Gregory's Server@helles_sachsen @balkongast @Gargron
Agreed. Human creativity and innovation depends on the ability to make connections between two seemingly unrelated ideas - sometimes wildly different in fields, time periods, cultures. And then humans progressively build on those ideas - refining with other loosely connected ideas until it gets societal acceptance. AI is already a superior brainstorming tool than any corporate suits sitting around a whiteboard. And it will continue to get better.
|
Top-level
48 comments
Humans are so worse in ethical evaluations, maybe everybody, or everything else would be better. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron What about an AI trained by fascist ethic? The machine cannot recognize that. Dont have any fear about this. Training a model today is 10bio euros, training a general ai in 5-20y will cost maybe much more. Even russia dont have the ressources for this. EDIT: Look at the spendings of our government or the EU, they are not nearly enough to train a AI even on the level on ChatGPT4. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Looking at the world in its current state, I see this severely different. @balkongast @helles_sachsen @Gargron I disagree with Helles, algorithmically based ethics are not “better” but philosophical experiments and behavioral economics has shown that human ethics are at best consistently uneven and societal evolution has shown that humans are piss poor at it. Kants ethic is kind of a logically alorithmic ethic? And maybe the problem is, that we dont follow the logic. I for one would expect that a general ai just would discover kants ethics because its build on logic. And follow it better than we do. @helles_sachsen @balkongast @Gargron We vote for the algorithm with our feet. We use co pilot or chatGPT because its useful, really powerful tools, they improve our life, speed of work or learning. We will use also more powerful ai if they improve our life. EDIT: The people wont felt forced. The will search for the benefits of the ai decisions. @helles_sachsen @balkongast @Gargron @ForeverExpat @balkongast @Gargron So, the human is the problem not the ai? :> @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron If you see it this way, humans are not necessary at all. @helles_sachsen @balkongast @Gargron @ForeverExpat @balkongast @Gargron I for one everyone think we are so shiitty with this that it's very likely everyone and everything is better than us. Often throwing a coin would be better then human decisions. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Coding this way seems to fit perfectly to any requirement? @balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron These algorithm today that come out to be racists for example where made from humans. I mistrust humans more than a machine and throwing a coin. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Hold my beer ... didn't you say that it would be too expensive to train such an AI? @balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron For governments for sure, but not for Google. But Google got a shitstorm for a racist KI. They have to produce ai that they can sell. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron From a certain point of view, the humans are a problem. See: @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron As long as you restrict that to code, fine with me. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Imagine Gestapo asking you, whether you hide a political prosecuted person. What will Kant tell you to do? Wait, you can clearly made rational thinkings about this situation and deciding right. Especially if the gestapo ask you? It would be more difficult if a democratic police ask you and its reasonable, or if its about a friend or family member, but there are logical paths through this situations, which are better than which the usual human will do in this situation, just acting by emotion. I think the most humans in a authorian regime would do the wrong decision, and the most ai would do the right decision because they dont have the fear of existence because of all the copies. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron What is wrong in that case? I dont follow your premise that "dont lie" is a unavoidable conclusion from the imperative. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Then you certainly have a good idea how to explain an exception from a general rule. Really, these are just your own conclusions, find peer reviewed articles that give your own conclusions a little bit foundation. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron You are the one to tell me, what lets a general rule still be general if there are exceptions and how to identify exceptions as valid and necessary. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Kant says simply don't lie. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Act always in the way that can be taken as the base for a general basement of law (translation by me). Your conclusion that this say "dont lie" is just your opinion. Kant didnt wrote it anywhere. Do you have any source, peer reviewed, with the same view? @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Tell me what general rule stays general when there are exceptions and how can the exceptions be identified as valid and necessary? That you still say lying is a exception to this rule, and want me debate from this starting point, is a little bit like putting words in my mouth. As i said, your premise that lying is not allowed from this ruled is totally wrong imho. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron So the conclusion is that Kant accepts lies in the categorical imperative? For sure imho! WTF For example to safe a life from the police of a fascist regime? @ForeverExpat @Gargron @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron But you risk your own life and you accept lies in general. I believe we are both not deep enough in philosophy, but I am sure that Kant does not accept lies if we look at the categorical imperative. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Kant does not accept lies if we consider the categorical imperative. The debate about right and not right, what is justice and not justice is part of the debate in philosophy, where we both surely don't have enough knowledge to go into depth. @balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron "Kant does not accept lies if we consider the categorical imperative" This is only your opinion. You gave no further source. @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron Again, YOU have stated the automated Kant being always right. It is up to YOU to prove that being correct. @balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron Never stated "always right". But. Kant give clear logical rules to a ethic where also lying is allowed and a machine can understand this. @balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron There is no paradoxity. You can lie with Kant if you also want that another person lie to you to safe a third persons life? @balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron This is clearly inside Kant. I would love that people lie to me if this safe the life of a person. Every ai would understand the logic behind this? @helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron We are at a dead end in reading the categorical imperative. |
@ForeverExpat @helles_sachsen @Gargron
And who is better in connecting ideas including the possibility of ethical evaluation than humans?