Some things discussed in this here shockingly short article seem to parallel issues in my own personal life, probably only because everything I ever read or learn or hear or think about has to do with my own personal life because that is the most important thing to me because I am self-centered and self-absorbed and a bad person. Anyway, Bostrom throws out the likelihood of a superintelligence superseding the need for humans to invent or do scientific or technological research ever again, since it'd be so much better at it, as if it were no big thang. But then what would humans do? Art, obviously, you say, but despite what Kaufmann would have you believe, humans are not only artists. I, at least, also have a drive for discovery and problem-solving and other things that may in turn be a part of the larger capital A Art, but the issue that this brings up for me is: why do something that somebody else has already done, and/or that you will never be able to do as well as anybody else? Because you enjoy it, obviously, but like everything it's never that simple, and science seems to be its own animal in this regard. If you devoted your life to designing a more efficient microchip, only to have some sassy superintelligence come along and whip one out that's even better than your life's work, wouldn't you feel a little disappointed, a little as if you had wasted time you could have spent doing something else? Sure, if you enjoyed your time it's not so bad, but wouldn't you have also enjoyed doing something similar that wasn't obviated by someone else? My philosophy tells me that absolutely no matter what the end results are, if I genuinely enjoyed myself then that's all that matters, but my shriveled and underdeveloped emotional system says otherwise. This relates to my general belief that getting the technology in place for the future is only one part, and that it's at least equally as important that people grow up. We need the illusion of usefulness or purpose, even if it's almost always just an illusion, and we'd damn well be ready to face the specter of our obsolescence and realize that it's not as important as we think it is.
The other thing is the one huge object lesson that all science fiction can't seem to stop teaching us: delegating decision-making powers to anyone else is a disaster. Bostrom is somewhat careful around this, emphasizing how important it is that we start the AI out on the right foot, wording things so that we are consulting it wisely and sagely more than just letting it do all our thinking for us. The problem is, if it's really so much smarter than us, how would we know? I believe it's best to consult experts when dealing with anything in their domain, but if people automatically defer to anyone that is, or that they *believe* is, more qualified than they are, then they are putting themselves in the danger of being taken advantage of. Also, experts have *opinions* and since knowledge and theories are constantly changing, those opinions are often *wrong*. How is an ignorant person to decide what advice to follow? Will it ever be safe to assume that a superintelligence is so unwaveringly smart that all its opinions are correct? Supposedly, it will, in fact, know better than we do, seeing as we never goddamn know what's best for ourselves in the slightest. But what happens to a race of humans that learns to rely on some omnipotent outside source for all their decision-making and situation-assessing? It'd be good to learn how wrong we always are, but as far as individuals and being human goes, I think it's best to steer clear of anything that reinforces decidophobia.
The other thing is the one huge object lesson that all science fiction can't seem to stop teaching us: delegating decision-making powers to anyone else is a disaster. Bostrom is somewhat careful around this, emphasizing how important it is that we start the AI out on the right foot, wording things so that we are consulting it wisely and sagely more than just letting it do all our thinking for us. The problem is, if it's really so much smarter than us, how would we know? I believe it's best to consult experts when dealing with anything in their domain, but if people automatically defer to anyone that is, or that they *believe* is, more qualified than they are, then they are putting themselves in the danger of being taken advantage of. Also, experts have *opinions* and since knowledge and theories are constantly changing, those opinions are often *wrong*. How is an ignorant person to decide what advice to follow? Will it ever be safe to assume that a superintelligence is so unwaveringly smart that all its opinions are correct? Supposedly, it will, in fact, know better than we do, seeing as we never goddamn know what's best for ourselves in the slightest. But what happens to a race of humans that learns to rely on some omnipotent outside source for all their decision-making and situation-assessing? It'd be good to learn how wrong we always are, but as far as individuals and being human goes, I think it's best to steer clear of anything that reinforces decidophobia.
1 comment | Leave a comment