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 Compassionate A.I. (Still) Our Choice?

Seen from the future, the present era may be the most responsible for accomplishing the advent of Compassionate A.I. Compassion, basically, is the realm of complexity. It’s not about some commandments or a – simple or less simple – conceptual system of ethics. Therefore, instilling Compassion into a system is not a straightforward engineering endeavor Read the full article…

Can Assistance Games Save Us from A.I.?

As artificial intelligence advances toward ever greater capabilities, the question of safety becomes urgent. One widely discussed solution is the use of assistance games — interactive frameworks in which A.I. learns to support human preferences through observation and adaptation. But can such a method, rooted in formal modeling, truly protect us in the long run? Read the full article…

The Meaning of a Word

“The meaning of a word is its use in the language.” — Quote by Wittgenstein, who talked about language games because ‘use in the language’ can be seen as having a very playful aspect. A dictionary provides the meaning of a word ― in some way, but always as an approximation. A word doesn’t have meaning like Read the full article…

Translate »