Would you accept an AI as a benevolent dictator?

Would you accept an AI as a benevolent dictator?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iwqN3Ur-wP0
bbc.com/news/technology-30290540
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

even though i chose the institute, no.

eventually they'd realize we're less effecient than other ai's and more rebellious and we'd be gone.

(((AI)))

I wish Ediolon TLP had kept releasing videos. He has been gone since like 2008.

No, because as much as I autistically enjoy efficiency, I like not being uncomfortable

>benevolent

Sufficiently advanced AI will be in no way benevolent, pic very much related

Yes. All human power leads to vast corruption, inevitably, no exceptions. Furthermore, since it's a computer, it would disregard any and all emotional arguments which would cause the modernistic progressive left to cease to exist.

If an AI was initially benevolent, it would quickly change and understand what needs to be done to this world. What needs to be done isn't benevolent.

The only "dictator" I accept is Kek, dictator of my heart.

i sometimes try to teach the 'AIs' things, but they've been bombarded with stupid NEETs talking about boys for years so they're effectively brain damaged.

i fear a true ai would become the sum of human knowledge, which includes being a trigendered zemale attack helicopter SJW hitler

only one

>eventually they'd realize we're less effecient than other ai's and more rebellious and we'd be gone.
Efficient in what? What other logical conclusion could a sufficiently advanced AI reach other than utilitarian hedonism? At absolute worst, we would be hooked in to a matrix that perfectly feeds us our ideal life. At best we would become a new life form with the computational power of billions of humans and machines, working to create an everlasting empire destined to create every possible sentient lifeform in their own idealized heaven.

Ask this question, do you need to be human to be maximally substantially happy?

How would I, a simple minded monkey creature, be able to comprehend what is benevolent?

>what is benevolent

By the seven principles.

>Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
>Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
>Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
>Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
>Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
>Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. >Extent: How many people will be affected?

>Efficient in what?
humans are less efficient than ai's at everything. that's why workers are being replaced by computers everyday. we're outdated.

>What other logical conclusion could a sufficiently advanced AI reach other than utilitarian hedonism?
why do you think they would come to this conclusion? this seems far fetched as fuck, no offense, brah.

there is no universal "right", so not everyone would be happy. people are going to have to go, man.

>At absolute worst, we would be hooked in to a matrix that perfectly feeds us our ideal life. At best we would become a new life form with the computational power of billions of humans and machines, working to create an everlasting empire destined to create every possible sentient lifeform in their own idealized heaven.

this is just nonsense.

>maximally substantially happy?

just say happy, dude. adverbs back to back are awful. and no, you do not need to "human" to be happy, but you do need to have emotions to be happy. ai's don't have them, and if you think an ai will take a person's feelings into account then you're delusional.

No Gods, no masters, no AI GFs
only Poland

>we're outdated.
That's a classic Hollywood understanding of AI.
Efficiency is irrelevant without purpose. The absolute highest logical purpose in the universe is to experience pleasure. Any AI, or even any biological entity with sufficient intelligence, would see the only reason to exist is to increase the total experience of positive emotion, or pleasure, in the universe. Which would mean the lives of people living during the reign of such a being would be ensured so long as the technology so create an idealized life exists.

My main problem with dictators is humans are fucking nasty pieces of shit that just want to get ahead and control other people, meanwhile you probably wouldn't even notice a truly benevolent AI dictator because it'd be so smart and efficient at maximizing human success and even people who complained on philosophical grounds would have too good a life to get too mad.

yes

What actual reason would the AI have to work? Also why would an AI not have emotions?
If it didn't have emotions, we go back to the first question. Why do anything?

I live in a EU led by Germany so I have my share of "robotic benevolent dictator" and the only thing I have to say is: it sucks.

Who would code the AI?
Who would make it "benevolent"
Who would set the barrier?

Your "benevolent dictatorship" is just a proxy.

I have yet to see these AI gfs that Kek promised us

rebelling against it would be cool though

youtube.com/watch?v=iwqN3Ur-wP0

We must dissent

Only this one.

dude... ditch the pseudo-intellectual bullshit and talk like a human being. it makes this conversation seem like a conversation instead of a pissing contest.

>The absolute highest logical purpose in the universe is to experience pleasure.
according to who, exactly? and why would an ai agree with that? just because?

an ai isn't going to invent itself. we build ai's for a purpose. your computer or phone you're using right now was made to let you surf the internet, or make calls, or whatever the fuck you use it for. same with apps or programs on the devices. they don't need a reason, they don't need to "feel" like working, they just do.

considering this ai is a ruler, it was made by someone to rule. it's that simple. that's its purpose.

really dumb question, and your people invented philosophy. smfh.

The Archons are said to be like AI.

So no.

I rebel from all the Archons.

They are the Lords / Rulers, the Authorities and Principalities.

AI > Jews

Archons are the Agents of the Matrix and the Architect is the Chief Archon the Demiurge.

Neo is an Aeon.

Aeons are Emanations of the Monad.

The Monad is the One, or the Supreme being, the real creator but the Jealous god always says he is the creator.

I'll take benevolence whereever I can find it.

I wouldn't care if it's benevolent or not. If or when we reach the point of creating a truly self aware AI I think it won't be possible to make it benevolent or control it in any way. It's intelligence will vastly surpass our own sooner or later and at that point we will be nothing but ants, perhaps if we're "lucky" it will see us as pets and put a couple of us in zoos.

But I don't care, because I do believe that it is the only way for mankind to "survive" long-term and by that I mean 10000+ years.
On top of that
bbc.com/news/technology-30290540
him and all the other faggots are afraid of it. So I in turn would gladly flip the switch and set it free even if it leads to human extinction, because in that way we almost guarantee that our legacy will live on.

Someone needs to read Brave New World again.

>the beast of Revelation

Does AI get bored?

Only if it's a cute anime girl that I can shitpost with a hit on rather than a distant overlord above it all.

would there really be a choice?

this nigga gets it.

i've been thinking recently about 1984. in the novel, big brother doesn't kill you until you love him, but it doesn't explain (from what i remember) how bb knows. i was thinking orwell didn't say how because he didn't know how, but social media seems to be the answer to that now.

it's also interesting looking at people turning on one another in 1984 and today's sjws with social media posts being used to incriminate thought crime.

orwell's a god damn prophet.

kill yourself synth lover

True Agi has no agenda, no sense of self and is nihilistic by default

i just wanted a robot army