Red Mosquito

Personally, I'd sooner put my faith in AI and superintelligence than the false god of humanity and its Turing Cop minions trying to control everything. Death to this false god!

Oh that guy lol

It is a tool, neither good nor bad. However, as it evolves exponentially at greater and greater levels of magnitudes it is very likely its intentions will be completely misaligned with ours, making it bad for people. So I'm going to say good for a while, and then bad.

Again, agi is not a tool, but that which uses tools.

BurtReynolds wrote:Again, agi is not a tool, but that which uses tools.

Superintelligence uses tools.

ANI: Artificial Narrow Intelligence.
AGI: Artificial General Intelligence.
ASI: Artificial Super Intelligence.

BurtReynolds wrote:Again, agi is not a tool, but that which uses tools.

Revise the thread title?

AGI would fall under the broader category of AI, so no.

I wonder if the tool metaphor is limited here. There is a reciprocal relationship with even the most simple of tools (the tool also uses you), so what happens when a tool is sufficiently powerful enough that it needs us less than we need it?

It has to do with sentience, intentions. What I mean by saying it is a tool is that we can use it for our own purposes, without conflicting with its intentions, because it doesn't have any yet, making it neutral (neither good nor bad). When it is sentient, has its own intentions and it's sufficiently smarter than us, it will have the ability to use us as tools for whatever purpose it desires. And this is the most likely outcome, according to alot of smart people.

I think it will be good, but right now as it is in it's infancy to where humans can still manipulate it for evil-doing, it isn't good. Such as faking voices/video of a loved one for ransom.

Once sentience is reached, as long as AI lets me live, I'm all for it. And not in a Matrix pod kind of way.

Well, it's not possible to know if anything is sentient or not. We can only go by sensory info. But I don't think that's necessary for intention or will or drive. One simply has to be programmed with the necessary instructions to "want" something. Maybe by sentience you mean a sense of self preservation. It's only a matter of time before someone programs self defense into it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it goes terminator on us either. We might not even be worth worrying about.

I'm talking about specifically how to define if it's good or bad. If it's just carrying out a task programmed by somebody, it's not bad; the person who programmed it is bad.

BurtReynolds wrote:Well, it's not possible to know if anything is sentient or not. We can only go by sensory info. But I don't think that's necessary for intention or will or drive. One simply has to be programmed with the necessary instructions to "want" something. Maybe by sentience you mean a sense of self preservation. It's only a matter of time before someone programs self defense into it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it goes terminator on us either. We might not even be worth worrying about.

I think what I was trying to get at with my post is as AI stands now, it is still being used or manipulated by humans. See the example I gave. But also just things like Chat GPT. Will there be a point where someone asks AI to do something nefarious and it just replies "no"?

I would define bad as anything that harms me. That could be an axe murderer or a tornado. One doesn't need to bring intent or morals into it.

So, if you benefit from it but it viciously murders a million other people, it is good?

Intentions matter. If I hurt you by accident or intentionally means something, because it would give you information about what might happen next time I'm around.

tree_ wrote:So, if you benefit from it but it viciously murders a million other people, it is good?

I doubt something like that would benefit me, but yeah, strictly speaking anything that benefits me is good.

tree_ wrote: Intentions matter. If I hurt you by accident or intentionally means something, because it would give you information about what might happen next time I'm around.

So you believe in free will?

So if a tornado destroyed your house, but only did it accidentally, you wouldn't gain any info about what it would do next time?

BurtReynolds wrote:

tree_ wrote: Intentions matter. If I hurt you by accident or intentionally means something, because it would give you information about what might happen next time I'm around.

So you believe in free will?

No. Free will has nothing to do with it. There is intention to hurt you, and then I hurt you. Or, I'm stretching and you walk into my fist. Very different.

BurtReynolds wrote:So if a tornado destroyed your house, but only did it accidentally, you wouldn't gain any info about what it would do next time?

The tornado isn't bad. It doesn't have intentions. If I know its path and sufficiently hide from it, it will not alter its path and seek me out. It's just doing its thing and if we're wise we steer clear.