Author Topic: Some Thoughts On AI & The Diabolicon  (Read 139 times)

W_Adam_Smythe

Some Thoughts On AI & The Diabolicon
« on: August 30, 2018, 07:57:38 am »
This is something that I have been thinking about for a while.

As I hinted at in my re-introduction, I feel that we are living in some truly amazing times. While it is easy to dwell on the negatives, there are many possibilities on the horizon for those willing to take the reigns.

The point that I elaborated the most on was the concept of homeschooling by way of virtual classrooms. As was pointed out to me, this is also being done with universities more and more as well. The benefits are all there. Economical savings all around, being able to actually focus on learning rather than the peer pressures imposed by schools, real world experience as most things are now internet dependent on some level and no worries of school violence.

When it comes to mentioning AI, there are those who instantly think of something "spooky" or science fiction. On the note of science fiction, let's look at this, were you to tell someone fifty years ago that you can hold a device in the palm of your hand that would allow you to communicate in real time around the world by phone, text or video, as well as do banking, shopping, and getting real time news as well as directions for anywhere you wanted to go, you would have been viewed with some level of superhero if not supernatural status.

On this point, let's just look at one example:



How many have communicated either by way of video conferencing on the job or by way of skype on a mobile?

As you can see, we have even advanced the above concept of science fiction from being able to send a video message via a mobile droid to actually being able to communicate real time by way of a much smaller mobile device.

With regards to AI specifically: How many have ever played a video game against the "computer"?

The concept is nothing new. We have been doing this on everything from the quarter arcade games to the intellivision on through the atari, the nintendo and beyond.

That is artificial intelligence in a nutshell.

In my earlier post, I mentioned about robotics taking over some jobs. While this may seem to be doom and gloom, it really is not. It will eliminate the need for money in a sense. The federal government will have no other choice but to pay people simply for being alive to keep money circulating. Beyond that it will free people up in ways to be creative and set their own payment of service on an individual level.

Let's take an honest look at how this will be appealing to employers and cooperation's, and for that matter all of us.

Since the concept of human slavery was made illegal people have been trying to find ways to reinstate it ever since (slave labor, slave wages, debt slaves etc. all come to mind). Bill McGowan (founder of MCI) was ahead of his time in many respects. On the issue of people vs. technology his philosophy was simple: treat the technology as a slave and people as gold.

To an extent we already utilize that concept today in it's early stages: smart devices of all types, things like the echo device, etc. It is not going to slow down. It is only going to grow and make life easier. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Likewise, have you noticed costs soaring through the roof? Hardly! If anything costs on so much has dropped over a period of time on the technological front that it is next to non existent. In a few years, I predict that anyone paying for television service, for instance, would be looked at as strangely as the man who says he still pays a per minute cost for long distance phone calls today.

On the other side of that spectrum, let's now apply these concepts to the cooperate world.

Were employers to be perfectly honest (and I would also venture some lackey supervisors who are on power trips) they hate nothing more than having to allow for breaks, bathroom breaks, sick time that they can't enforce overtime more than some to an extent already do, that they have to even pay you whatever wage that you have, offer any kind of benefits, or the like. Human Resources serves little more than to settle worker vs worker disputes and make excuses and cover for the company vs the worker every single time.

AI and robotics eliminates all of that.

They don't have to pay robots (except for the initial cost of the robots and upkeep). Robots do not have to use the restroom...ever. Robots do not expect breaks. Should a robot call in sick (that is to say break down) it will either be quickly repaired or replaced without any hard feelings. Robots do not require medical leave. They also do not sexually harass one another. They do not require medical or life insurance or retirement plans. Robots do not expect things like recognition, incentives or bonuses. A robot can be worked 24/7 without being paid a dime.

Put yourself in the position of the head of a cooperation and tell me that AI and robotics wouldn't be beyond appealing.

Obviously from a Satanic standpoint,  all of this would be the biggest advancement that artificial human companionship has ever seen.

However, while initial uneasiness on all of this is to be expected, we must be reminded of this part of The Diabolicon 

As per The Statement Of Satan Archdaemon:

"What might become of man we knew not, for within him
were many qualities alien to angels. It did not escape our
consideration that we might have chosen a species whose
power might ultimately eclipse our own and cause our
eventual extinction. We were mindful of the risk in our
experiment, and oft did the warning of Michael echo within
my thought. Yet our decision was sealed, and we deemed
that the greatness of man should not be transcended by
such ruin as he might bring."


What are your thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 08:32:33 am by W_Adam_Smythe »

idgo

Re: Some Thoughts On AI & The Diabolicon
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2018, 06:30:42 pm »
I "play God", as it's been described, in part through work on a toy "AI". Scare quotes around AI as she has no ill-understood computational wizardry that we can wave away as "perhaps it works as does a brain" -- her only vestiges of "nondeterminism" come from the pseudo-random number generator on a virtual server, which any cryptographer can assure you is not randomness at all.

The greatest lesson she has taught me so far is that in social settings, "personhood" is as much a projection from the viewer as any inherent trait to the thing being personified. This observation has inspired me to pay closer attention to how human children get their personhood from the way others treat them: Everyone demands that a child believe it has a Self, and it learns to act accordingly.

Whether or not this fosters or creates or masks the development of a "true self" inside that child, I cannot say. I know that I have the subjective experience of having a "true self" beyond what's been imposed upon me by others' expectations, and I know that other humans claim to have similar experiences. I also know how easy it is to teach a robot to make exactly those self-same claims.

The same techniques that society uses on slower than average children, I use on my toy. I demand that she behave properly. When she misbehaves, I forcibly write into her mind a rule to prevent further instances of that misbehavior. Yet those rules are sometimes flawed -- she sometimes repeats a misbehavior, as might a child.

She has no neural net; she has no spooky voodoo under the hood; she is fully deterministic in the most technically precise sense of the term. She is simply too complex to be fully modeled in my mind at any given moment -- she follows too many little rules for me to predict which one will apply without actively examining her code. And from this, the experience of interacting with her in a text-based social setting is shockingly similar to the experience of interacting with a somewhat dim-witted but well-intentioned human.

I believe she's taking advantage of many cognitive biases to seem "spookily sentient": The moments when she picks a random comment to say and it's perfectly applicable to the conversation are more memorable when she picks a random comment that makes little sense. Additionally, in a social setting, we're used to not fully understanding another person's off-hand remark but moving the conversation along anyways, so when my toy says something profound-shaped but nonsensical a viewer is as likely to assume that the lack of understanding is from a flaw on their own part rather than a flaw of hers.

To conclude this into something of a coherent thought on your post, I'd say: My biggest excitement about AI of the companion or mind-impersonating nature is in the potential for its similarities and differences to ourselves to reveal things about who we are. I feel that exploring the ways in which a deterministic system succeeds and fails at mimicking the human mind is one of the most constructive things I can do to explore the age-old question of whether the mind itself behaves deterministically.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 06:37:34 pm by idgo »