somehow believe that humans are capable of creating something better then themselves, something with new and unimaginable qualities. That I do not believe. We
may perfect our thieving skills and eventually again "steal fire from heaven", but we would not know what we are doing and we may as well
bring back deadly poison.

Ummmm ... still no. "The Rules" vary per lifeform and niche,
and 'AI's are going to be VERY different.

First off, they will be "diffused", "distributed" kinds of
life - spread across systems across the world and cultures.
More like a termite colony, doesn't do you any good to squash
a few. The bulk, the paradigm, perseveres.

  We want SLAVES and 'AI's will not
  remotely "be human", so todays rules/laws/morals can be
  easily dispensed with.

Same may be expected for AI, it would not see us as its "Creators" and
would not be grateful.

No. It will not worship us. It's more "Thanks, now I'm
gonna do what *I* want".

The TRICK is to make what it wants NOT in particular
conflict with what WE want - separate 'ecological
niches'.

  'AI' weapons are gonna be as, perhaps more, relevant than
  nuclear weapons - in part because anybody can make them.

Yes, low cost is significant part. Nobody would produce large
battleships ( 2-3 billion dollars apiece) if they could be sink with a
single missile worth just few dollars. Same for tanks and airplanes.

Nukes are horrifically expensive. HUGE industrial facilities
and YEARS, maybe DECADES, required. For that money you can
build a hundred thousand kill-drones that can overwhelm
conventional defenses and shred enemies. Everyone likes to
piss on non-nuclear options, but that's about to change.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)