dimreepr

This isn’t the thread to debate the complexities of the Syrian war. The question is about the level of suffering people are willing to witness in order to maintain their relative opulence.

Your mistake is to assume a finite universe.

Nothing, since every point in the universe is at its centre

Indeed, the following quotes illustrate your point nicely I think: Everyone believes very easily whatever they fear or desire. Be advised that all flatterers live at the expense of those who listen to them. Our destiny is frequently met in the very paths we take to avoid it.

Shame for us and suffering for them; I was once proud of my country but that ended when we turned our backs on the Syrian refugees. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/refugee-crisis-hungary-sends-troops-border-160309134453267.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-eu-turkey-big-question-if-not-europe-then-where-a6919136.html Edit/ To add, This question isn’t confined to the migrant crisis, BTW, but to any consequence of our fears. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_de_La_Fontaine

The mythical Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” grows more poignant with every Trump success.

I doubt anyone could perceive such speeds, I can only perceive 175 miles per hour maybe 250 as I once did 175, just outside Cheltenham, at the same time as someone overtook a car at, guessing 80 or 90 MPH in the opposite direction (I very nearly shat myself); we have the same problem when it comes to scale, for instance I can see a millimetre but how can I possibly see/imagine a yoctometre?

Your AI topic suggests that when sober, you may have something to contribute; this, however, suggests you’re on something stronger...

Everyone at some point in their life fears the future or feels sorry for themselves (why me, blah blah when the question should be why not me) but that doesn’t justify this mini-rant about a father that has so far, and continues to support you; may I suggest you grow up and be a little more grateful for what you have, rather than what you may lose; you can’t live your life in the future nor the past, enjoy now while you still can.

How does he exploit this fact? And how does he hope to do this without you?

Sorry, I meant despite...

I hate to jump into a thread this long in the tooth, without the time to read its entirety, but this seems to be an argument of who we trust more, Google and Apple have far more knowledge of individual citizens through encryption than does any government on the planet, a democratically elected government or a privately owned business? Please forgive me if this question has already been addressed.

It reminds me of “The grapes of wrath” - John Steinbeck, particularly the part where they, not only protected the waste food from the starving people but actively sought to destroy it before “the masses” could get there, undeserving, hands on such a bounty.

It seems to me that it’s an asymmetric endeavour, one side strives to find common ground whilst the other is, overly, determined to stand his.

I think it would depend on how it gained sentience: 1/ did it grow towards it by learning from a benign creator? 2/ was it driven to it by a megalomaniac? 3/ was it spontaneous with little external influence? Think of you own formative influence, what you would do with super intelligence that could manipulate the world?

Trumps...

That maybe the PC version of your question but let’s face it, we are what we are.

Why does it matter?

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make “Since we have no idea how AI/sentience will be achieved” we can’t possibly know it’s capabilities.

You seem to think society is, somehow, different to the jungle and that humans are different to other animals and that competition eliminates compassion; you’re wrong on all counts, for instance, my best friend and I compete on many different levels (our introduction, in school, resulted in a physical fight) but if either of us were in jeopardy we would both battle anyone to save the other.

Bolded mine: When it comes to survival it’s everything, competition is fundamental to humans/animals be it in the wild or society; there is no ethical debate to be had, it just is.

Transcendence is not only a very good movie that touches on this subject but is also a very good word that encapsulates it. Since we have no idea how AI/sentience will be achieved we also have no idea of its capabilities. Asimov, as indicated by imatfaal, imagined what AI might mean and wrote several novels on the subject the most interesting, for me, imagined a robot that was psychic (the name of the novel eludes me) and governed by the three laws, well worth reading given your interest.

Why would anyone engage with you on this question given that your recent posting history suggests you’ve already decided you’re correct?