Artificial Intelligence

JeffEngel wrote:

cthia wrote:And I totally agree that your optimistic path is certainly possible. It is why several posts ago I stated that it might be quite wise to impart the idea of a Deity within its programming. Somehow the idea of an AI grounded in faith and Christian values, regardless of one's own beliefs, is less intimidating.

A Confuscious AI sounds welcoming, even...logical.

Speaking as someone without Christian beliefs, an artificial intelligence with an idea of Deity in its programming, much less grounded in faith and Christian values, is not less intimidating than an AI without them. It is in fact stark raving screaming trying to hide terrifying. Nightmare fodder.

Brilliant! Create a life form without a conscience, now that's what is frightening.

Remove the conscience from man right... NOW!

Self-destruct in 5...4...oops... should have began the count at 3.

Tenshinai wrote:

cthia wrote:Oh don't worry about the programming skills part. We are proceeding as if AI is achievable.

And I totally agree that your optimistic path is certainly possible. It is why several posts ago I stated that it might be quite wise to impart the idea of a Deity within its programming. Somehow the idea of an AI grounded in faith and Christian values, regardless of one's own beliefs, is less intimidating.

A Confuscious AI sounds welcoming, even...logical.

No, it is extremely horrifying.

Anyone stupid enough to program "god"(or "christian values" whatever that actually means, which of the thousands of versions were you referring to?) into an AI is someone who needs the Garfield treatment ASAP. Along with the AI.

Garfield treatment btw is based on an old comic, it basically refers to "dragged into an alley and shot". Just to be clear.

Just as a comparison, Hitler and Stalin were two people firmly entrenched into "christian values". Especially Stalin who started his career training to become a priest.

Without the cultural norms mitigating, "christian values" or "deiism" is extreme lunacy to enter into an AI with any kind of power.

Oh no, the propaganda machine got to you too?

Shining examples of Christians.

If you are going to create a life form, you must embed a conscience.

Once you lay out the schematics and algorithms, you will find that your 'conscience' is exactly the constructs at the heart of Christianity - no matter what you label it.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

cthia wrote:Brilliant! Create a life form without a conscience, now that's what is frightening.

Remove the conscience from man right... NOW!

Self-destruct in 5...4...oops... should have began the count at 3.

Your belief that conscience can only come from religion says more about you and your misconceptions than anything else.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Brilliant! Create a life form without a conscience, now that's what is frightening.

Remove the conscience from man right... NOW!

Self-destruct in 5...4...oops... should have began the count at 3.

Your belief that conscience can only come from religion says more about you and your misconceptions than anything else.

Not from religion but from a Deity.


It is widely - totally - accepted by academia that conscience lies in the realm of the metaphysical.

Short skip and a jump.

Tenshinai wrote:

cthia wrote:Oh don't worry about the programming skills part. We are proceeding as if AI is achievable.

And I totally agree that your optimistic path is certainly possible. It is why several posts ago I stated that it might be quite wise to impart the idea of a Deity within its programming. Somehow the idea of an AI grounded in faith and Christian values, regardless of one's own beliefs, is less intimidating.

A Confuscious AI sounds welcoming, even...logical.

No, it is extremely horrifying.

Anyone stupid enough to program "god"(or "christian values" whatever that actually means, which of the thousands of versions were you referring to?) into an AI is someone who needs the Garfield treatment ASAP. Along with the AI.

Garfield treatment btw is based on an old comic, it basically refers to "dragged into an alley and shot". Just to be clear.

Just as a comparison, Hitler and Stalin were two people firmly entrenched into "christian values". Especially Stalin who started his career training to become a priest.

Without the cultural norms mitigating, "christian values" or "deiism" is extreme lunacy to enter into an AI with any kind of power.

cthia wrote:

Oh no, the propaganda machine got to you too?

Shining examples of Christians.

If you are going to create a life form, you must embed a conscience.

Once you lay out the schematics and algorithms, you will find that your 'conscience' is exactly the constructs at the heart of Christianity - no matter what you label it.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Case in point, Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics.'

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

cthia wrote:

Oh no, the propaganda machine got to you too?

Shining examples of Christians.

If you are going to create a life form, you must embed a conscience.

Once you lay out the schematics and algorithms, you will find that your 'conscience' is exactly the constructs at the heart of Christianity - no matter what you label it.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

No, quite the opposite to "shining examples", and that was the point. There are millions of devout christians with a wild variety of beliefs that they will swear comes from their holy bible and nowhere else, not to mention how it is "obviously" the one and only holy godgiven truth.

At the opposite side of that spectra, you have Stalin, which became a paranoid genocidal anti-religious atheist BY STUDYING RELIGION.


So, if you try to enter religion into a computer, you have quite a fair risk of getting an AI that instantly declares holy war, starting with a crusade against pigfarmers, as it is clearly against christian beliefs to even consider eating such foul things, and anyone raising them must be evil by default.

Or you might get an AI that figures only way for humans to be religious is being insane and delusional, ergo they should be removed from the earth as they´re nothing but a putrid infestation.

Both above extremes can easily be drawn through logic applied on "christian values".

Once you lay out the schematics and algorithms, you will find that your 'conscience' is exactly the constructs at the heart of Christianity - no matter what you label it.

Don´t be absurd. Rosecolored glasses might allow you to only see what you wish, but reality isn´t quite that nice and simple.

Not from religion but from a Deity.


It is widely - totally - accepted by academia that conscience lies in the realm of the metaphysical.

Short skip and a jump.

No, not among sane academia. Actually, not among ANY academia i ever heard about.
Well possibly with the exception of the lunatic fundamentalist christians in USA of course.

The idea is insane as it is contraindicated every day, all the time.

cthia wrote:Not from religion but from a Deity.


It is widely - totally - accepted by academia that conscience lies in the realm of the metaphysical.

Short skip and a jump.

Conscience is metaphysical. As is morality. Neither require deities.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Not from religion but from a Deity.


It is widely - totally - accepted by academia that conscience lies in the realm of the metaphysical.

Short skip and a jump.

Conscience is metaphysical. As is morality. Neither require deities.

God is metaphysical.

cthia wrote:God is metaphysical.

Cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Yet, surprisingly, cats are not dogs.

cthia wrote:Case in point, Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics.'

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

So.... let's all live in Will Smith's I,Robot movie then?