IBM produce the next step of AI overlording

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Any proper argument worth something is fuelled only by information that can be deemed objective enough by all parties involved

Objectivity is often a good goal, but in many cases it cannot be achieved and in others it is not the main basis for decisions. Especially, objectivity is often assumed when actually the matter is subjective on a larger level. For example it may be very much an objective concept that to bring some indigenous people elelctricity, TVs and western medicine will make their lives better because they can live longer and have more fun. We assume it is objective but in fact that assessment is just a subjective one, just one that is shared by a large majority. Science can produce objective statements though.
But still, even if something is objective, still the subjective considerations of people involved cannot be ignored. If people are afraid of lets say cellphone radiation and science finds only few evidence of it causeing cancer, people will still be afraid. You can try to convince them otherwise, show them studies and all that, but in the end I think one has to accept that these people do not want to have a transmitter installed across the road. At that point one can act in two ways - not build it because one respects the fear of these people and building it would cause them to be unhappy, fearful and maybe develop psychologically induced illness. Or one can - and sadly this is all too often the case - just ignore their concerns out of the reasoning that their subjectiveness is irrelevant in the face of the own (perceived or real) objectivity. And at that point objectivity can be used in the wrong way - and it does all the time.
Another example for this is the inability to objectively determine the value of a species, the scent of a flower, the beautiy of a butterfly or the feeling of being at home. Thus for someone, a certain flower or a beloved tree can be extremely valuable while for someone else it is a temporary decoration or a couple of meters of 2x4s. Objectivity just does not have the ability to cover every aspect of human and nonhuman life.

So you should know that technology in itself is not the problem, we are.

My signature says it - I think its the relationship between them, not some "flawed human nature" or a inherent "evilness of technology". However I think that a lot of modern technology is based on a lack of relationship or the wrong kind of relationship, hence it is destructive and that cannot easily be mitigated because if something is born out of a bad relationship it is extremely hard to set it right. From what I know for example about the Mayans (littele do I know yet), it seems they did have certain rituals involving respect, consideration, thankfulness and thoughfulness when they took something from the Earth, like a lump of metal to make objects. This technological act to use something from the Earth and make it into something useful or beautiful for humans was given proper consideration - it was thought of what it will do to the place that it is taken from, determined if something has to be done to heal it and there was of course also spiritual rituals involved that made such an act one that was only done when it is "worth it". In contrast at present day, the minerals are ripped off the Earth, considered to be free of charge, "undeveloped resources" and therelike. Little consideration is given to the place that it is taken from unless demanded by regulators and the materials gained are sold as cheaply as possible. I think there is a fundamental discrepancy here in the relationship and I think a positive relationship is possibly incompatible with the technologies of mining that we use today (with huge open pits, tailings, toxic chemicals and acidic mine drainage).
I took mining just as an illustrative example here - please dont make this thread one about mining...