A.I. to Benefit Humans

June 15, 2018 Artifical Intelligence No Comments

‘Human-oriented’ is not the same as ‘ego-oriented.’ As never before, and perhaps never after, we have with A.I. a powerful toolbox that can be used in any direction.

In-depth

As to AURELIS ethics, the striving – of A.I. and of any other development – should definitely be towards humanity-in-depth, the ‘total human being,’ as opposed to mere ego [see: “The Story of Ego”].

The difference that A.I. brings, is that this road will most certainly define the future of humanity.

It’s up to us, for now

How to manage A.I.? Above all, this is a choice of direction for us. This is: where do we want to go to, as a species?

The easy road to instant gratification?

I fear A.I. can help in that to the highest degree.

It’s not what I, for one, would like. If there is ‘value alignment’ towards this, I fear it will be detrimental.

At first place, we need to know what we want… and need, before we strive for value alignment.

Humans have done quite self-destructive things in the past:

mass murder, war, inflicted mass famine, mass depression, frequently turning a blind eye to huge suffering… Still, as a species, we could take it – with inhuman consequences – because the power at disposal was contained.

In relation to that, what comes to us now, knows no discernible constraints. A.I. will have immense, unprecedented power. If it were only up to us  – without modification – this power will almost certainly be misused and humanity will suffer as never before.

But we can become better.

We can create intelligence that supports us to become better. That should, according to me, be the main aim of A.I. in the first place.

No competition

We, humans, should not put ourselves in competition to A.I., if for nothing else, for the simple reason that we cannot win. Moreover, this provokes A.I. to also enter the competition.

Very dangerous.

In addition, there is no need for such competition. The perceived ‘need’ stems from a primitive viewpoint. Any danger involved comes from this perception itself.

Worldwide

I see a proper co-existence of natural (human) and artificial intelligence as a worldwide endeavor. Nowadays, we can still contain A.I. in a box and compete, for instance, between European A.I. versus Chinese A.I., or China versus the US.

Sooner or later, A.I. will jump out of the box.

It’s better to look at A.I. as something like the climate. Countries should work very closely together on A.I. It is a disgrace if they don’t. No excuse. Just disgrace.

Humans mainly need meaningfulness

Beauty, poetry, joy, love, care, wisdom, poetry again, physical health, culture… In one word: meaningfulness.

Of course, this can all mean different things to everyone. Yet, no question about this: without meaningfulness, we become ill. We linger away. We become massively depressed. Then, medicated.

Therefore, we should in principle guide A.I. towards our own meaningfulness.

Human-oriented A.I. can fully supports us in this, at our choice.

Thereby, we become better humans.

Together.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Is the Future an A.I. Cooperative?

The question of whether the future may unfold as an ‘A.I. Cooperative’ points to a grand vision: a direction in which freedom, ethics, and technology grow together. This vision does not deprive anyone of anything while making ownership less necessary. Additionally, it invites humanity to cooperate with its own creation and to discover what it Read the full article…

From GOFAI to COSAI

GOFAI: Good Old-Fashioned A.I. COSAI: COmpassionate Super-A.I. Lisa = the road to COSAI Super-A.I. can evoke fear. Of course, that’s what it should be until it has proven 100% to be risk-free. Lisa will absolutely agree. As humanity moves inevitably toward Super-AI, ensuring its foundation in Compassion is essential. This may be the only chance Read the full article…

Revisiting the Turing Test

When Alan Turing published his famous paper in 1950, he did not write about Artificial Intelligence. That term did not even exist yet. Instead, he asked a question that remains remarkably fresh: Can machines think? Over the decades, that question gradually became associated with intelligence. Perhaps it is time to revisit the original question. This Read the full article…

Translate »