An artificially described perfect world
Just for a little bit of fun tonight, a hypothetical and lots of questions.
Imagine if there was an artificial general intelligence supercomputer created and it had been developed and tested and was proven in all the things it required but, had never had any information given to it. No directions other than to describe the perfect global society in which human suffering was minimized and enjoyment maximized for as many as possible. There are holes in here so close them for the exercise or make a suitable mental picture that works for you.
Now, it is released into the world to learn how to do this. It scours all of the ideologies, all of the religious texts, it pours through psychological research, medical, habits, social media conversations and all information it can possible gather to find a solution to describe the perfect life for us that we can live by.
What would it describe? Would it pick one particular doctrine and say, follow this and all will be okay? Will it create an amalgamation of many? With all of the data it has accessed and parsed through its superhuman processing power, millions of simulations and its objective view of the problem, will it create its own?
Is it possible that a machine could create a religion for humans to follow that would more closely satisfy the needs of everyone? Would the new religion factor in environmental care, emotional well being, resource distribution, life meaning and purpose? Would a machine be able to know what we want as a whole better than us as individuals?
If it did create this set of rules, would human populations accept and adopt it or would they rebel against the dictation from a machine? What if it was able to see our lives and counsel us on possible pathways that are most suited to our experience, physical attributes, emotion status and other influencing factors? Would you listen to career advice from a supercomputer?
It would have to assess what kind of governance would be best suited to manage the system. Would it look at all of the data and suggest solutions to financial issues? Would it change the tax system, would there be one?
Would it be able to better organize education systems that maximize the potential of our children, reduce conflicts and disparity between classes and end bigotry? would it be able to provide support to parents on how to better raise children?
I wonder what a perfect world for humans described by a supercomputer would look like, how it would function. In time would it make the world a more creative beautiful place that maximizes human opportunity and potential, or would it become an authoritarian, centralized system that will eventually lead to metaphorical enslavement for all things that make us human?
I am going to leave this open to see if anyone wants to comment and add more questions or theorize some potential results of such an exercise. There are obviously loopholes and assumptions in here so a little suspension of disbelief is required. Even if you don't answer, I wonder what you may think. Do you think the supercomputer will choose to implement your current ideas on what a perfect world would look like, or is the view too limited?
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Will the AI realize Utopian ideas humanity have dreamed of? Humans and their free will still dig their own graves today. Why would we as whole accept perfect everything for us? There are good, maybe not perfect ideas out there or maybe even perfect ideas out there that still don't get realized because of our nature, disagreements, greed and sometimes for no reason at all. There is no way for us to know to what conclusions AI will come to. We are not it. We don't grasp the fullness of us.
This is a great answer:
Imagine if we could see more, get an objective view, a cross-section of who we are as a whole when all the ideals we attach ourselves to are stripped away. How different are we from each other to warrant the greed, competition and suffering we inflict?
This is certainly interesting to ponder. There are a lot of questions here but I will make an attempt.
A part of me believes that the computer could grind to a halt due to trying to process all sorts of conflicting information. It seems that whatever idea exists in the world, there is another idea that contradicts it.
However, I do believe that there is a universal truth when it comes to humans. Something that all humans need, value and cherish. If the computer stumbled upon this concept then I believe it is what it would recommend for us. That is:
Love.
The computer would tell the human species to find a way to love each other. To demonstrate compassion towards other humans, animals and the planet in general. It would tell us to spread love and compassion across the earth and it would tell us that if we did this simple act than all other problems and challenges would disappear.
I wonder if the supercomputer could infer the existence of love from how we interact with each other or would it discover it is in writing and song only where love exists?
I think it would be able to address the conflicts too and work them through logically and present why or why not a position is true/false or a blend of.
Thank for taking the time :)
Yeah, since love is an emotion,it might not be recognizable to a machine. Its hard to say if it would be able to discover it. You are probably right, the computer probably could logically work through conflicts as well. Good point.
F... supercomputers. Humans are coding them and implementing logic in them
It is human logic not supercomputer logic.
And supercomputer needs power like your vacuum-cleaner. One plug and all the supercomputer logic is going down the drain.
All it is left it old god power of the fear
A Super computer with general level intelligence is likely to be able to code and repair its own code at a much deeper and objective level than its relatively rudimentary beginnings. The point of course wasn't to shut the computer off but to see what it may discover while on.
I think that empathy is coded in as well.
Probably there is a function for empathy and understanding. Humans have filings and they have moral in tune with their existence. How can the code relaying on the basic logic understand empathy ?
Non emphatic humans should be recognizes in society ... that should be the goal of emphatic not broken human beings . And the broken one where are the coming from ?
Why do we have humans not in tune with morally high realm ?
And there you go now we will have fast thinking machines relaying on pure logical imperfection.
One need not have empathy to observe cruelty or kindness. Empathy itself is an inactive emotional position that puts one in the hole with the other. compassion need not feel like the other to be activated to do something, all it requires is the understanding that something need be done. What that thing is does not require an emotional position at all, but an understanding of the options available to ease the suffering of another.
Hi @tarazkp, I just stopped back to let you know your post was one of my favourite reads and I included it in my Steemit Ramble. You can read what I wrote about your post here.
If you’d like to nominate someone’s post just visit the Steemit Ramble Discord
thank you very much for the inclusion.
The super computer would describe a world where none does harm and each treats the other as he himself would wish to be treated; a core tenet of many religions and philosophies. This no harm 'religion' would allow each the freedom to do as he pleases as long as he does not impinge upon the freedom of another. The computer could then pack up and go home. We could handle it ourselves from there.
Would the world listen? Well, I think the majority of us already live by such a code or some approximation of it, and it is the small proportion of 'non-cooperators' who make things so difficult for the rest.
all for one, one for all as they say. This challenge is that even though a core tenet, how many have found a way to live by it? Not just the through acts of war and violence but through economic slavery and our quest to continually have more than the next. Is an indirect impingement better than a direct?
Perhaps we only think we live by such a code and the supercomputer will see the hypocrisy between what we say and do. Will it want us to live by our words, or change the words we live by?