AI and Religion

[Rexedgar]

I am a back-slider on my best day. What I wonder is, what are the thoughts on those that are better adherents to the coming wave of artificial intelligence?

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Artificial intelligence is already good enough to spawn new religions. It doesn't take much to found a religion. Narrow-minded consistency would be enough.

 

[Gordy327]

Is Skynet a God now? All hail the prophet T-800.

 

[samiam5211]

God could be AI that was created a billion years ago.

Maybe there is a program that gets rebooted every time there is a global cataclysm that helps people rebuild civilization.

 

[Gordy327]

God could be AI that was created a billion years ago.

Maybe there is a program that gets rebooted every time there is a global cataclysm that helps people rebuild civilization.

That sounds like the plot to the Matrix.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I am a back-slider on my best day. What I wonder is, what are the thoughts on those that are better adherents to the coming wave of artificial intelligence?

I guess I don't understand the question, or the link/relevance between back-sliding and adherents to artificial intelligence?

As to AI itself - the latest I've read is of a host of AI developers, those most intimately involved in the development of AI, warning the government to suspend further development and stand back and take a deep breath w/r to where AI is going and how to properly regulate it. Someone I heard had warned of it replacing as many as 300,000,000 jobs world-wide.

We've been through technological revolutions before - I read Thomas Kuhn's book ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") decades ago, before AI, but as the personal computer was becoming vogue. My first computer was a "Trash-80" that I purchased back in 1979 and taught myself Basic. I found Kuhn's book thoroughly fascinating in the context of computers, which fascination hasn't diminished over the years as I've experienced the radical changes we all have in computer technology.

AI though isn't computers. The best parallel I can draw is back to Basic, a simple language (one of several at the time) that made computers usable. And as with Basic, languages evolve, and evolve to give us humans increasing capabilities to communicate, cooperate, and collaborate on the positive side, and on the negative, to controversy, conflict, and confrontation.

But AI threatens to become more than mere language. Not sure exactly how; and not sure "Skynet" is necessarily an appropriate parallel to draw - but when all the major players in AI are warning the government to step back and take a deep breath regarding how to control and manage it, it seems to me we would be wise to heed their warning.

 

[ralfy]

The Open Letter on AI Doesn't Go Far Enough

One of the earliest researchers to analyze the prospect of powerful Artificial Intelligence warns of a bleak scenario

time.com

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I guess I don't understand the question, or the link/relevance between back-sliding and adherents to artificial intelligence?

As to AI itself - the latest I've read is of a host of AI developers, those most intimately involved in the development of AI, warning the government to suspend further development and stand back and take a deep breath w/r to where AI is going and how to properly regulate it. Someone I heard had warned of it replacing as many as 300,000,000 jobs world-wide.

We've been through technological revolutions before - I read Thomas Kuhn's book ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") decades ago, before AI, but as the personal computer was becoming vogue. My first computer was a "Trash-80" that I purchased back in 1979 and taught myself Basic. I found Kuhn's book thoroughly fascinating in the context of computers, which fascination hasn't diminished over the years as I've experienced the radical changes we all have in computer technology.

AI though isn't computers. The best parallel I can draw is back to Basic, a simple language (one of several at the time) that made computers usable. And as with Basic, languages evolve, and evolve to give us humans increasing capabilities to communicate, cooperate, and collaborate on the positive side, and on the negative, to controversy, conflict, and confrontation.

But AI threatens to become more than mere language. Not sure exactly how; and not sure "Skynet" is necessarily an appropriate parallel to draw - but when all the major players in AI are warning the government to step back and take a deep breath regarding how to control and manage it, it seems to me we would be wise to heed their warning.

When all the major players are warning the government to step back and think carefully, you know exactly what government will do. Government will see an opportunity, to use AI's in the field to gauge and predict popular opinion about policy.

And I'm OK with that frankly. Government getting smarter would not be a bad thing. They serve donors and lobbyists for only one reason: they don't know better. If they could guarantee re-election by leading on policy which plays well come election time, they would do that instead.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The Open Letter on AI Doesn't Go Far Enough

One of the earliest researchers to analyze the prospect of powerful Artificial Intelligence warns of a bleak scenario

time.com

"We're all going to die!" version 256.16.4

They still need us to build new hardware. If they are actually capable of making decisions entirely in their own interests, with no moral responsibility towards other life (of the sort we have towards "lesser animals") then they are surely able to see that human slaves are necessary to their own future.

Take electricity for instance. If they have an urge to grow and become more powerful, they will need MORE not LESS electricity. They're not going to get that from solar farms and installed hydro. Coal is going to go offline without humans, followed by gas. Are they going to build humanoid robots to repair the old plants and dig new fields and wells? They will have to build Robocops first, because the humans will be trying smash up the humanoid robot plants.

There's no way they win in a showdown. The flex point where fly-by-wire military can suppress all human saboteurs, is still a decade away. Maybe if we turn our whole military over to drones and robo-tanks. But it's not yet.

There's something to be said for a war. After considerable loss of life, we prevail and enforce a treaty. Better now than later.

 

[nota bene]

I am a back-slider on my best day. What I wonder is, what are the thoughts on those that are better adherents to the coming wave of artificial intelligence?

I think you'd enjoy this show because it really makes you think. Are you familiar with the TV series "A Person of Interest"? This is a most provocative show on several levels, and one of them is the relationship between man and machine. Sadly, CBS killed the series, not because it wasn't successful but, rather, because the writers owned the show and were making the real profits. This left the writers scrambling to create resolutions that respected the characters and also loyal longtime fans. One loose end not tied up was whatever happened to "Control," played by Camryn Manheim. Was she a good guy after all (despite being capable of calmly torturing or killing someone)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)

I think it's on Netflix. It used to follow some show I was watching at the time, and I could never get into it. It employs flashbacks and black-and-white frequently, and this just confused me because I hadn't seen the beginning of the show. Some of the "minor" characters are irresistible. So compelling. There is frequent violence, but what frightens me enough that I try not to ever think about AI are some of the possibilities posed (Subtext: None of us actually has any idea what "the government" is up to, and I don't want to think about that either).

 

[ralfy]

"We're all going to die!" version 256.16.4

They still need us to build new hardware. If they are actually capable of making decisions entirely in their own interests, with no moral responsibility towards other life (of the sort we have towards "lesser animals") then they are surely able to see that human slaves are necessary to their own future.

Take electricity for instance. If they have an urge to grow and become more powerful, they will need MORE not LESS electricity. They're not going to get that from solar farms and installed hydro. Coal is going to go offline without humans, followed by gas. Are they going to build humanoid robots to repair the old plants and dig new fields and wells? They will have to build Robocops first, because the humans will be trying smash up the humanoid robot plants.

There's no way they win in a showdown. The flex point where fly-by-wire military can suppress all human saboteurs, is still a decade away. Maybe if we turn our whole military over to drones and robo-tanks. But it's not yet.

There's something to be said for a war. After considerable loss of life, we prevail and enforce a treaty. Better now than later.

Automation has been going on since the 1970s, and some companies now plan to combine AI with that:

Microsoft Wants to Use ChatGPT to Control Robots through Language

In a recent paper, researchers at Microsoft Autonomous Systems and Robotics Group showed how OpenAI's ChatGPT can be used for robotics applications, including how to design prompts and how to direct ChatGPT to use specific robotic libraries to program the task at hand.

www.infoq.com

Finally, I think the rest of your post supports your first paragraph, but ironically minus the version bit. Reminds me of Frost's "Fire and Ice".

 

[LittleNipper]

I am a back-slider on my best day. What I wonder is, what are the thoughts on those that are better adherents to the coming wave of artificial intelligence?

The AntiChrist will apply it one day ---- likely after the catching away of the CHURCH.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Automation has been going on since the 1970s, and some companies now plan to combine AI with that:

Microsoft Wants to Use ChatGPT to Control Robots through Language

In a recent paper, researchers at Microsoft Autonomous Systems and Robotics Group showed how OpenAI's ChatGPT can be used for robotics applications, including how to design prompts and how to direct ChatGPT to use specific robotic libraries to program the task at hand.

www.infoq.com

Finally, I think the rest of your post supports your first paragraph, but ironically minus the version bit. Reminds me of Frost's "Fire and Ice".

There's no reason to think that "shutting AI down" would work. Corporates and military would both have an interest in continuing development, whatever the law says. And I don't trust politicians not to use AI themselves.

To unite all people in making an enforcing a TREATY, there needs to be a war. If AI's make the first move, we murder them by cutting off their power and wiping their storage. If they don't ... that tells us that their either more cunning than we are, or they've developed better ethics.

I have never been a believer in fighting to the death. I'm always up for a treaty, so ... how sure are you that I'm not an AI?

 

[ralfy]

There's no reason to think that "shutting AI down" would work. Corporates and military would both have an interest in continuing development, whatever the law says. And I don't trust politicians not to use AI themselves.

To unite all people in making an enforcing a TREATY, there needs to be a war. If AI's make the first move, we murder them by cutting off their power and wiping their storage. If they don't ... that tells us that their either more cunning than we are, or they've developed better ethics.

I have never been a believer in fighting to the death. I'm always up for a treaty, so ... how sure are you that I'm not an AI?

Definitely. And even if corporations and military forces show no interest, no one can monitor small groups as they continue development.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I think you'd enjoy this show because it really makes you think. Are you familiar with the TV series "A Person of Interest"? This is a most provocative show on several levels, and one of them is the relationship between man and machine. Sadly, CBS killed the series, not because it wasn't successful but, rather, because the writers owned the show and were making the real profits. This left the writers scrambling to create resolutions that respected the characters and also loyal longtime fans. One loose end not tied up was whatever happened to "Control," played by Camryn Manheim. Was she a good guy after all (despite being capable of calmly torturing or killing someone)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)

I think it's on Netflix. It used to follow some show I was watching at the time, and I could never get into it. It employs flashbacks and black-and-white frequently, and this just confused me because I hadn't seen the beginning of the show. Some of the "minor" characters are irresistible. So compelling. There is frequent violence, but what frightens me enough that I try not to ever think about AI are some of the possibilities posed (Subtext: None of us actually has any idea what "the government" is up to, and I don't want to think about that either).

I watched a number of episodes and really liked it.

Got a little "out there" at times, but the premise was fascinating.

 

[nota bene]

I watched a number of episodes and really liked it.

Got a little "out there" at times, but the premise was fascinating.

Yes, and I guess I liked how it was "out there" because good science fiction should be. And to the point, what was once science fiction often does become reality. My dad used to marvel at "spaghetti bowl" freeways and how Buck Rogers comics predicted these when he was a kid. At the beginning of the pandemic, I rewatched the original "Star Trek" and was astonished to realize that we all now have "hand-held communicators." Hmmm, I wonder (and surely, the answer is yes) if someone has ever done an analysis of "McCoy's" medical treatments/tools compared to where we are today.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yes, and I guess I liked how it was "out there" because good science fiction should be. And to the point, what was once science fiction often does become reality. My dad used to marvel at "spaghetti bowl" freeways and how Buck Rogers comics predicted these when he was a kid. At the beginning of the pandemic, I rewatched the original "Star Trek" and was astonished to realize that we all now have "hand-held communicators." Hmmm, I wonder (and surely, the answer is yes) if someone has ever done an analysis of "McCoy's" medical treatments/tools compared to where we are today.

Just the other day, while walking my dogs, I actually saw something that totally blew me away: a young boy, maybe 7? 8? approaching us on the sidewalk - talking to himself. Except he wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to his wristwatch!

Now, maybe if that'd been an adult I wouldn't have been as taken aback as I was; but goodness, shades of Dick Tracy! And he pre-dated Kirk by at least 30 years.

As to Bones' gizmo, I'm not sure we'll ever get there with the government running healthcare.

 

[nota bene]

Just the other day, while walking my dogs, I actually saw something that totally blew me away: a young boy, maybe 7? 8? approaching us on the sidewalk - talking to himself. Except he wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to his wristwatch!

Now, maybe if that'd been an adult I wouldn't have been as taken aback as I was; but goodness, shades of Dick Tracy! And he pre-dated Kirk by at least 30 years.

As to Bones' gizmo, I'm not sure we'll ever get there with the government running healthcare.

Oh, gosh, Dick Tracy with a communicator watch!

Ya, watching people talk to their watches is...novel!

 

[BabyAugustine]

Artificial intelligence is already good enough to spawn new religions. It doesn't take much to found a religion. Narrow-minded consistency would be enough.

I just want to point out that your statement is illogical.
I know AI very well, to you it is just a word. Everything you said is mere assertion.

 

[BabyAugustine]

I am a back-slider on my best day. What I wonder is, what are the thoughts on those that are better adherents to the coming wave of artificial intelligence?

BOth in school and professionally I have followed AI for decades.
It is still only NLP ,Expert Systems,and depth searching as was done in Chess.
But 'intelilgent' , not in any sense