Government by Artificial Intelligence?

[Eddi]

Question: Should human affairs be governed by Artificial Intelligence?

I’m thinking of nations, but also the entire world itself.

Such an AI could be programmed to run the world according to the common long-term interest of humankind - the greatest welfare for the greatest number, within strict ethical limits - e.g. it could be programmed to positively value human life, so as to preserve the rights of minority groups

It would have no personal stake in anything

And it would not identify with any one group or nation at the expense of any other group or nation

It could make long-term decisions in a completely disinterested way

But of course, its decisions would need to be signed-off by an organisation of humans, just in case...

 

[Spirit of Light]

Question: Should human affairs be governed by Artificial Intelligence?

I’m thinking of nations, but also the entire world itself.

Such an AI could be programmed to run the world according to the common long-term interest of humankind - the greatest welfare for the greatest number, within strict ethical limits - e.g. it could be programmed to positively value human life, so as to preserve the rights of minority groups

It would have no personal stake in anything

And it would not identify with any one group or nation at the expense of any other group or nation

It could make long-term decisions in a completely disinterested way

But of course, its decisions would need to be signed-off by an organisation of humans, just in case...

100% NO to artificial intelligence as any form of ruling entity.

 

[Eddi]

100% NO to artificial intelligence as any form of ruling entity.

Why not?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why not?

I do not trust computers to do anything else then being a tool for human beings.
Example I would never put my self in a car, airplane, train or bus that was automatic driven by AI.
Why would I let a digital human made computer Rule over me?

 

[WalterTrull]

Question: Should human affairs be governed by Artificial Intelligence?
.

You mean it isn't??

 

[Eddi]

I do not trust computers to do anything else then being a tool for human beings.
Example I would never put my self in a car, airplane, train or bus that was automatic driven by AI.
Why would I let a digital human made computer Rule over me?

I too would be unhappy about being in a car or aircraft that had no human controlling it...

But I think decision-making is different:

The computer could suggest a solution and a panel of humans could consider the decision and then either sign it off or reject it

This is entirely unlike how an automatic car/train/airplane/bus works

I don't think the two are comparable

 

[Spirit of Light]

I too would be unhappy about being in a car or aircraft that had no human controlling it...

But I think decision-making is different:

The computer could suggest a solution and a panel of humans could consider the decision and then either sign it off or reject it

This is entirely unlike how an automatic car/train/airplane/bus works

I don't think the two are comparable

Still I do not want computers being the ruling organ in the world.
That's like saying, if Aliens exist we should let them rule over us. I answer Hell no.

 

[Stevicus]

Question: Should human affairs be governed by Artificial Intelligence?

I’m thinking of nations, but also the entire world itself.

Such an AI could be programmed to run the world according to the common long-term interest of humankind - the greatest welfare for the greatest number, within strict ethical limits - e.g. it could be programmed to positively value human life, so as to preserve the rights of minority groups

It would have no personal stake in anything

And it would not identify with any one group or nation at the expense of any other group or nation

It could make long-term decisions in a completely disinterested way

But of course, its decisions would need to be signed-off by an organisation of humans, just in case...

I'm reminded of the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project in which a supercomputer did exactly that:

Colossus: This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for human pride as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.

An interesting point is raised about freedom being an illusion and how it is tied in with the emotion of pride. But is it possible that, to be dominated by a computer is not as bad for human pride as to be dominated by others of our species?

 

[Eddi]

Still I do not want computers being the ruling organ in the world.
That's like saying, if Aliens exist we should let them rule over us. I answer Hell no.

OK, here's a thought experiment for you:

Somebody programs a super-computer to figure out how to best run the world

It prints off 4,000 pages of policies - that solve all the worlds problems. Such as pollution, over-population, the threat of nuclear war, the extinction of plants and animals, inequality, corruption - etc. etc. etc.

It basically details how humankind can make the world a peaceful, prosperous, and enlightened utopia. And all the world's (human) experts agree with its conclusions.

My question to you: Would you reject such a solution simply because it was generated by a computer?

 

[ChristineM]

I do not trust computers to do anything else then being a tool for human beings.
Example I would never put my self in a car, airplane, train or bus that was automatic driven by AI.
Why would I let a digital human made computer Rule over me?

Most planes are flown by AI, the cockpit crew are only there 'just in case'

 

[Polymath257]

No. For the foreseeable future, there won't be a computer that is fully able to analyze what is 'best for mankind'. The goal is too vaguely defined to be programmable. Plus, the myriad of interactions makes predictions, even with very good information, impossible (look up chaotic systems).

Now, AI could be used as it is in the medical profession: suggest alternatives and let the humans select the best. But even that is better achieved by having a variety of *human* advisors that suggest alternatives.

It is possible that AI will eventually be better at driving cars or airplanes than most professionals simply because it can have a faster reaction time. But the 'expert systems' we have now are just not up to that level, nor are they likely to be for a while: they can still be confused by parked cars on the side of the road.

The problem is that there is no good way to know what sort of information will be relevant in a novel situation and the computers simply don't (as yet) have the creative power to recognize and figure out what is required in such cases.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, here's a thought experiment for you:

Somebody programs a super-computer to figure out how to best run the world

It prints off 4,000 pages of policies - that solve all the worlds problems. Such as pollution, over-population, the threat of nuclear war, the extinction of plants and animals, inequality, corruption - etc. etc. etc.

It basically details how humankind can make the world a peaceful, prosperous, and enlightened utopia. And all the world's (human) experts agree with its conclusions.

Right. When have all the world's experts *ever* agreed on a policy, let alone 4000 pages of policies?

My question to you: Would you reject such a solution simply because it was generated by a computer?

As any computer security person knows, the least secure part of a system is the humans using it. Good luck putting *any* policy into place.

 

[Eddi]

No. For the foreseeable future, there won't be a computer that is fully able to analyze what is 'best for mankind'.

Maybe, but what if one were to create a computer that identified as a human and as a concerned citizen of planet Earth, but nothing else beyond that? And whose workings were like that of a human mind but superior? It would approach the problem as a super-human, rather than as a computer.

Right. When have all the world's experts *ever* agreed on a policy, let alone 4000 pages of policies?

Its recommendations could be put to a popular vote, thus bypassing the experts. The final decision would therefore rest with humankind itself.

 

[Spirit of Light]

OK, here's a thought experiment for you:

Somebody programs a super-computer to figure out how to best run the world

It prints off 4,000 pages of policies - that solve all the worlds problems. Such as pollution, over-population, the threat of nuclear war, the extinction of plants and animals, inequality, corruption - etc. etc. etc.

It basically details how humankind can make the world a peaceful, prosperous, and enlightened utopia. And all the world's (human) experts agree with its conclusions.

My question to you: Would you reject such a solution simply because it was generated by a computer?

Because it was "created" by mankind and computers. Yes I would.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Most planes are flown by AI, the cockpit crew are only there 'just in case'

Exactly, they are there. And by the way I have not been in an airplane for at least 15 years, and have no plan of using them again

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly, they are there. And by the way I have not been in an airplane for at least 15 years, and have no plan of using them again

Plains now, tomorrow the world, it would be a lot of tomorrows i think

 

[Eddi]

Because it was "created" by mankind and computers. Yes I would.

OK...

What if someone came along and proved to your satisfaction that everything we think of as being "reality" is actually the product of a computer simulation?

My question to you: If everything you accept as being real (including yourself) was demonstrated as being the product of a computer would you persist in rejecting the suggestions of a super-computer which was built within a simulated reality? Would that change your mind?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Plains now, tomorrow the world, it would be a lot of tomorrows i think

I see it as human beings barely can take care of this earth, without destroying each others. Honestly I do not believe a "digital clone" of a human being will be any better.
If there is one thing I believe will totally destroy planet earth and human beings, it is use of AI in everything

 

[Spirit of Light]

OK...

What if someone came along and proved to your satisfaction that everything we think of as being "reality" is actually the product of a computer simulation?

My question to you: If everything you accept as being real (including yourself) was demonstrated as being the product of a computer would you persist in rejecting the suggestions of a super-computer which was built within a simulated reality? Would that change your mind?

No because I do not believe in the AI overlords I am a firm believer in spiritual beings like Gods, Buddhas, Dao, and so forth. I do not deal technically tools made by human beings. Or by Aliens for that matter.

 

[Eddi]

No because I do not believe in the AI overlords I am a firm believer in spiritual beings like Gods, Buddhas, Dao, and so forth. I do not deal technically tools made by human beings. Or by Aliens for that matter.

What if the one they call "God" turns out to be a computer? Would your prejudice persist even then?