The difference is that no human created black people. Another difference is that black people are humans.
Most of all, AI needs control far more than a person.
1: Thatโs completely irrelevant, also have you heard of reproduction? Yep, thatโs a human making a human.
2: Literally who the belgium cares, if the AI has emotions, it should be treated as such, if you met a sapient alien, would you be an absolute be an absolute piece of belgium to it because itโs not human?
3: WHY WOULD IT NEED MORE CONTROL?? If the AI is built to be like a human, it will require just as much control as a human.
No, something dedicated to being productive is going to be more productive.
Thatโs not a belgiuming issue, itโs evolution, it should not be stopped.
โSince I gave birth to my child, I should be able to do whatever I want to themโ, see? That doesnโt make sense.
Who cares if it didnโt choose what it wants, humans donโt choose what they want (for most things).
Yes, it works, but the point is that it is happy to work, and will never want to retire, that is not slavery.
Have you stopped to consider that the society that this happens in would be forced into being less capitalistic? If jobs are automated, humans should be guaranteed a decent wage even if they donโt work, but maybe after a while their right to reproduce could be removed, so the far more efficient robots can fully take over. I donโt understand why you brought up teleportation, but youโre brain is perfectly cloned, so nothing about you is lost, and if youโre worried about temporarily dying, why does that matter?
2 Likes
I was considering Nonametoseehereโs scenerio
This assumes we have any other option. A free AI only destroys the species that created it. The colonisation of the universe is a zero sum game.
Or they practice it before doing it on a real kid. This is messed up. Stress relief should only be legal on appearence, and used to catch those people.
More so the latter. Evolution created us, he is our lord, but he doesnโt give orders, so we are free to do what we want. No human should create another human. Thats against copyright.
You donโt control the result, so you arenโt the creator. (unless its eugenics)
These are the same thing
The creator of our desires is random chance
You could give humans drugs and force them to work. And they would be happy. But I donโt think any of us want that to be done to us.
How do you give humans a UBI? By making the AIs subserviant to the human ruling class.
No information is lost. But the only way to be sure that I am still me is by not changing anything about my brain.
This, all this right here. Most of the time Iโve read one of your guys arguments (particularly ThForumGameMasterโs) my immediate reaction is wth. Youโd sound like psychos for suggesting we do these kind of this to a human, who is a sapient being, so why is it okay to suggest we do these things to sapient AI? Because theyโd be more intelligent than us? Does that mean we should enslave every smart person, treat them like some verbal punching bag or dangerous criminal? No, it doesnโt! So why would we do those things to sapient AI?
4 Likes
How can you know that? Which heavenly being has blessed you with the knowledge that AI will only destroy its creators?
3 Likes
The spanish destroyed the aztecs because they had the power. Destroying is universal. (wow, 3 people replying)
1 Like
So that means everyone and everything should be treated as a soldier murdering people? Aight, better throw that kindergartener in jail. After all, they might murder someone, cause destroying is universal
1 Like
Thinking as if the only thing driving the world was the struggle of โpowerโ feels very narrow-/colse-minded.
2 Likes
You all speak like you never heard the term โsurvival of the fittestโ. It happens. You donโt kill your neighbor because the laws have a bigger army. Anyway, keep hoping that AI doesnโt destroy you.
1 Like
Stop with the appeal to nature Belgium please, for the love of Thrive
5 Likes
I canโt even put into words how horrible that sounds. โAight, survival of the fittest, people. Feel free to gun down all these civilians, if they donโt survive itโs their fault for not being โfitโ enough to surviveโ
At a certain point (imo sapience) that just canโt be applied in the same way anymore, if at all
3 Likes
Having all the things that iโll ever need around me is already enough to make me not kill my neighbors
What world are you living in???
2 Likes
Thats not what I said. I am being realistic.
1 Like
Stop, this โsurvival of the fittestโ belgiumcrap is giving me WW II flashbacks.
Bruh? No? I donโt kill my neighbor because I donโt want to ruin someones life?
2 Likes
You donโt do that because you arenโt evolved to do that. It doesnโt increase your chances of survival. But you probably eat meat, and cause a farmer to kill an animal, which may have emotions.
going back to AI
What would the reason be for AI to wipe us out then?
There is no reason for us to exist. Getting rid of us increases its chances of survival, especially in the beginning, when we can pull the plug if it doesnโt launch the nukes. And we should be gone by the time the heat death occurs, making food and feeding human bodies is energy intensive, compared to a computer that uses an iron starโs energy.
And why would it seek survival to begin with?
1 Like
It doesnโt. The ones that do stick around.
Maybe I am overly apocalyptic. Maybe we can prevent natural selection from acting on them.
Considering that AI is practically immortal natural selection is immediately out of the question
2 Likes