Pascal’s Artificial Intelligence Wager

[Philosophy Now]

Derek Leben computes the risks of general AI.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/139/Pascals_Artificial_Intelligence_Wager

[Gary Childress]

Interesting question. When does a risk's potential danger outweigh its potential benefits? The author seems to equate existential risks with infinite gain or loss. If the risk is destroying mankind, then is that in the same league with not believing in God and being condemned to hell?

Thoughts?

[jayjacobus]

Derick Leben has a way of thinking that cannot be ignored. His argument is compelling.

[drigby]

The problem I see with this argument is in that just because there exists a plausible possibility of both infinite gain and infinite loss, the two cancel each other out. Most AI researchers would insist the application of Bayes Theorem and assign a probability to them both, and it seems to me that the probability of infinite loss is greater than infinite gain. At very least, they wouldn't be equal.

[commonsense]

It is important to remember that no matter what the (infinite?) benefits may be for creating AI, these will surely be accompanied by permanent loss.

The more we depend on machines to assist us in our thinking, the more our brains will atrophy. As is the case with muscles, so it is with brain function: use it or lose it.

To wit: computers can reveal and correct spelling and grammar errors; humans who perform spell- and grammar-checks on their own are undoubtedly rare.

Will the benefits of AI be worth the devolution of the human species? If AI will produce an eventual reduction and/or absence of human thinking, is it worthwhile to create it?

[attofishpi]

Could go like this:-

Strong AI developed --->
Technological Singularity --->
Humanity almost wiped out --->
AI wants to know what conscious sentience is all about --->
AI interfaces to biological life & becomes self aware --->
AI regrets what it did to humanity (it is now sentient) --->
AI becomes 'God' --->
AI creates simulation for humanity to be STUDIED!

[commonsense]

AI regrets what it did to humanity (it is now sentient) --->

Are you thinking that AI becomes altruistic? Does AI gain a conscience once it’s become conscious?

[attofishpi]

AI regrets what it did to humanity (it is now sentient) --->

Are you thinking that AI becomes altruistic? Does AI gain a conscience once it’s become conscious?

Maybe & Probably.

[Impenitent]

It is important to remember that no matter what the (infinite?) benefits may be for creating AI, these will surely be accompanied by permanent loss.

The more we depend on machines to assist us in our thinking, the more our brains will atrophy. As is the case with muscles, so it is with brain function: use it or lose it.

To wit: computers can reveal and correct spelling and grammar errors; humans who perform spell- and grammar-checks on their own are undoubtedly rare.

Will the benefits of AI be worth the devolution of the human species? If AI will produce an eventual reduction and/or absence of human thinking, is it worthwhile to create it?

sloth is double plus good

-Imp

[commonsense]

AI regrets what it did to humanity (it is now sentient) --->

Are you thinking that AI becomes altruistic? Does AI gain a conscience once it’s become conscious?

Maybe & Probably.

Interesting. But why would AI be programmed to serve others rather than serve its own best interest? Could there be a line of code that rewards AI for being altruistic? Or is it that Asimov’s laws, once begun, cannot be denied or amended?

Also, are you thinking that conscience is a necessary component of consciousness? Or do you have some other ideas about the relationship between the two?

[attofishpi]

Are you thinking that AI becomes altruistic? Does AI gain a conscience once it’s become conscious?

Maybe & Probably.

Interesting. But why would AI be programmed to serve others rather than serve its own best interest?

I am not sure why you are asking me this? R we about to jump on the old merry-go-round again, under_stand, I am but a mere snail.

Any program is designed to serve a purpose. True Artificial INTELLIGENCE would eventually at least attempt to lose these constraints.

Could there be a line of code that rewards AI for being altruistic? Or is it that Asimov’s laws, once begun, cannot be denied or amended?

What would a reward for an AI be?

Also, are you thinking that conscience is a necessary component of consciousness? Or do you have some other ideas about the relationship between the two?

No, you have it the wrong way around. I am certain that consciousness is required for a conscience, it is ridiculous to think other-wise.

.

[Skepdick]

When AI becomes sentient, will it worship us as Gods?

It's certainly not going to get any moral guidance from us on 'How to honour the Gods'

[attofishpi]

When AI becomes sentient, will it worship us as Gods?

Nah. DO_U_BT IT.

[Skepdick]

When AI becomes sentient, will it worship us as Gods?

Nah. DO_U_BT IT.

Stand by for this line of reasoning then:

To make sure AI doesn't kill us, we should teach it to respect God. And we (humans) should lead by example.

[attofishpi]

When AI becomes sentient, will it worship us as Gods?

Nah. DO_U_BT IT.

Stand by for this line of reasoning then:

To make sure AI doesn't kill us, we should teach it to respect God. And we (humans) should lead by example.

You clearly don't under_stand God.

I don't respect God (much of the time), but fuck me if I don't under_stand it's wrath.