Government by Artificial Intelligence?

[ChristineM]

I see it as human beings barely can take care of this earth, without destroying each others. Honestly I do not believe a "digital clone" of a human being will be any better.
If there is one thing I believe will totally destroy planet earth and human beings, it is use of AI in everything

I think differently, for the moment you are correct but in a fairly far future computers (probably something along the lines of a fuzzy quantum AI) should be capable of analysing the minutiae and probabilities needed to do the job better than humans.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What if the one they call "God" turns out to be a computer? Would your prejudice persist even then?

That's not going to happen

 

[Eddi]

That's not going to happen

Time will tell

 

[ecco]

Question: Should human affairs be governed by Artificial Intelligence?

Absolutely YES!


But only if I am the one to write the programs.

 

[Polymath257]

OK...

What if someone came along and proved to your satisfaction that everything we think of as being "reality" is actually the product of a computer simulation?

My question to you: If everything you accept as being real (including yourself) was demonstrated as being the product of a computer would you persist in rejecting the suggestions of a super-computer which was built within a simulated reality? Would that change your mind?

There are a couple of issues here. What sort of proof do they offer that this is the case? As long as I am restricted to being inside the simulation, there is nothing different I would do: learn the local laws of physics and attempt to help others.

And why should I believe that a simulation within a simulation would give a better analysis than the humans in the outer simulation?

If the outer simulation has a 'God mode' whereby the simulators can communicate with the simulations, then I *might* take their advice, but even that is not guaranteed since I would not assume they are all-knowing, even about their simulation.

 

[Polymath257]

No because I do not believe in the AI overlords I am a firm believer in spiritual beings like Gods, Buddhas, Dao, and so forth. I do not deal technically tools made by human beings. Or by Aliens for that matter.

And I am a firm disbeliever in all of the above.

 

[ecco]

I think differently, for the moment you are correct but in a fairly far future computers (probably something along the lines of a fuzzy quantum AI) should be capable of analysing the minutiae and probabilities needed to do the job better than humans.

SCOTUS researched and deliberated and set guidelines for abortions. A sizable portion of the population thinks abortions are murder and should be stopped. Would an AI have any fewer problems?

 

[Mock Turtle]

If any haven't read it, Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark is worth a look - here's a review:

Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark review – we are ignoring the AI apocalypse

As I see it, I doubt we can stop the advance of AI, particularly when nations will think it will give them advantages over others, and it might.

 

[Thief]

But of course, its decisions would need to be signed-off by an organisation of humans, just in case...

right up to the point......we want to pull the plug

oh oh

 

[Twilight Hue]

Question: Should human affairs be governed by Artificial Intelligence?

I’m thinking of nations, but also the entire world itself.

Such an AI could be programmed to run the world according to the common long-term interest of humankind - the greatest welfare for the greatest number, within strict ethical limits - e.g. it could be programmed to positively value human life, so as to preserve the rights of minority groups

It would have no personal stake in anything

And it would not identify with any one group or nation at the expense of any other group or nation

It could make long-term decisions in a completely disinterested way

But of course, its decisions would need to be signed-off by an organisation of humans, just in case...

It already is. Check out the court system for example. Sentencing of criminals is dictated primarily by an AI program called COMPAS, not by a Judge anymore.

It's going to get a lot worse.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think differently, for the moment you are correct but in a fairly far future computers (probably something along the lines of a fuzzy quantum AI) should be capable of analysing the minutiae and probabilities needed to do the job better than humans.

I hope i do not live as a human being then.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And I am a firm disbeliever in all of the above.

AI or the spiritual?

 

[ChristineM]

SCOTUS researched and deliberated and set guidelines for abortions. A sizable portion of the population thinks abortions are murder and should be stopped. Would an AI have any fewer problems?

I understood the OP to be about world governance, not local squabbles

However, given the correct parameters and free of religious dogma and emotion then an AI would have little problem solving such a problem?

 

[Eddi]

And why should I believe that a simulation within a simulation would give a better analysis than the humans in the outer simulation?

I'd say because it would be made in the image of whatever computers The Simulation is run on. It would be replicating what The Simulation can do, which I think is an awful lot. Only it would have no power over us like how The Simulation does - we could pull the plug whenever we wanted, and even re-program it.

Also, it could be programmed as to what values it holds, when looking at all the different sides of an issue to produce a solution, in a way no human could. For instance, its values could be programmed to represent those of whatever nation is running it, with a bias towards the values embodied by the candidates the population chose in the most recent elections. It could also deal with conflicting values held by different parties in a fair and value neutral manner, in a way no human could. It could create the most beautiful (and practical) of consensuses.

 

[ChristineM]

I hope i do not live as a human being then.

Unless there is a major breakthrough in computing power then i think most, if not all, alive today won't live until then.

Other than the processing power there would also need to be a dramatic change in political outlook

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'd say because it would be made in the image of whatever computers The Simulation is run on. It would be replicating what The Simulation can do, which I think is an awful lot. Only it would have no power over us like how The Simulation does - we could pull the plug whenever we wanted, and even re-program it.

Also, it could be programmed as to what values it holds, when looking at all the different sides of an issue to produce a solution, in a way no human could. For instance, its values could be programmed to represent those of whatever nation is running it, with a bias towards the values embodied by the candidates the population chose in the most recent elections. It could also deal with conflicting values held by different parties in a fair and value neutral manner, in a way no human could. It could create the most beautiful (and practical) of consensuses.

So you say it is just a more advanced internet. ( internet is man controlled, but the content is controlled by AI that human beings programmed to check for illegal activity.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Unless there is a major breakthrough in computing power then i think most, if not all, alive today won't live until then.

Other than the processing power there would also need to be a dramatic change in political outlook

True

 

[ChristineM]

It is worth bearing in mind that a large proportion of our lives are run by AI right now.

From utility bills to internet searches from shopping to medical procedures, from traffic management to security, from agriculture to warehousing, from... to ...

 

[Eddi]

So you say it is just a more advanced internet. ( internet is man controlled, but the content is controlled by AI that human beings programmed to check for illegal activity.

I don't know about that, but I think it could certainly take into account what's going on on the internet when making its decisions. Although granted, the internet can be manipulated quite easily. So it's probably best if it didn't.

I'd imagine that an organisation of humans would provide it with all the input it would require and that it would have access to tons of data. I suppose the solution it would give would only be as good as the input it would be provided with. I would imagine it would be developed by being used to solve petty squabbles and then given increasingly complex issues to navigate and solve, in a kind of self-learning way.

And I don't think its output would be worth much unless it had a conscious mind, as opposed to being a mere computer. I would much more readily listen to the advice of a machine with a personality and a mind who sees itself as a being than I would a big box of wires and circuits, and whatever.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't know about that, but I think it could certainly take into account what's going on on the internet when making its decisions. Although granted, the internet can be manipulated quite easily. So it's probably best if it didn't.

I'd imagine that an organisation of humans would provide it with all the input it would require and that it would have access to tons of data. I suppose the solution it would give would only be as good as the input it would be provided with. I would imagine it would be developed by being used to solve petty squabbles and then given increasingly complex issues to navigate and solve, in a kind of self-learning way.

And I don't think its output would be worth much unless it had a conscious mind, as opposed to being a mere computer. I would much more readily listen to the advice of a machine with a personality and a mind who sees itself as a being than I would a big box of wires and circuits, and whatever.

Why not listen to wise men/women instead of relying on a "alive" computer?
I honestly do not understand the fascination of computer and AI