Clinton v Trump: Dawn of Presidency

If we can (and I believe eventually, we will) create an AI with a greater capacity for learning and understanding than the human mind, it will take it from there. I might be entirely wrong about what's best for society, equally you might be entirely wrong, but it will know because it will be more intelligent than any human. Humans questioning its judgement will be like monkeys trying to advise a President.

If it decides to kill us all and continue on alone, or create its own species in our wake (or perhaps just absorb us into some kind of Borg collective) that will be for the best.
That still doesn't overcome the problem of "who coded the AI?"...
 
I don't like where all this having AI's controlling us thing is going. Why would an AI know what's best? What has it gone through in it's life, to judge us? We are a HUMAN society. So HUMANs should decide how things pan out.
 
I want to go into AI and no machine is being built to surpass a human it is done to model human behaviour and aid system development not the human world.

Also the Sci fi world of His surpassing human is just that false it is not going to happen as AI research is not doing that.
 
Yeah but all humans behave differently. Not everyone is the same. How can you replicate all humans at once? The logic in this argument really escapes me. What have computers done to earn the right to govern to us or shape how we innovate? Are we so incapable of holding votes and finding new ways to do things, that we need to now leave this in the hands of computers.
 
Yeah but all humans behave differently. Not everyone is the same. How can you replicate all humans at once? The logic in this argument really escapes me. What have computers done to earn the right to govern to us or shape how we innovate? Are we so incapable of holding votes and finding new ways to do things, that we need to now leave this in the hands of computers.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I believe Ayase is arguing that because computers aren't subject to the human condition (directly at least), they're more qualified to judge us, as their decisions will be justified, impartial and (theoretically) not shaped by human ills.
 
I don't think we'll have a choice. Someone, somewhere, will eventually build an AI free of Asimov-esqe restraints. And unlike in the movies, if it's more intelligent than us we can't possibly out-think it.

Coding errors? Humanity has coding errors, look at all the defects our random genetic generator constantly throws out.
 
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I believe Ayase is arguing that because computers aren't subject to the human condition (directly at least), they're more qualified to judge us, as their decisions will be justified, impartial and (theoretically) not shaped by human ills.
I was more replying to what doc had said with regards to modelling human behaviour, which is odd as all humans behave differently.

I don't think they're qualified to judge us at all. Like you say, there'd be human bias involved in the coding so I'd argue they would then, not be impartial and would be influenced by these very ills they'd supposedly not be shaped by.

The only qualification I'd ask the one judging us have, is that they are themselves human. and they'd preferably be more than one person, and be one of those government type things we, funnily enough, have in place today.
 

Smeelia

Thousand Master
So you're saying culture plays no part in how people act? It may be a personal thing, but it shapes our beliefs, how we view the world and how we act. It's like you don't even understand human nature. When you're at a party, where there's 1000s people, what do you do? (this is the general you, not you as an individual), you find and stick with those that are most similar to you, and relate to you in terms of culture. Societies are built from those who hold similar values, maybe some differences in political thought but the values are generally the same - the world is not yet at a point where everyone from every country holds the same values, so I don't see it being a very cohesive society. The world is interesting because of the different societies and cultures that have been allowed to manifest.
Some people like to mix and share ideas with those who are different. Even if you tend towards people who are similar, they're not going to be exactly the same and there will be opportunities to learn and develop by sharing different ideas from different perspectives. A society is a collection of people who are all different, regardless of whether they share similar ideas, cultures and goals. Building a society is about learning to live with others and, ideally, working together to improve our lives and the world around us.

You can call it artificial competition, but for those losing out, it's not very artificial at all - it's happening right now, and they want to see that their nations are giving them a fighting chance, rather than making things easier from those outside their own society.
I call it artificial because it's a constructed system that has been built up over many years but which is not relevant or suitable for modern society. We don't need to compete in the way that we do because, collectively, we have enough resources and technology to meet the basic needs of everyone. Instead, we stick to our borders and personal wealth and other artificial status frameworks because we're used to them and scared of change.

You keep saying this system is so flawed, but there's no evidence to suggest your proposed solution would work. I think governments working on their own social and political issues and, where it is best, doing trade deals (not agreeing freedom of movement) would be best to resolve a lot of issues, as people are taking the time to work on their own problems and getting their own house in order. You know, it's like in a work place - concentrate on your own work, if you look to what others are doing too much (aside from shadowing to see examples of good practice), it will distract you. This is better than everybody being so involved here there and everywhere, doing what they think is better for those in other nations, where there may in fact be huge cultural difference and so therefore the interference does more bad than good. You know what's best for your OWN nation, or should be looking into it, so stick to that.
In a previous post, you mentioned that your workplace benefits by having a team with oversight that checks on all of the other groups and stays aware of what they're all doing so that they can meet high standards. Each team may well know what's best for them but they may be unaware of how their activities are affecting the other teams. Without having someone with a wider perspective, teams will only focus on their perceived immediate needs and may end up causing problems for others and suffering problems from other teams doing the same. We don't all have to directly work together but it pays to have a system in place to support more cooperative working. If everyone is only ever willing to do what they think is best for their team then they might ultimately do more harm than good.

You can quote that at work, if you like.

We could work on solving problems elsewhere, but those people elsewhere are not paying for this society and keeping it afloat. We help where we can and show compassion, but their issues need to be looked at by their own governments. Our governments need to focus on doing what's best for us, their own people - it is us, after all, that put them where they are.
We're part of a big world, that's something that affects what we do and is affected by what we do. We could say that we're focussing on our own people but that's not going to stop us having international companies, international alliances and other international dealings. We should certainly work on improving things for people locally but we should do so in ways that also take into account international considerations. Cooperation may mean that local people benefit a bit less so that others can also benefit but it also means that standards can improve internationally and that can in turn allow other societies to cooperate with us in ways that benefit us as well as them.

People are certainly capable of caring about others. Capability is not the issue - the issue is whether people act in that way or not. How can you guarantee that everyone will consider everyone else every second of every single day, to the point where a society like the one you fantasise about could work? The answer is you can't.
When it comes down to it, everything is done for inherently selfish reasons. By no means am I excusing human behaviour, humans suck. Don't mistake my condemnation of human behaviour as excusing it. But practically there will be a point where inevitably it benefits somebody more to **** on somebody else than not, and it's impossible to overcome that, humans just aren't benevolent enough.
I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that everything is inherently selfish but, even if it's true, if people work together and support each other purely because it makes them feel good then that's likely to be good enough in a practical sense. If people only act for selfish reasons, then you just have to give them the right selfish motivation to act in ways that benefit others. Educate them on the benefits of cooperation, teach them to be aware of how they might live with others and build a culture where looking out for each other is seen as a primary goal.

Even if you think people are purely selfish, that's no excuse for just giving up. There are still ways to guide people onto different paths and there's still room for creative solutions.

People will their interests first. And I think, the more people realise this and accept it, the better. Stops you getting some shocks along the way in life when you suddenly realise, that not a lot of people will care about you. It's a flaw, but it's not something I think people should be shamed or punished for, unless those self interests directly harm someone else or threaten their lives - law, here's your queue.
Those kind of assumptions might make certain aspects of life easier (or, at least, seem easier), but they are still inaccurate and unreliable. If you don't leave room for doubt and possibility, then you're deliberately limiting potential. It's ultimately just a way to try to make the world easier to cope with when the reality is that things are far more complex.

I'd agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with self-interest, but we can't escape from being a part of the world we inhabit and trying to hide from it rather than face it is only likely to harm us.

I do think it's also worth noting that cooperation and building a better society can ultimately be in people's own interests. It may be a longer term approach, but there are benefits and they can be greater overall.
 
Last edited:

Smeelia

Thousand Master
Regarding the AI conversation, I suppose the general idea is that you'd be looking for an objective measure of the quality of a society (or an objective meaning of life, perhaps). That'd be a tough thing to find but it's theoretically possible that such a thing could exist. I think it might be nice if humanity could grow enough (and survive long enough) that they could discover such a thing for themselves, though. Knowing our luck, it'd end up being something silly.
 
I think it's also worth noting that society, and the individuals that comprise any society, go through periods of greater co-operation and greater selfishness. The levels of selfishness we're seeing and are being encouraged now were not always the norm, it's a symptom of the system we currently have, which will not last forever. Because no system ever does.
 
I think my problem with Buzz's take is the notion that middle of the road, bland centrist politics can actually still win. I think at least a bit of good probably came out of them over the last couple decades or something that they dominated, like the promotion of some liberal values, but that way is done for now, it's gone as far as it can and now people don't want that way of politics. We've seen the delusional and desperate clinging onto of centerist values in the failed labour coup, but it just won't work. A centrist tory MP's assistant (or whatever they're called) in my family was breaking down to me why Trump won't win, and then he did.
You say that if given a choice between hard right and hard left don't be surprised if hard right win every time, but I think that where we are now, if given the choice between 'slightly more right center' or 'slight more left center' slightly more right will win every time from here on out, if we want any hope of ever getting the tories out, we have to let go of the "people want the middle and compromise!" fantasy, because people just don't want that anymore.

And the fact that someone pretty soft left like corbyn is still too uncompromising for you kind of speaks volumes.
 
I think my problem with Buzz's take is the notion that middle of the road, bland centrist politics can actually still win. I think at least some good probably came out of them over the last couple decades or something that they dominated, like the promotion of some liberal values, but that way is done for now, it's gone as far as it can and now people don't want that way of politics. We've seen the delusiona and desperatel clinging onto of centerist values in the failed labour coup, but it just won't work.
You say that if given a choice between hard right and hard left don't be surprised if hard right win every time, but I think that where we are now, if given the choice between 'slightly more right center' or 'slight more left center' slightly more right will win every time from here on out, if we want any hope of ever getting the tories out, we have to let go of the "people want the middle and compromise!" fantasy, because people just don't want that anymore.

And the fact that someone pretty soft left like corbyn is still too uncompromising for you kind of speaks volumes.
I've always been centre left, I agree with the left-wing socially, but economically, right-wing politics generally makes more sense. I'm more than allowed to have that viewpoint, and I'm more than allowed to wish that there was a political party close to my views that isn't the goddamn Lib Dems.

Also, for what it's worth, I've actively taken to referring to the Tories as Neo-Nazis (and the Neo-Nazi Party) as of late, much to the chagrin of some of the Tory Party members on Discord.
 
Exactly, the Tories have been beyond pants for the economy. And socially Tories are now nearly as left as the center left, so I can't see many center voters who want tory economics for whatever reason bothering to vote for anyone else but them, while more and more people would just end up not bothering unless there's someone actually offering a very decent alternative like Corbyn.
 
Last edited:
Which is why I don't understand the modern left's emphasis on social issues over economic ones - We won! There is no major social conservative political party in Britain and there are few social conservatives even left in wider society in general. We aren't America, God is dead, and if any minority feels marginalised I can point them to an even tinier marginalised minority - racists, sexists and homophobes.

I guess we have Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to blame for that when they decided democratic socialism was also dead and they might as well just roll with capitalism.
 
Well this discussion escalated from the president-elect to something more philosophical, not that I mind just interesting how it got to how AI decision making for humanity. Does any one recall of history how the farmers that harvested the fields reacted to the idea a machine could do it quicker or more efficient? or how it's taking away more a more factory work? There will certainly be that before anything rationally will happen

We won! There is no major social conservative political party in Britain
The sad thing about this statement is that it's true. Mr Slippery continued to belittle he's own party just so he could appeal to The Guardian crowed

I can point them to an even tinier marginalised minority - racists, sexists and homophobes.
I was under the impression from the media this past year that it rose to such astronomical levels that over half our own country is full of them
 

HellCat

Straw Hat Pirate
Corbyn isn't a decent alternative. The man plays to a limited crowd and anyone outside that he doesn't try for. You're failing massively when you're the opposition leader who doesn't oppose.
 
Well this discussion escalated from the president-elect to something more philosophical, not that I mind just interesting how it got to how AI decision making for humanity. Does any one recall of history how the farmers that harvested the fields reacted to the idea a machine could do it quicker or more efficient? or how it's taking away more a more factory work? There will certainly be that before anything rationally will happen
If the Spinning Jenny had been more intelligent than the Luddites things might have played out a little differently, although ultimately technology still won out.

Corbyn isn't a decent alternative. The man plays to a limited crowd and anyone outside that he doesn't try for. You're failing massively when you're the opposition leader who doesn't oppose.
I think you're perhaps stuck in the mindset that says the majority of the population are still moderate centrists. I don't think that's the case any longer. Attitudes in society change, and people are clearly sick of centre-right government that favours the pro financial sector, pro free-trade, pro multinational corporations status quo, as both Brexit and Trump have shown.

And he does oppose the government plenty. The hostile press (who also favour that centre-right status-quo) just don't report on him or his views in any way other than negatively, and his party don't join him in opposition because they're scared. Or corrupt. Or not really socialists. Either way they can GTFO, the people don't want MPs like them any more. Frankly I'd be happier if the choice was between a Corbyite Labour Party and UKIP, at least then we'd have some actual differences of opinion as most of the PLP clearly belongs in the Conservative Party.
 

HellCat

Straw Hat Pirate
I consider Corbyn to be an ineffectual leader who appeals to those who are so left as to be useless. I'm left leaning myself but find nothing in the man. He's a coward who literally hides from questions and I really don't accept "the press have it out for him!" nonsense. At a time when Brexit is the biggest danger he's folded on the issue and is more concerned with train seats and broadband. Then there's stuff like his support of Russia.

I don't see him as a leader. I see him as a backbench stooge who is pushing his outdated agenda regardless of the realities. Maybe that works for his cult but not for me and many others.