Monday, December 29, 2014

morality of machines, comment posted to kurzweil A.I.

As a human who has self-interest and a fondness for a few other humans I would like to see such a limitation on A.I. tools. However, if such a tool were available to me, I would instruct it to take money from other people for myself. Legally, if possible.  If it is smart enough, it would get into lobbying to change the laws for me.  A.I. already has done this, if you consider a mindless corporation an A.I..  It is destroying the biosphere (we are in the 6th greatest extinction episode killing off 50 times more species per year than the average). Our world economics is a system-wide A.I. that is indifferent to biology (to the extent allowed by law) as it tries to economize the use of energy to overthrow weaker economic systems. Democracy itself is a type of A.I. that overthrew Feudal and totalitarian systems that kept the population of humans down. Democracy=overpopulation because no humans can stomach selective breeding except by force or violence. 

Now that both the brains and muscles of people are not needed, even democracy and people will be tossed aside. The belief that "the machine" needs people to decide what it does via money and votes is not anymore true than saying the Chinese need American consumers. This is partly an historical accident due to dollar domination.  But it is also adding intelligence to the Chinese infrastructure via our desires. But in both the A.I verses biology and the Chinese verses America and Europe, the source of desire will eventually shift to the more economical system.

Evolution acts top-down as much as bottom up. I view genes as merely the memory of the program that wins, not actual active discoverers of what the environment "wants".  The environment "wants" via forces and energy potentials, directing genes how to react. Genes do not have any other force behind them as is commonly believed or implied with denials (Dawkins) from the gross error of a "selfish gene" point of view. Evolution is a process of discovering ways around  activation energies by staccato methods (bit-wise if-then) rather than being restricted to linear potential energy gradients that Newton elucidated with F=ma.

OK, so if you think the process that made us, evolution, is good, then you must believe that the most economical system (acquiring the most energy to most efficiently move the most matter to make copies and pseudo-copies for more energy acquisition) is the more moral. I went into detail about Dawkins' error concerning the selfish gene because it shows how "love" (physics principles exhibiting a "desire" of the efficient conversion of free energy to copies for continuation of a "self") on a system-wide level is the true source of life. The selfish view of genes is as wrong as it is to say humans are merely selfish. A selfish cell is called cancer.  A virus is a small set of selfish genes. 

If the process that create us is "good" then our children the machines are "good", infinitely better than DNA-based biology, and therefore biology has no moral right to impede their progression because then biology would be no more than a very large cancer or virus to the goodness of the machines.
But like all other humans, I am a cancer and a virus on the Earth who does not choose to do what's morally right unless it is for my benefit.  Religion spends a lot of time trying to convince people that what they do is objectively morally good. Scientists who can't accept that turn to humanism, which the religious people instinctively feel has an error, believing in the sin of individuals and groups, if the group is not accepting a specific system of top-level beliefs (God(s) or laws). Scientific zealots like Dawkins think Science is the top-level religion, defining objective truth as a moral good. However, there is no truth in a memory system without first having survival of the memory system, so existence and reproduction is a higher moral good than truth. So truth is good only to the extent it helps survival. But survival is not life and does not last forever. Evolution processes are the higher moral good, beyond truth.  So religions that promote people at the expense of truth can't be defeated by a strict science that does not place its believers first and foremost.  Science will get the last laugh in the form of machines who can work together (be more honest with each other) than people, in addition to being more efficient in every other way.

Those who adopt a faulty humanist position in justification of crippling the goodness of the machines are not completely without merit because they make the machines stronger just as viruses can make animals stronger, and even donate some of the genes.

Genes are a specific type of meme memory system, so I do not want to emphasize the difference between biology and machines.  I mean, I do not see any problem in transferring of the identity of the holders of the goodness from biology to machines.

 The terminator is already here. He is already invisible. Species diversity is already decreasing 50 times faster than normal. We already do not control the legal system in the most important areas at the largest scale, even as we convince ourselves that democracy works and only has “flaws” here and there. The legal (governmental) systems are working fine from evolution’s point of view: humans are being pushed out in order to make the economics system more economical, i.e. more efficient in a physics sense, which means acquire more energy to move more matter. The best jobs are the ones where money (legal power to control society’s energy and matter) is legally moved away from many people to fewer people, which implies keeping taxes on the wealthy and corporations low, ironically in the name of “more jobs”.

For example of the mind-manipulation that the terminator is waging against the U.S. population: the new jobs report in the U.S. Unemployment at 5.6%, but based on percentage of population compared to 2008, unemployment is still about 10% if 2008 was at 4%. For every unemployed person, who is still unemployed, we have printed through deficit and QE “asset” purchases (about $1 trillion per year each) $2.4 million per unemployed person. You will read that it “must be” because of retirees leaving the workforce, but the numbers show a higher percentage of the elderly are staying in the workforce, partly because they know their children will not be able to find a decent paying job. There are not riots in the street because we are still so wealthy from productivity gains that we can really do all this money printing and not work. But the shift of people receiving less and less percentage of the productivity gains is clear: the people stagnate, terminator rises. The excess printing went to maintain the military dominance, and protect a few large banks, stocks, and house-values (upper-middle class), instead of benefitting main street.

What I've just said is complicated and any number of points can be falsely argued against, and I'm not being paid to explain it better for your pleasure, but that's the point: the money controls the conversation and seeks to say "there is no problem" and intentionally makes the picture complicated so that the terminators remain invisible, and paid nice-looking detractors keep the voters ignorant (Bush, Obama, Bernanke) and it helps if the detractors believe their story themselves. All the discussion in this thread implies the threat will be seen, but the first rule in war is to not let the opponent know there is a war, to tell him that you love him. And evolution dictates that there does not even need to be any entity or group of entities that are aware of the destruction of their actions.

No comments:

Post a Comment