Concocting the ground rules for us to interact?iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 1:51 pm Since my own main focus is less on what intelligence is and more on what the limitations of whatever intelligence is thought to be are, it really wouldn't make much different to me. That's why I am most curious about attempts by machine intelligence to tackle conflicting goods. Is there an intelligence beyond human intelligence capable of concocting "on the ground" rules for human interactions such that it masters morality as it has mastered, say, chess?
How is a non sentient, an entity incapable of empathy beyond feigned simulation of it, going to master the very subjective area of morality and more to the point, then provide ground rules that us mere humans are going to then all agree to converse upon within the areas dictated as ground rules by an AI?
All you are providing is another moral conundrum (should we listen to an AI) sitting upon whatever moral area the AI is telling us it has figured out 'ground rules' - do you actually think the human populous are going to give rats arse what an artificial intelligence thinks should be the areas for discussion on any moral issue.
Such as your suggestion..
How on this Earth do you propose that EVERY foetus is born, and ALL pregnant women that don't want to give birth allow their foetus to be born anyway?iambiguous wrote:...will AI intelligence actually succeed in "thinking up" the optimal moral argument here such that all unborn babies have a day of birth and no pregnant women is forced to give birth.
Feel free to attack me with emotis again, or provide a link of images to remind you of having your head banged against a wall as a child.
OR, you could provide a reasonable reply to your clearly unreasonable statements!