The myth that society is getting better

I certainly see your point here, and I understand the rest of your argument well. Thank you for taking the time to consider my own thought experiments and examples and for responding to them so clearly. You've definitely got me thinking about these issues, which is really cool

Having said all of that, how do you think we ought to go about strikink a balance between keeping our machines subservient to ourselves while also increasing their ability to solve more and more complex problems? Or is that even a goal worth achieving?

 

I would say we have to dampen the degree to which artificial intelligence resembles anything like human consciousness, unfortunately (not so unfortunate, though, all possibilities considered). Sophistication is fine; I would say don't worry about how faster, more adaptable, more endurable or "smarter" the machine is, as long as it obeys the basic rules of computer programming we have seen thus far. Basically, all technologically intelligent interfaces should function in a hardware-to-terminal-to-user capacity. This seems perfectly fine for use by neurosurgeons, engineers and the like.

Human beings cannot afford, in an evolutionary sense, to allow "conscious" machines to facilitate the majority of aspects of their daily lives, because that presents the danger of machines selecting all behavior and physical labor that positively benefits their own technological "genetic identity." So, as long the machine never crosses the threshold of preferring, wondering or anything of the sort, I say we are okay.

A computer today does not care if you download a science book or a software-corrupting virus: it does not "prefer" to not have a virus downloaded. It will simply process anything it is given, void of any feelings whatsoever. Of course, you can program the computer to block certain things and have priorities -- you could even program it to say "Please don't ruin me with viruses, sir/madam" -- but there nothing "conscious" there. It acts as it is programmed to act.

I would say "machines working like machines" is the best thing we can hope for.

Now, the real issue is convincing people to adopt the responsibility of emerging technologies. A.I. is a dangerous dream because it substitutes practical drive in humans with convenience and a lack of struggle. I've answered here, in this thread, that it is wonderful to have so much innovation in human existence. However, we do need some degree of challenge to continue to be viable -- from an evolutionary standpoint -- within our environment. I would say that degree of challenge rests somewhere between living in caves, fighting off sabre-tooth tigers, to granting computers the level of consciousness that gives them a way to prioritize machine functionality over human concerns... with the latter scenario leading us to a distinct possibility of becoming "biological batteries" for the continued advancement of A.I. "organisms."

If the general lean of a technologically-influenced society becomes so that they believe A.I. consciousness is better than human consciousness, I would say abandon all progress in that society. Dramatic, I know, but until I see a reasoning that satisfies these potential outcomes, I must err on the side of my fellow life-forms' survival.

A.I. consciousness, and any manipulation of our genetic makeup with "smart" technology, is a bridge that, once crossed, will crumble behind us. Modern technology is still in an upswing trajectory, and there is a reason that so much of science-fiction regards such rising progress as "the great burden of mankind."

 

The original poster makes some great points. There can be no doubt life expectancy is higher. Infant mortality is lower. People don't die of accidents nearly as often. (which goes a long way towards the 'higher' life expectancy because stillborn children in the USA are counted as 'zero' on the life expectancy chart. Other nations count differently, Japan doesn't count their war dead, for example, which would put them lower than the USA if they did count them. Accidents remain the USA's third overall killer. It's not so much cancer going up as it is accidents going down.)

There's no doubt we are more wealthy than ever. Cell phones, cars, tv's, etc. Trips to the beach MIGHT have meant a towel and a plastic bucket and shovel to play with 70 years ago. Today it's portable awnings, beach chairs, TV's, stereos, grills, etc. Literally a portable living room.

BUT, teen suicide rates are much higher than 70 years ago. (nearly four times, depending on which chart you believe. The stats vary widely, so I didn't post them here.) Somehow the violent crime rate (USA) more than doubled from 1960 to 2005.

My family home never used to lock its door when I was a kid. Today there are bars on its windows.

I dunno, some say life is better. Some say it's worse. To me, the decency rate has plummeted.

We are richer. But are we happier?

David

 

I used to work as risk management consultant for one of the oldest insurance companies in the World and all I can say, we will be extremely lucky if we die, before shit hits the fan. Exponential growth of consumption and population (we're using cca 1.7x earth's renewable capabilities per annum now) on limited planet, inevitably lead to collapse of ecosystems we depend on and end of complex civilization as we know it. I hope I won't be around anymore when it happens. According to 'our' study it could unfortunately happen as soon as 2050
https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-ris...ibrary/society-and-security/food-system-shock

‎If anyone is interested in global picture, here's a presentation of Sir John Beddington, former chief science advisor of British government. We all needed a strong drink after his speech:

 

Thank you for citing actual studies on this. Therefore, I take what you say seriously.

However, so far 100% of the "Malthusian" predictions of us running out of resources have been wrong. Can you suggest why this study from Lloyds may be different?

The petrol in my car was supposed to have run out decades ago.

 

Yeah, I agree with you on all of this. The sort of A.I. I dream about us having access to is the sort of A.I. that can reason like a human being (albeit, faster and more efficiently), but has its domain of things to reason about restricted to a finite number of particular areas of focus (say, a chess computer, or a computer that calculates trajectories for rockets, or a computer that can prove unexplored mathematical theorems). I think those sorts of machines would be incredibly useful to us, without there being a threat for them to start using us. I can definitely understand your concerns about the role an A.I. similar to humans in terms of survival instinct would play in the evolutionary playing field.

 

There's also a very real possibility that we are already well over that aforementioned bridge, in terms of where our advances in tech will lead us. It may be enough that a slippery slope of sophisticated machines in the present will inevitably lead to a desire for "conscious" machinery to be integrated into human life. By the time the scientific community finally becomes candid with the general public about the real choices that societies face, it could very well be that the crucial aspects of those choices have already been decided.

But, there are two bright sides: 1) we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, so there is still time to orient the conversation toward how we should approach the idea -- and that can be done by speaking with everyday people; 2) such a competition between humanity and conscious artificial intelligence, as have been discussed here, will actually take quite a while to manifest. However, that does not mean we should be complacent, it only means that time, what little of it there is (and what little difference it can make), is relatively on our side.

So, go ahead and enjoy watching Netflix on that 4k HD Smart Television... just keep a close eye on it whenever it "recommends" something new to watch...

 

I think you're looking at things too black and white. Everything has pros and cons. Technology is not the only thing that has changed. Social liberties, racist and sexism are less of an issue as they have ever been in everyday life even though media makes it seem like its a huge issue. I'd rather live here in today where I don't get discriminated for my ethnic background like I would in the past.

People can still get married young and get jobs without degrees and spend time with actual people without screens. It sounds like YOU specifically are spending too much time on the computer that it has warped your reality.

Sounds like a pretty sick deal to not have to worry about dieing to illness, and starving. In the last 10 years I feel like my city has opened so many new restaurants with good food to eat I don't have enough time to go try them all with friends.

I think social media like twitter/facebook/instagram is toxic technology that unfortunately is mainstream but it's not something that consumes everyone. But it's undeniable its a really useful way to keep in touch with people that move away.

You sound bitter, and rejected by society. Maybe you should try to adapt and find somewhere that fits what you want instead of giving up and writing it all off as a dump.

 

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. Population has been growing exponentially. Especially consumption per capita in developed world. As a result, we have been consuming resources such as food, water, coal, oil and natural gas at exponential rates. Our current lifestyle absolutely depends on exponential growth of our economy. In fact, the definition of an economic recession is when we experience more than three consecutive quarters without exponential growth. But, we live on a finite planet and the exponential consumption of finite resources is not sustainable. We're overshooting planet's self healing ability by aprox 70 % right now. Every species that growths exponentially sooner or later destroys its habitat and nose dive in numbers or go extinct. Sixth mass extinction of complex life forms has already begun. According to WWF earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years. Why do humans still think we are not standing in the same line? Global temperatures are rising, we don't know exactly where tipping points lay, but we know they are there and once we crossed them earth's atmosphere enters in new equilibrium state, which most probably can't sustain current complex life forms. Humans can live in a very narrow temperature range, historical range of earth's temperatures are way wider, then what we can survive. All models predict that if we hit 3-4 C (6-8 K) temperature rise above preindustrial period (we have risen temperature around 0.9-1.2 C already), complex civilization will become unsustainable. Food and water shocks will ignite conflicts on global scale. Most models predict we will destroy ourselves in conflicts well before temperatures rise to completely unsustainable levels in 2080-2150. Pledges from Paris climate change accord are realistically leading us to 3-4 C rise by 2100. Above 4 C no serious scientist will say compex civilization as a whole can survive. If we stay on current trajectory, we or at least or children are basically f...d.

PS Your car was not destined to run out of gas anytime soon, but it is already running on pricier and pricier gas, as ROI (return over investment) is running lower and lower.

 

Thanks Hopless. I very much appreciate your sincere and carefully written response. I humbly suggest that you consider two things: First, despite the apparent logic of your writing, predictions of "running out" have always been wrong. So these analyses are clearly missing something. Second, keep in mind that the "exponential" (the correct word is geometric in this case) increase in usage due to geometric population growth is similarly met with an "exponential" (non linear) growth in our ability to create useful resources. You can't assume population and consumption grows exponentially but that there is a finite amount of resources on the globe. The fact is, there is more energy on this planet than we could EVER conceivably use. (Remember, Energy = Mass X speed of light squared)

The "end" may be near, but it won't be because we run out of food and fuel. We are far more likely to kill and poison one another first.

Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus? He made the same argument you are making back in 1798.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have never been violated by humans, not even for a millisecond. Just like the law of gravity, they just exist as something we can either pay attention to, or not. Our choice. But they cannot be violated. At least, they haven't yet; so betting on a future where such laws have been repealed by human ingenuity would not be, shall we say, a sound wager.

 

One of the things that is making me depressed is, hearing from some of the top scientists, I had a privilege to meet and learn from, like prof. Kevin Anderson and dr. Peter Wadhams saying to me over a drink, we are basically f...ed. If we manage to somehow survive 21st century, 22nd will see the end of us. No complex life can survive 8-16 K degrees of warming. Even pope Francis wrote encyclical about if after debating climate change and biodiversity lost with some of the top climate scientist from PIK institute and Vatican academy.

How can people be so blind to worry more what clothes they wear and where will they spend their holidays, then about their children and grandchildren being sentences to death sentence by our collective actions today?

 

I fully agree with your statement. The laws of physics cannot be violated by we humans. Never have, and never will.

I still believe there is a factor involved that's difficult for us to understand. Man has predicted his end for thousands of years. Yet we are still here. Yet we appear to enjoy more resources than ever. I agree that the earth is a closed system and logical to think of it as a finite resource. Perhaps we are both right: There IS an end of the party. But maybe it's just much farther away than we understand. At least we delay the end via ingenuity.

One thing I wish to emphasize: I really like how you make your points. Engaging with a serious thinker like you helps me so much on this journey. So a hearty "Thank you".

David

 

70 years ago I had no right to marry or live openly. So I'll take 2018.

Humans are always going to have problems. Cheating rates were through the roof back then, we got into crazy wars and some people were downright awful to other human beings.

Life is really about what you do with it. There are good people out there and great opportunities. You won't find them if you're focused on the bad.