[CP5670]

I would hate having parents forcefully "promote" religious beliefs into children, demoting the creation of creative thought...

Yeah, that is along the lines of what I was thinking when it came to free thinking; as I said before though, this could probably be remedied by only allowing autonomous government computers to have access to these things.

A computer with AI and a sizeable army and country in its hands =

Well, that depends on the AI.

[demon442]

I would hate having parents forcefully "promote" religious beliefs into children, demoting the creation of creative thought...

Look arround man, the forceful promotion is still subtle but it's happening everywhere.

Well, that depends on the AI.

[/B]

I think that most AI's are controled by logic, not fake personalities(which would be tainted by it's programmer\sponcer and thus illogical).

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by beatspete
Personal tracker chips would make our lives a lot safer, someone would always know where you are if you get into trouble... but you have to balance that with personal privacy.

Quite frankly, I'd rather take the risk rather than have someone always know where I am. I'd rather die than be caged up in that way and would fight to the death if anyone tryed to force it onto me.





The sooner computerized government is invented, the better. Government today is not based on logic but tradition (largely Judeo Christian). A government based on logic would soon purge all idiotic religious/ancient customs (circumcision, sexual repression, monogomy only families, conformity etc.) Human Tradition based government itself leads to suffering and backwardsness and then there's corruption.

[Black Wolf]

These things present too many problems to be made mainstream. I assume they can be removed, or else what happens when the child is 25, moved out of home and completely out of his/her parents dominion (or whatever). What then? Or what about when the child grows up to 13/14 and they choose to have the chip removed. Who has the final say - the child or the parent? Either way it's not fair.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Well, that depends on the AI.

Did you check those Culture books I told you about on the other thread?

[IceFire]

The sooner computerized government is invented, the better. Government today is not based on logic but tradition (largely Judeo Christian). A government based on logic would soon purge all idiotic religious/ancient customs (circumcision, sexual repression, monogomy only families, conformity etc.) Human Tradition based government itself leads to suffering and backwardsness and then there's corruption.

A computer thats smart enough to be the AI of an entire government is also going to be smart enough to figure out that it doesn't need us around to get in its way.  Humans have of flaws....were not talking one or two, were talking thousands of flaws per individual and no-one is exempt from that.  But!  There's always a but.  I'd still rather have humans in charge of their own destiny than a computer that has only logic, no emotion, feeling, understanding, compassion, hatred, honor, pain, joy, or life.

[Levyathan]

An AI in the government? I vote for SHODAN!

[Styxx]

Originally posted by IceFire
A computer thats smart enough to be the AI of an entire government is also going to be smart enough to figure out that it doesn't need us around to get in its way.

That's why you'd put ethical constraints in it, or simply code it to be nice to people.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by CP5670
eh, that is exactly what we do not want it to do; humans can make bad decisions because they are encumbered by that limitation. The computer's only goal should be the general well-being of the people of the nation as a whole.

Ok, what if a child has been raised by the wrong parents due to a switch at birth. 10-15 Years later the biological parents discover this and want the child back.

The law says that the biological parents have a RIGHT to have custody but the child doesn't want it and it might inflict psycological damage on the child. What would this "computerized Judge" do? Follow the law or choose to help the child. As you see it it would follow the law and inflict psycological damage. Therefor I think IF we were to have a computerized government it should be able to make moral and emotional decisions.

[vyper]

The world is bad, yes. Government corruption in the west, social depravation in the east, love doesn't exist, birds can't sing due to noise pollution and so on...

Well what to do?
*Wallow in fear and self-pity or
* go out,  do your damndest to change it, to have fun, to fall in love, have good mates, i.e. to make it better for each other.

Personally I go with the latter.

Oh yes, and although I believe in human government, I think Topgun was right about one thing:

Quite frankly, I'd rather take the risk rather than have someone always know where I am. I'd rather die than be caged up in that way and would fight to the death if anyone tryed to force it onto me.

[end of rant]

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Tiara
Ok, what if a child has been raised by the wrong parents due to a switch at birth. 10-15 Years later the biological parents discover this and want the child back.

The law says that the biological parents have a RIGHT to have custody but the child doesn't want it and it might inflict psycological damage on the child. What would this "computerized Judge" do? Follow the law or choose to help the child. As you see it it would follow the law and inflict psycological damage. Therefor I think IF we were to have a computerized government it should be able to make moral and emotional decisions.

Then again, you're pointing a flaw at the law, not at the "government".

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Styxx


Then again, you're pointing a flaw at the law, not at the "government".

But it is the Government who makes the law .

(Ow, and if you know how to fix this if we have a computerized government... Tell me!)

[CP5670]

The sooner computerized government is invented, the better. Government today is not based on logic but tradition (largely Judeo Christian). A government based on logic would soon purge all idiotic religious/ancient customs (circumcision, sexual repression, monogomy only families, conformity etc.) Human Tradition based government itself leads to suffering and backwardsness and then there's corruption.

I completely agree there. Tradition and this illogical resistance to change is exactly what has severely plagued not only the governments of today but the entire cultural system by which humanity operates.

A computer thats smart enough to be the AI of an entire government is also going to be smart enough to figure out that it doesn't need us around to get in its way. Humans have of flaws....were not talking one or two, were talking thousands of flaws per individual and no-one is exempt from that. But! There's always a but. I'd still rather have humans in charge of their own destiny than a computer that has only logic, no emotion, feeling, understanding, compassion, hatred, honor, pain, joy, or life.

Actually, this will not be a problem at all if the computer is given a specific directive. But regardless of that, by the time this type of thing becomes a reality the human and the computer will have become completely indistinguishable (even now, both are moving to the same end from opposite directions), and so it would not make any difference there anyway if the objective remains the same. Even today, how are humans "in charge of their own destiny?" As far as I can tell, we will always be subject to the laws of science and the laws of science alone, regardless of who is running things. All those things you mentioned at the end are exactly why humans are unfit to administrate, because they become at times influenced by those things and lose the abilitiy to objectively reason, thus making poor choices. Most of the ethical rules follow from logical reasoning, which is why they are here today in the first place, but there are still times when these rules no longer hold, and this is the area in which the computer succeeds where the human fails.

The law says that the biological parents have a RIGHT to have custody but the child doesn't want it and it might inflict psycological damage on the child. What would this "computerized Judge" do? Follow the law or choose to help the child. As you see it it would follow the law and inflict psycological damage. Therefor I think IF we were to have a computerized government it should be able to make moral and emotional decisions.

As Styxx said, that is just a flaw in the current government system. Besides, if the computer is given information that tells it that such "psychological damage" would be inflicted for most people in this situation, it would act accordingly. (that is, assuming that this psychological damage affects productivity)

Did you check those Culture books I told you about on the other thread?

I found some information about them on the internet; looks interesting...

[Kellan]

CP; why do you suggest that movements towards authoritarianism are indicative of a move towards Socialism and Communism?

Also, did you see what happened when they programmed Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics into computers? They react...err, strangely. You'd need a lot of qualifying information in there, and even then you'd face problems.

Surely, after all your logic-based computer government is conditional upon having a logic-based human society. An illogical human society would not accept a purely logical government because it would go against too many taboos and traditions - and even be willing to sacrifice individuals for the common good, etc. Irrational humans would not necessarily perceive this greater good, and oppose their sacrifice.

Of course, by the time that human society is (if it ever is) completely logical and would logically accept computer government, it wouldn't need it to make decisions. The only possible benefit would be that it could work faster than humans and once again it would be relagated to administrative tasks.

And Top Gun: I don't see what you're hoping for a computer government for. It seems to me that one of the most logical decisions a computer could make would be to install all sorts of monitoring devices in society such as these chips you abhor. After all, it would cut crime, cut unnecessary timewasting, etc etc. It's one of those society/individual debates again. Even I can't deny that although individuals may resent this privacy intrustion, in terms of society the chips would be an improvement. You could say that you're being illogical by opposing them.

...But now I'm getting like CP. Someone please kill me.

[CP5670]

CP; why do you suggest that movements towards authoritarianism are indicative of a move towards Socialism and Communism?

The two pretty much go together as far as the current cultural paradigm is concerned. I think that the weakest link in the system of capitalism is that it is completely reliant on the currently dominant cultural system, so it would also change with that. These economic trends are largely determined by the same things that political ones are: the social and cultural systems, which in turn are operated by the other two, making it into a circular system. The way things are going right now in the generality, we should be heading for a true communist system at some point in the future, even though it may still be tens of thousands of years away.

Also, did you see what happened when they programmed Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics into computers? They react...err, strangely. You'd need a lot of qualifying information in there, and even then you'd face problems.

There actually was not all that much "strange" behavior from them as far as I can remember; the robots were doing things quite well in that series of books. This is more of a technical issue though, and these type of things just need to be given time to be corrected.

Surely, after all your logic-based computer government is conditional upon having a logic-based human society. An illogical human society would not accept a purely logical government because it would go against too many taboos and traditions - and even be willing to sacrifice individuals for the common good, etc. Irrational humans would not necessarily perceive this greater good, and oppose their sacrifice.

This is one of those things that does not need to be "accepted" by the individuals alone (heck, when we are talking on this scale, nothing needs to be) and is more decided by mass-psychological "forces" that determine human affairs in the long term; the move towards a unified organism will not come out of a willingness, but a necessity. (or of course, a move in the opposite direction, but either way, the current human government system would be replaced) As I said before, by the time this happens, the human and the computer will have become one anyway (retaining the computer's deductive unit and the human randomizer), so it would not make any difference who is running the show.

The only possible benefit would be that it could work faster than humans and once again it would be relagated to administrative tasks.

Well, that's the whole point.

...But now I'm getting like CP. Someone please kill me.

Good, good. You know you want to be like me.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by CP5670

The two pretty much go together as far as the current cultural paradigm is concerned. I think that the weakest link in the system of capitalism is that it is completely reliant on the currently dominant cultural system, so it would also change with that. These economic trends are largely determined by the same things that political ones are: the social and cultural systems, which in turn are operated by the other two, making it into a circular system. The way things are going right now in the generality, we should be heading for a true communist system at some point in the future, even though it may still be tens of thousands of years away.

I don't see how Capitalism can be defined as an inherently liberal system - Hell, it isn't now - and Communism an inherently illiberal one. It's just that the excuses for Communism that we have seen either haven't actually been Communism (in the case of the USSR) or the necessary social conditions for true Communism to flourish don't exist and thus other methods such as coercion and force are used. It would be difficult for example for a true Communist system to exist directly after unfettered capitalism due to tradition learned habits.

[CP5670]

You are right that we have not seen any real communists yet, but in any case, a true communist system would not allow for private corporations at all, which is the main foundation of capitalism. Neither have anything to do with liberty; people are in control of the government in one, and the corporations in the other.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Kellan
And Top Gun: I don't see what you're hoping for a computer government for. It seems to me that one of the most logical decisions a computer could make would be to install all sorts of monitoring devices in society such as these chips you abhor. After all, it would cut crime, cut unnecessary timewasting, etc etc. It's one of those society/individual debates again. Even I can't deny that although individuals may resent this privacy intrustion, in terms of society the chips would be an improvement. You could say that you're being illogical by opposing them.

A computer does axactly what you pragram it to do, It would be stupid and impossible to make one with the ability to evolve, or an AI in the Hollywood sense of the word. One that could simply take in problems, process them and make decisions based on the utilitarian values we give it. Also, the Idea of chipping people is one that comes from Human's Lust for power. The computer could (rightly) precieve it as too intrusive, inconvenient and violating of people's bodies to be worth giving to solve a relatively small crime problem, which is less of a concearn to the people that mandatory chipping would be.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by CP5670
You are right that we have not seen any real communists yet, but in any case, a true communist system would not allow for private corporations at all, which is the main foundation of capitalism. Neither have anything to do with liberty; people are in control of the government in one, and the corporations in the other.

Communism could be a utopia for all if it's managed in caring hands (with the corporation striving to better things for the people rather than make a profit). Don't forget we're not talking about civil liberties, we're talking about the liberty of private enterprize which also means the liberty of the rich (with wealth passed on through the family) to get richer off the backs of the people, to manipulate the press to further their own ideas, to push their iseas onto people through propaganda or mematics. Of course if a highly powerful full communist government succumbed to corruption, things would be terrible.


A responsible Communist government would respect the civil liberties of the people they're supposed to empower. The problem with a lot of communist governments in the past is that they've treated Marx's ideology as a religion rather than developing and evolving it.

[CODEDOG ND]

The Tracking Device:  I don't have a problem with it, when you have people that live in your country that are from another country making them easier to track, and if they leave then it can be removed and if they become a citizen then as well it can be removed.  Children can't make logical descesions or distinguish the difference between reality and imagination, so at that time parents should have ALL say in what happens to the child.  A test of reasoning or a certain age should be determined to allow the chip to be removed.  I doubt most of us care if the government sees your bum from some camera in space since most are law abiding citizens and have nothing really to hide.  I don't know if you UKer's seen the American version of CNN lately, but there has been a lot of "copycat" abductions lately with several ending in death.  CA's new Amber Alert System yesterday did prevent two girls from being killed, after they were sexaully assaulted by an abductor who was shot by police, but I bet that was just a rare case where the system actually worked.  


Communism:  Wouldn't the people of your communist utopia have to have some kind of ambition?