IBM produce the next step of AI overlording

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I know you two don't really get along, but isn't that assuming tad much?

Aurora is idealistic and perhaps somewhat naive, but I wouldn't say that she actively refuses to acknowledge that which is true. Then again I'm not really any good when it comes to judge of character.

Observation, not assumption.

[Aquaplant]

Well all I know is that she doesn't like technology, but that's about it.

[Moco Loco]

I don't think it's that Aurora doesn't like technology, probably more that she has very specific ways she'd like to see it used My guess, but Aurora should come set me straight if that's wrong.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Isard

Its only magic if you choose to bask in ignorance.

Just a question, but why can't something that has an explanation be magical, I mean if a magic has an explanation, it's still magic.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

there was a time where you were at least intelligent when you blatantly personally insulted other people.

He hasn't insulted anyone in this thread.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I know you two don't really get along, but isn't that assuming tad much?

Aurora is idealistic and perhaps somewhat naive, but I wouldn't say that she actively refuses to acknowledge that which is true. Then again I'm not really any good when it comes to judge of character.

There's a difference between accepting information as it comes and defending an opinion against evidence. The vast majority of people do both - the former on things they are ambivalent on and the latter on held opinions.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Aurora is idealistic and perhaps somewhat naive, but I wouldn't say that she actively refuses to acknowledge that which is true. Then again I'm not really any good when it comes to judge of character.

I am idealistic and I think that is a good thing, but I refuse to be called naive or ignorant. There have been a few occasions where I have argued against something and retreated when there was enough evidence to the contrary, but in the points that I stick to, I have not really have gotten convincing evidence to the contrary. Naive would mean to look at things oversimplified and that I certainly do not do. I see that things are vastly complex and rather would say that exactly that complexity makes it immensely hard to make predictions about "solutions". Being ignorant would mean to ignore evidence or facts. What I usually do when arguments are brought up that run contrary to what I claim is that I try to use facts and conclusions against that. I am stubborn only when I think that the "facts" I am presented with are not complete or simply faulty. What you can hold against me is that in some topics i bring up philosophic or holistic argumentations - something a few of you seem to dislike as viable arguments (despite most of the famous scientists also being philosophers in some way or another).

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I don't think it's that Aurora doesn't like technology, probably more that she has very specific ways she'd like to see it used My guess, but Aurora should come set me straight if that's wrong.

That topic is a bit more complicated indeed. Technology can include by definition many things from making fire all the way up to genetic modification. I think however that there are appropriate and sustainable technologies and those who are not, I think that the relationship to technology is vastly important and do not accept a blind faith in technology to solve every problem. and I think that a lot of especially modern technology when used to the extent it is done now is destroying too much of what I love - this planet and the living beings on it. As some of you know, I am a scientist - i am working with technology daily, do chemistry for a living and used to build electronics and program software back when I was young in the 1980ies. I am no stranger to technology - but over all these years of digging it, I also found out some things that led me to the conclusions that I write here.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

There's a difference between accepting information as it comes and defending an opinion against evidence. The vast majority of people do both - the former on things they are ambivalent on and the latter on held opinions.

It's simply the way our sanity works, because we constantly seek information to reinforce what we perceive to be correct, and any opposing information is usually to be feared. There is also the idealistic aspect as to how we personally would wish for things to be, versus how they are in reality, and for me this is the source of all my bitterness towards all things reality.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am idealistic and I think that is a good thing, but I refuse to be called naive or ignorant.

Being idealistic is usually a good thing, unless you are messed up like I am, but lets not go there. I know you are smart enough not to be purposefully ignorant, but I still consider you to be naive in some regards, though that is of course only my opinion on the matter. Then again as I don't know anything about you other than what you write here and what I make of it, so my assumptions may not be entirely correct, and this holds true to everyone else here evaluating your content, like Isard and Human No More. This is simply a restriction we can't go around.

There have been a few occasions where I have argued against something and retreated when there was enough evidence to the contrary, but in the points that I stick to, I have not really have gotten convincing evidence to the contrary. Naive would mean to look at things oversimplified and that I certainly do not do. I see that things are vastly complex and rather would say that exactly that complexity makes it immensely hard to make predictions about "solutions". Being ignorant would mean to ignore evidence or facts. What I usually do when arguments are brought up that run contrary to what I claim is that I try to use facts and conclusions against that. I am stubborn only when I think that the "facts" I am presented with are not complete or simply faulty. What you can hold against me is that in some topics i bring up philosophic or holistic argumentations - something a few of you seem to dislike as viable arguments (despite most of the famous scientists also being philosophers in some way or another).

Any proper argument worth something is fuelled only by information that can be deemed objective enough by all parties involved, and usually such occurrences are so rare, that arguments tend to go on for eternity because people drag irrelevant or subjective points into them.

We also may have a semantic issue on our hands when it comes to naivety. Perhaps I could use the word romantic, but that overlaps somewhat with idealism already, so I don't really know. Words in themselves are sometimes too rigid in their definitions and how they are used to relay information, but this is also something we can't go around.

That topic is a bit more complicated indeed. Technology can include by definition many things from making fire all the way up to genetic modification. I think however that there are appropriate and sustainable technologies and those who are not, I think that the relationship to technology is vastly important and do not accept a blind faith in technology to solve every problem. and I think that a lot of especially modern technology when used to the extent it is done now is destroying too much of what I love - this planet and the living beings on it. As some of you know, I am a scientist - i am working with technology daily, do chemistry for a living and used to build electronics and program software back when I was young in the 1980ies. I am no stranger to technology - but over all these years of digging it, I also found out some things that led me to the conclusions that I write here.

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

[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...

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

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.

Personal preferences are not something that can be objectively discussed, because they simply don't derive from the fundamental needs that we all share, such as need for food, warmth and so on.

Science can produce objective statements though.

That is, you have issues with opinions, not science, but you sound like you are having issues with both.

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.

Fear is the enemy of mankind, of us all, because it makes us do terrible things. To be somewhat cliched, we fear the things we don't understand. Fear is the primitive safeguard reaction designed to keep us safe, but it can no longer serve its intended purpose, considering how "unnatural" our lives have become.

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.

Technology is here to serve us, and if some people do not want said technology, then it's their prerogative to refuse from it, but those of us who want the conveniencies provided by technological advancements, we are willing to accept the possible repercussions.

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.

This is true, and that is why I said that personal preferences can't be subjected to objective discussions, because objectivity means sharing a common denominator. Then again we mostly place too much from too little value for personal preferences in many regard, but I'm not about to go there now because I'm not about to write a book about this particular subject.

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by lack of or wrong kind of relationship? Can you elaborate?

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.

Just like we must eat the fruits of a tree to stay healthy, we must use other materials that are available. Then again this particular subject can be expanded too much to handle on my own, but suffice to say that I want to differentiate between what is needed for handy stuff, and what is done just for profit, but because in our society these things are so intertwined, it's rather difficult to keep them apart so to speak.

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...

All in all, I think we should have a more efficient way of having this conversation, mostly because I tire at typing, and even more so I tire of thinking, which is rare in itself because that's the only thing I always like to do, but now my mind is beginning to slow down due to sleep deprivation or something.

In summation, I want to advocate such technology that can allow us to stop abusing nature as we do, while still retaining most of modern comforts we enjoy today. Technology is a tool to solve problems, and while the people in the mining industry don't see their destructive behaviour as a problem, and thus aren't interested investing in developing technologies that are more resource efficient, or don't require physical materials to begin with.

I think I need lots of sugar or something to wake my brain up, because I feel like zombie or something...

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

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

I think it's more incompatible with industrialisation. I also think it would be naive to think that industrialisation can be put back into it's genie-lamp; the only way you could do that would be to make material processing economically irrelevant, and that's not happening any time soon.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Technology is here to serve us, and if some people do not want said technology, then it's their prerogative to refuse from it, but those of us who want the conveniencies provided by technological advancements, we are willing to accept the possible repercussions.

At that point, this idea runs into several problems.
For once the mentioned abuse of objectivity. Because some people claim to have objective proof that something does no harm gives them the perceived right to do it because the others wont be affected. So the cellphone lovers would say that studies show that cellphone towers do not harm people, so they can build it even if the neighbors do not want it, because it does not harm them according to the perceived objectivity. But that ignores the problem of subjectivity because for those neighbors who do not think the studies are conclusive or even for those who are just "supersitious" it is still a violation. The only possible way out would be to build cellphone towers only in places where no one in the vicinity has any objections and if they have objections to educate and convince them. But in many cases the shortcut is taken, the cellphone tower is built and if someone complains they are slapped in the face with some studies or data that "prove" that there is no harm done. I think this is elitist, arrogant and undemocratic.
The other thing is that with the present technologies, or at least most of them, the repercussions of using them are carried by someone else. The cars we drive create global warming in Africa, oil spills in the Niger delta, displace indigenous in the Amazon and create acid mine drainage in Chile. The cellphones we use create toxic lakes in REE mining in China, impacts of copper and gold mining in South America and end up polluting the air and soil and people in crude attempts of recycling in Africa. In most cases the people living there profit a lot less of these technologies than the burden they carry (often they dont have a car and one usually has no more than one cellphone). This also happens on a more local scale. And it happens massively with nonhumans. I would not mind zip if some people want to have all kinds of technologies if they would themselves bear all the impacts and consequences of it. If they want, they can also have death camps and wars. But the confinement of the impacts is impossible with present technologies, so in most cases some people suffer and some other people endulge in the benefits.

Originally Posted by Clarke

I think it's more incompatible with industrialisation. I also think it would be naive to think that industrialisation can be put back into it's genie-lamp; the only way you could do that would be to make material processing economically irrelevant, and that's not happening any time soon.

Voluntarily - probably not. When this civilization hits the boundaries of growth and faces collapse - it better be so. Jared Diamond wrote about this in his books, that (ancient) civilizations most often collapse when they hit the limits of their resources they depend on but that some managed to get over it by a couple of means. Those are adaptability to completely new ways of life, positive social coherence and others. It often takes to throw overboard very basic assumptions of a culture to make it. In some cases, this meant that those who survived adopted lifestyles that do not resemble the previous civilization anymore.
The auto industry will become economically irrelevant when oil runs out, so will oil and gas driven industrial agriculture. In some cases, new technologies can replace the ones that hit limits, but in some cases it simply is not feasible economically. For example it is simply impossible to drive all the cars with bioethanol and if it would be possible it would be way more expensive, so that it would be madness to keep up the highway system for the remaining cars.
Many times these new technologies run into new limits again and the cycle seems to go faster and faster as technological development goes faster and faster. A new technology might hit limits within a few years after its boom and maybe even before it managed to replace the old technology completely. I mean few people would have thought that rare Earth mining would become a limiting factor to the transition to renewable energy in such a short time. Or that Uranium production actually will peak within a few decades.

To stick with your analogy of the Djinn and the bottle - if we cannot bring him back into the bottle but find that with every wish that we are granted he distorts it in a way that causes massive damage elsewhere or to ourselves or our children - what do we do? In the story the Djinn is either tricked back into the bottle or he is somehow defeated. If he was always only doing good things he might also be freed. But I dont think we deal with a Djinn that only does good - we are dealing with one of Chaos that gives you a beautiful flower and kills a forest to make it....

[dstroudswan]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

But in many cases the shortcut is taken, the cellphone tower is built and if someone complains they are slapped in the face with some studies or data that "prove" that there is no harm done. I think this is elitist, arrogant and undemocratic.

I think it's important to note here that studies actually go both ways. Some say there is increased risk, others say no risk, and others still say (oddly enough) a decreased risk. Really, the scientific and medical communities freely admit that it's inconclusive - we don't really know. For more information on that, see this medical journal article from the Journal of Neuro-oncology here.

However, those studies are actually referring to cell phones themselves, and we aren't making neighbours get cell phones. We're just building cell towers. And according to the World Health Organization, there's absolutely no risk, other than a clinically insignificant rise in core temperature.

The cars we drive create global warming in Africa, oil spills in the Niger delta, displace indigenous in the Amazon and create acid mine drainage in Chile. The cellphones we use create toxic lakes in REE mining in China, impacts of copper and gold mining in South America and end up polluting the air and soil and people in crude attempts of recycling in Africa.

Where did you read about those things? I haven't heard of some of those and would like to read more, so if you would post your sources, I would much appreciate that.

But the confinement of the impacts is impossible with present technologies, so in most cases some people suffer and some other people endulge in the benefits.

I think most of those impacts are from technologies we don't really need, especially things like massive-scale steel production. Really, to make a bunch of computers and connectors, it wouldn't take that much steel. And once it was all made, that would be it. That would be the end of the pollution. We might need a bunch to begin with to make things like long-distance terminals across space to create an interplanetary Internet, but once that's done, that's it, and the pollution ends there.

In some cases, new technologies can replace the ones that hit limits, but in some cases it simply is not feasible economically.

I have to disagree with that because of your use of the concept of economy. If you haven't noticed, the Na'vi do just fine without a monetary system, and I see no reason why a moneyless society couldn't work, barring people's greed. And anyway, things like running out of oil won't be an issue with these new electric cars coming out, which can get electricity from stations that derive it from sunlight or running water.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by dstroudswan

I have to disagree with that because of your use of the concept of economy. If you haven't noticed, the Na'vi do just fine without a monetary system, and I see no reason why a moneyless society couldn't work, barring people's greed.

To chip in here, wealth and money are not synonymous. The Na'vi do not have a system of money, but it's nigh-impossible for them not to have a concept of wealth. I'm sure that leaders' family (I can't remember the exact titles) will be one of the wealthier members of the tribe.

[dstroudswan]

In what way? What would the leaders have that other Na'vi wouldn't?