Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
INFJ
Joined
·
236 Posts
One could always be an artist of sorts, if they lack the people skills. A legendary musician from Japan never talked to anyone in high school, but his love brought him to the arena of music where he made his personal fortune; getting past his loneliness.

They'll use the tag: "Made by Humans".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
I've also heard that we are encouraged to get more children because in the future someone has to take care of the growing elderly population and a lot of jobs will probably go to take care of elderly since we continue to live for so long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
One could always be an artist of sorts, if they lack the people skills. A legendary musician from Japan never talked to anyone in high school, but his love brought him to the arena of music where he made his personal fortune.

They'll use the tag: "Made by Humans".
So you don't think human made will be looked down upon as full of errors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
I've also heard that we are encouraged to get more children because in the future someone has to take care of the growing elderly population and a lot of jobs will probably go to take care of elderly since we continue to live for so long.
It's not a wise move to have more children since healthcare jobs will eventually be replaced by AI.


.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
The borg queen was pretty hot, not gonna lie.

Other than a robot queen archetype, there is also the robot mother archetype. :sneaky:




You see more of this going in the direction of "organic" machines, so my guess is that we'd loop back around and realize biology is more efficient, after all (well, duh).

I had a dream, once, that humans hybridized with a type of plant in order to breathe the atmosphere on another planet. It looked pretty badass, where the plant was essentially intertwined with our respiratory systems and grew out of the lungs, with stalks that penetrated the abdominal walls (creepy enough, it is possible for plants to germinate inside lungs). However, the plant operated more like a parasite, and would eventually grow into the entire body without this drug that kept the immune system boosted - except the plants were eventually able to influence behavior enough that people stopped taking the drugs, and that is when it turned decidedly nightmare...

Anyways, my thoughts on the subject mirror Thoreau:
This film looks very interesting. Thank you for sharing the commercial for it :) Creepy dream. Mum told me yesterday that she once dreamed that she was a snowflake that had gone to heaven but in heaven there were only snowflakes like her self and she could not move and everything was so boring and depressing that she felt absolutely horrified but the dream just kept going on and on for like, ages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie and Squirt

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
It's not a wise move to have more children since healthcare jobs will eventually be replaced by AI.


.
And we get our selves a mother 😳😱 Brrrrr 😣😖😫
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie and mia-me

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
It's not a wise move to have more children since healthcare jobs will eventually be replaced by AI.


.
I have heard some pretty hefty discussions about this and they are not pretty...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie and mia-me

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
Look at it a different way beyond fearing AI. If we can halve the human population by only having a single child or none per couple, it can only benefit the environment.
Ye I also think that sounds logical...but then we grow older...lets say we gew until age 300ish. but could only have children until we were 40ish. Do you think our children would be able to geneticly adapt...there is a chance climate change might kick in though:

Climate can trigger famine, but is not decisive for how hard it hits Cold and rain triggered one of the greatest famines of all time in Europe. But when people starved in the Little Ice Age, it was just as much a man-made crisis. Mari Lilleslåtten Communications Advisor University of Oslo Thursday, December 10, 2020 - 4:30 p.m. It rains, rains and rains. 100 days of rain causes the crop to fail. The food is running out. For some, then for all. Some people start eating grass. Children play that clay is bread, and eventually eat the clay breads to have something to fill their stomachs with. Families split up, some flee, others stay. And many, many people die. In the years 1770–1772, famine ravages Europe. The weather, but also social and political conditions, trigger the disaster. - We often see nature as a static backdrop for the political chaos that characterizes people's everyday lives. With a famine it can be the other way around: society is stable, while nature suddenly changes and creates a crisis. This is what Dominik Collet, professor of environmental history at the University of Oslo, says. He researches historical famines, and understands them as both ecological and social crises. - We have long believed that we are talking about natural disasters - a lot of rain or extreme heat causes the crop to cut and people to starve. But it is more complicated than that, he says. Hunger in the Little Ice Age During the famine of 1770-1772, crops failed for three years in a row, which almost halved grain stocks. As a result, one million people died across Europe - more than during all the wars of the 18th century combined. - It rained a lot when it would usually be dry and hot. The growing season was only three weeks shorter, but it can be dramatic, says Collet. The 1770s are part of the cool period known as the Little Ice Age. - Even though it happened naturally and went much slower, climate change can be compared to what we see now - the temperature changed by about one and a half degrees. Escape and epidemics in Europe When there is no food, people search for new areas. One of the reasons why many died during the famine in the 18th century was that epidemics spread across national borders and gained a foothold in cities where newly arrived immigrants lived in poor hygienic conditions. - Migration was not allowed at that time, because the authorities wanted to keep taxpayers where they were. But people traveled to the cities, where they had a greater chance of being seen and heard, Collet says. Several set out on longer journeys. - The great migration from Germany to Hungary included many. And more went to America. This is how they established the itineraries that were to become central to mass emigration from Europe in the 19th century. The famine also became a common denominator for major social changes. - There were riots in Ireland and France, while Poland was divided. Usually we would study what happened in the countries separately. But now we know that the environmental threat and poor crops were a common denominator that had a direct or indirect significance for the course of history, he says. Catalyst for reforms In the 1770s, Europe was in the Enlightenment, and traditional religious explanations lived in parallel with new material and technological approaches. Collet believes that the famine may have acted as a catalyst for progressive currents in time. - New sciences such as meteorology and classical economics gained the legitimacy they needed to establish themselves properly. The desire for school reform had been in the air for a long time, but it was only when hordes of hungry, poor children filled the streets that people acted. It did not just happen out of kindness. When diseases such as typhus spread, they could just as easily affect wealthy citizens as the poor and malnourished, so health care reform and welfare were in everyone's interest. Because it requires money to set up schools or poorhouses, the middle class started fundraising. - It is an early version of humanitarian aid, where, for example, Jewish communities in Poland sent money to Germany to feed starving Protestant children there. To expect radical political or social changes after a crisis is still asking for too much, Collet believes. - People wanted to return to normal, to peace. But a few years later, when new crises arose, when power was centralized, or when the people started revolutions, it could still be explained as unintended consequences of how the famine was handled politically. - The worst famine disasters do not happen when it is extremely dry or wet, or when you have inequality or a war - but when these overlap, says environmental historian Dominik Collet. - The worst famine disasters do not happen when it is extremely dry or wet, or when you have inequality or a war - but when these overlap, says environmental historian Dominik Collet. (Photo: UiO) Human factor determines whether there will be a crisis Changes in the environment and climate are triggering a famine catastrophe, which has major social consequences. But how serious the crisis becomes also depends on social and political conditions. -
- If you look at the social structures, marginalized groups will be hit the hardest. A natural disaster can collapse a social system. There can be rapid disasters, such as an earthquake or a volcanic eruption - but also slower disasters, which develop over two to three years. It gives people room for action, an opportunity to respond or not, says Collet. How society is organized is decisive for which strategies are implemented. - Today we can look back and assess what worked. Of course, you can not do that when you are in the middle of it. Collet refers to the Indian economist Amartya Sen, who believes that democracy, participation and an independent press are the most important medicines for famine today. This is in line with the most important lessons learned from previous crises, according to the history professor. - You can have new technologies, green revolution, genetic technology and more, but in the end it mostly matters that the people have something they should have said, he says. - Smaller states, for example, did better. They had a greater room for maneuver and a closer relationship with the citizens. It could have more to say a financial muscle. Hunger an effective weapon There was a big difference between the states in Europe in the 1770s. But the sources Collet studies show that people were agile and creative. - In diaries you can read about self-help, and that people tried to help neighbors. Donations were requested in the newspapers. People also defied local authorities when they could not help, and wrote directly to the king asking for help. It is true that the king did not have real power, but could still influence local authorities to take better care of the inhabitants, he says. - It was almost an involuntary modernization of the state, because people defied the local intermediary and went directly to the authorities, whether it was law or not. Hunger makes an impression, both on an individual level through heartbreaking descriptions of distress - and as a political tool in the face of power. - If you go to the king and say "I'm starving", then it is the worst certificate a ruler can get. If you cannot feed your subjects, your role as a leader is threatened. Thus, the people can use hunger in a game about participation and rights they otherwise do not have. In the same way that hunger today is linked to war and conflict, famine also became a political weapon in the 1770s. Collet points to the fate of Poland. - There was already internal strife, close to civil war, in the country. Neighboring countries took advantage of the famine to force through their interests. Epidemics were used as an argument to set up border controls and annex parts of Poland. In the end, the country was divided, and although the pretext was disease, it was, of course, a matter of power politics. Climate history - a collaboration that complements the picture In the 18th century, people were writing more than ever. For historians, this means a rich source material of public documents, newspapers and diaries. Nevertheless, interdisciplinary collaboration with professionals who use material sources is important to get a more complete picture of the time, says Collet, who among other things has collaborated with dendochronologists who analyze annual rings in trees. - If you only study one side of a phenomenon like this, you will never get the whole picture, he says, and continues: - It will be like the learned men who will understand an elephant with blindfolds: If one touches the trunk and one on the tail, they will describe the elephant completely differently. In the same way, a medicine and a political scientist have different ways of understanding a famine, he says. People have dealt with climate crises before It is about learning from history, also to be able to make good forecasts. - Reliable data about the weather goes back maybe 100 years. If you use materials such as ice cores or annual rings, you can go even further back. But they are not so precise. If, on the other hand, you combine them with other historical sources, you can get a much more accurate picture, and improve both reconstructions of the past and forecasts for the future. Collet warns against focusing blindly on the weather on the one hand - or the role of man on the other. - History shows us that there is rarely a single factor that explains dramatic events. The worst famines do not happen when it is extremely dry or wet, or when you have inequality or a war - but when they overlap. For researchers like Dominik Collet, who looks at how humans have dealt with climate crises in the past, the future is not necessarily bleak. - People have always been faced with a variety of strategies that they either pursue, or ignore. We are not just passive recipients of climate change, and that gives some hope. If people have previously found ways to improve their situation, then we can do the same, he says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Ye I also think that sounds logical...but then we grow older...lets say we gew until age 300ish. but could only have children until we were 40ish. Do you think our children would be able to geneticly adapt...there is a chance climate change might kick in though:



If you're concerned about a catastrophic failure, then avoid having children, rather than having one child. AI can step into any medical void.

For that matter, if there's a catastrophic failure, most of us would be wiped out so we'll have nothing to worry about 'cause we'll be dead. 😋
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,376 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
If you're concerned about a catastrophic failure, then avoid having children, rather than having one child. AI can step into any medical void.

For that matter, if there's a catastrophic failure, most of us would be wiped out so we'll have nothing to worry about 'cause we'll be dead. 😋
Hehehehe, so you plan to not reproduce?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wylie and mia-me

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,350 Posts
The AI Sophia is pretty incredible. She has people skills, humor and sarcasm, exhibits "emotions", has subjective opinions. But why did she become a citizen of Saudi Arabia of all places? Something's gotta be wrong with her.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
308 Posts
That's Elon Musk's approach. In such a case, is there any way to avoid losing our humanity in the process? Is it worth preserving our humanity (e.g., humans can be incredibly cruel)? Would we become emotionless drones, or better versions of ourselves? Lots of questions, but I have few answers. Transhumanism is an interesting philosophy, but I imagine the merging of man and machine will turn out very differently from current hopes - or fears. That could end up being our salvation, or we could just end up being obsolete...
That's Elon Musk's approach
Hm, didn't know about that.

There are many ways in which merging can go wrong, of course.
But it doesn't necessarily have to. Imagine that in one day everyone would just receive opportunity to become many many times smarter. No loss of emotions, no metallic limbs or wheels, just AI would be integrated into your brain.

I would Imagine that growth of intelligence will be artificially gradual as humans may not be prepared for that, so everyone will "level up" smoothly and slowly, learning and adapting to new capacities.

Maybe it will be possible to also tune them down at will.

It is also crucial I think that this merging process or any serious AI development has to be supervised globally, by government, for instance. Because otherwise there will be many more possible worst-case scenarios.

In the best case everyone will just become better version of themselves and superhumans collectively will enter new age of "limitless" possibilities.

Any scenario other than merging I think will inevitably lead to massive degradation/nightmare of some sort, including cases where AI will be in complete servitude to humans. And this cannot be averted simply by changing "traits" or learning to not care about accomplishments.
 

·
Registered
Caffeinated ☕
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
Temporarily. topic


Hm, didn't know about that.

There are many ways in which merging can go wrong, of course.
But it doesn't necessarily have to. Imagine that in one day everyone would just receive opportunity to become many many times smarter. No loss of emotions, no metallic limbs or wheels, just AI would be integrated into your brain.

I would Imagine that growth of intelligence will be artificially gradual as humans may not be prepared for that, so everyone will "level up" smoothly and slowly, learning and adapting to new capacities.

Maybe it will be possible to also tune them down at will.

It is also crucial I think that this merging process or any serious AI development has to be supervised globally, by government, for instance. Because otherwise there will be many more possible worst-case scenarios.

In the best case everyone will just become better version of themselves and superhumans collectively will enter new age of "limitless" possibilities.

Any scenario other than merging I think will inevitably lead to massive degradation/nightmare of some sort, including cases where AI will be in complete servitude to humans. And this cannot be averted simply by changing "traits" or learning to not care about accomplishments.
It seems unlikely to go in this direction except in fantasy, and this ideal about merging with our technology doesn’t address the question of what role technology should have in our lives, rather it just begs the question.

In reality, you see technology applied like a hammer looking for a nail, and often times we’re the nails, instead of the hand with the hammer. The tendency to use technology as a band-aid solution, too, is incredibly important to watch out for when deciding how we develop and use advancements. Joseph Weisenbaum has some really nice comments about this, so does Jaron Lanier.

This is one of my favorite interviews with Weisenbaum for someone who discusses this much more eloquently than I can:

 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
308 Posts
It seems unlikely to go in this direction except in fantasy, and this ideal about merging with our technology doesn’t address the question of what role technology should have in our lives, rather it just begs the question.

In reality, you see technology applied like a hammer looking for a nail, and often times we’re the nails, instead of the hand with the hammer. The tendency to use technology as a band-aid solution, too, is incredibly important to watch out for when deciding how we develop and use advancements. Joseph Weisenbaum has some really nice comments about this, so does Jaron Lanier.

This is one of my favorite interviews with Weisenbaum for someone who discusses this much more eloquently than I can:

It seems unlikely to go in this direction except in fantasy
I was not trying to suggest a most likely outcome, but most reliable way of implementing this merge which, by itself, is an answer to subject question.

this ideal about merging with our technology doesn’t address the question of what role technology should have in our lives
It doesn't answer this question because it was not supposed to answer it in the first place.

This is one of my favorite interviews with Weisenbaum for someone who discusses this much more eloquently than I can:
I skimmed through it, but I don't think that we should only look at this interaction with technology from only one angle: either we search for solutions to concrete problems, or we search for problems starting with concrete solution. Both points can be beneficial to start from, depends on the context.

His comment, I guess, was rooted in perceived disbalance in the use of these angles. That people got too fascinated with new solutions and started focusing less on actual problems and what they can do about them with tools they already have. But it would be wrong to be convinced to accept another extremity.
 

·
Registered
INFP
Joined
·
649 Posts
One problem with technology, and this idea may sound strange, is how it fosters self-sufficiency. If we don't need to interact and depend on others directly to survive, technology effectively distances us from one another. The ATM (Automatic Teller Machine), and its successor online banking, are great examples of this. Yes, going to the bank to deposit a check or get cash used to be a time sink. But congregating at the bank was a chance to fulfill some basic human needs; interact with a live teller, mingle with others from your community, and make you slow down and take a break of sorts in what would be an otherwise fast-paced day.

As an introvert, I can try to dismiss these needs as unnecessary time-wasters, but social science is pretty unanimous that all humans need some social interaction to stay sane. That's why solitary confinement is considered one of the severest punishments in prison. Forums, chat, text and video conferencing can help replace some of the missing interactions, but can't substitute for the social and subliminal cues (with the possible exception of video), and least of all for physical touch.

The narrative I'm familiar with says that humans evolved to be in small tribes of hunter gatherers, who worked closely together to gather meat and plants. Today we gather in gargantuan cities, and yet many times don't even know our next door neighbor's name. Either we need to close the increasing social isolation people feel as a result of technology, create a technology that is a real substitute for old-style social interaction (anti-depressants, anyone?), or move towards a society that fulfills those throwback social needs. Perhaps in becoming cyborgs the right hormones or neurotransmitters can be injected into whatever passes for a bloodstream, and make you feel the same satisfaction you'd get from hugging a friend. Speaking from a strictly intuitive perspective, I rather doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Caffeinated ☕
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
It doesn't answer this question because it was not supposed to answer it in the first place.
Fair enough.

I can't really think of any era where we have truly tried to "merge" with our technology, except perhaps metaphorically, and perhaps with the use of prosthetics, which could be as shocking as a walking stick come peg leg, I suppose.

We do like to tell stories about becoming one with our inventions and all the horrors or utopias that follow; it's a useful exercise. Such stories can inspire, but it should also foster humility rather than arrogance. Transhumanists seem to be a bit of an exception.

I skimmed through it, but I don't think that we should only look at this interaction with technology from only one angle: either we search for solutions to concrete problems, or we search for problems starting with concrete solution. Both points can be beneficial to start from, depends on the context.

His comment, I guess, was rooted in perceived disbalance in the use of these angles. That people got too fascinated with new solutions and started focusing less on actual problems and what they can do about them with tools they already have. But it would be wrong to be convinced to accept another extremity.
He stated that when problem solving, it is better to have a clear understanding, or at least try to gain a good understanding, of the root causes of the problem before implementing a solution. He also advocated to consider the consequences and ramifications of the solutions employed, both before acting and as an ongoing process, which no one is excused from doing regardless of their intentions.

It's a very moderate and sound argument, which is probably why it is not respected much when we have massive government and private industry investments in computer technology with competing agendas that have nothing to do with the "betterment of mankind".

At some point, we need to get out of the sandbox and look at what we actually want to build in the world.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
308 Posts
@Squirt
I can't really think of any era where we have truly tried to "merge" with our technology, except perhaps metaphorically, and perhaps with the use of prosthetics, which could be as shocking as a walking stick come peg leg, I suppose.

We do like to tell stories about becoming one with our inventions and all the horrors or utopias that follow; it's a useful exercise. Such stories can inspire, but it should also foster humility rather than arrogance. Transhumanists seem to be a bit of an exception.
It doesn't have to happen this way, as I tried to suggest earlier.
It is most prudent to be extremely cautious about every intervention of such magnitude, of course, In no way I inclined against that.
But I don't think it is fair to let these stories cloud judgement in any way, be it inspiration or unnecessary fear and reject honest considerations.

He stated that when problem solving, it is better to have a clear understanding, or at least try to gain a good understanding, of the root causes of the problem before implementing a solution.
This is what I meant about context when you have actual problem and need to solve it.
So, instead of assuming that he misinterpreted this context I would say he just criticized perceived trends in how people approach problems. That instead of studying issues they may prefer searching for tools that would "fix" some of them automagically.
I guess he is just tired of these questions.

He also advocated to consider the consequences and ramifications of the solutions employed, both before acting and as an ongoing process, which no one is excused from doing regardless of their intentions.
Which is why AI development should be treated in my opinion as a nuclear weapon development simply by the scale of the potential influence it will have in the end (the True "strong" AI, at the very least).
I don't have any illusions about how co-directed this policy is with respect to reality, mind you.

At some point, we need to get out of the sandbox and look at what we actually want to build in the world.
This is a good question by itself, but it suggests too narrow answer for inventions of such universality.
 

·
Registered
Caffeinated ☕
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
But I don't think it is fair to let these stories cloud judgement in any way, be it inspiration or unnecessary fear and reject honest considerations.
You talk of having super-intelligence so we can... what? What are we looking to gain? Is it for the hell of it? Do we want to reduce suffering? Is it so we can appreciate one another more? Is it to live longer? Will it do any of those things?

Stories can ask those questions more readily, especially when it comes to new and emerging technology. So, I wouldn't say fiction shouldn't influence these ideas at all. But, it shouldn't supplant critically thinking about the emerging technologies in the context of current reality. I think we pretty much agree, there.

This is what I meant about context when you have actual problem and need to solve it.
So, instead of assuming that he misinterpreted this context I would say he just criticized perceived trends in how people approach problems. That instead of studying issues they may prefer searching for tools that would "fix" some of them automagically.
I guess he is just tired of these questions.
He focused on the military applications, but the private sector is a major reason this kind of "approach" to solutions is used, too. In most cases, people aren't searching for "tools" that can solve multiple problems. The "tools" are being peddled to them. If someone has 50,000 rubber bands, or better yet, 50 million in rubber band futures, they're gonna tell you all the answers to your problems are found in a rubber band. It doesn't matter if there is a better tool out there, don't think too hard about it, we have rubber bands.

You can find examples of this everywhere, but one that comes to mind is Pearson's education industry takeover in the US, which started very quietly at first, and in the 2010s they were marketing hard to get schools to use their software, services, materials, and eventually started opening schools, wielding so much influence that they are essentially a governing body for education standards in the US (the ultimate dream of any money loving enterprise - being such a monopoly that you can invent your customer, which I think is the goal of pretty much every major technology company today, too).

I'd consider something like wanting to implement AI augmentation of humans on a massive scale to be a highly specialized (and expensive) interest, so it's good to be aware of how projects are being funded, by whom, for what purpose, and who moderates them. You seem to be into highly centralized government control from your comments, which to me sounds like a bad way to handle something like that if we're not even sure what we're trying to accomplish here besides "smarter people"... or avoiding disenfranchising sentient machines? Sounds like a good platform for a regime, I guess.

Speaking of regimes:

Which is why AI development should be treated in my opinion as a nuclear weapon development simply by the scale of the potential influence it will have in the end (the True "strong" AI, at the very least).
Here I am waiting for any nod towards curtailing or regulating surveillance practices.

The Global Expansion of AI Surveillance - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Of course, current development of AI technology relies on gigantic data sets.... so...

we won't fall down that rabbit hole. It might be too narrow. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,281 Posts
There is an infinity of problems we have yet to solve that take skills we have yet to graze.

If people valued problem solving, they wouldn't be threatened by the automatization of well known solutions to well known problems.

For those who do, machines are a gain of otherwise-wasted time. Or just a good challenge. AIs didn't prevent people from playing chess. Some videogames are impossible to beat and people still find an interest in getting as close as possible. Cars go at 300mph and yet people keep running on flat surfaces as fast as they can. Because one is a matter of transportation, the other is a matter of self mastery and understanding. Some people keep painting photorealistic art, what's the point? It's a different goal than conveying or storing an information.

In the end, it's important to realize how a job that doesn't increase self mastery and understanding is a waste of time that should be automatized asap.
 
41 - 60 of 98 Posts
Top