The Dead Horse Rides again: Cap/Com Debate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But describing the state of the world by saying that force is being applied somewhere is stupid, because it always is and always will be.

Ohhh let me get my Adam Smith quote.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
It doesn't matter whether we have self aware machines or not. The fact that all indicators point to us being able to create intelligent machines that are cheaper and more efficient than human workers is. It is some way off, but there does not seem to be any reason why it shouldn't happen.

People who deny this are like people who, when seeing Goddard's experiments in rocketry, denied that human beings would go to the moon.

Somebody has to maintain the things.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The only polymorphism with which I'm familiar is class inheritence

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But describing the state of the world by saying that force is being applied somewhere is stupid, because it always is and always will be.

"Civil govt, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none."

-Adam Smith

The type of force that we are talking about only applies to social systems where there are property owners.

[Natalinasmpf]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The only polymorphism with which I'm familiar is class inheritence

One does not simply take sand from a beach and produce a Dataprobe.

[Kuciwalker]

Oooh, SMAC quotes! I likey!

[Natalinasmpf]

No, thats what I meant by polymorphism. The whole idea is to adapt, reshape to the task.

[Arrian]

/me decides to dip his toe into this thread

Side question regarding the possibility of self-aware machines:

If we do in fact manage to truely come up with AI, can we really expect those machines to do our work for us? Leaving aside the "OMG THE MACHINES ARE TAKING OVER" possibility, even if they were still under our control, ala the robots of Asimov's imagination, would we not have simply created a new form of slavery?

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


"Civil govt, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none."

-Adam Smith

The type of force that we are talking about only applies to social systems where there are property owners.

Which are all social systems, whether the owners are the state, the party, or your tribe. Nobody has ever made a point of saying "hey, take all the valuable resources you want, we don't care" - or at least, they haven't survived on the planet long enough for anyone to take notes that they said that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
No, thats what I meant by polymorphism. The whole idea is to adapt, reshape to the task.

I understood

but only after the SMAC quote

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
* Arrian decides to dip his toe into this thread

Side question regarding the possibility of self-aware machines:

If we do in fact manage to truely come up with AI, can we really expect those machines to do our work for us? Leaving aside the "OMG THE MACHINES ARE TAKING OVER" possibility, even if they were still under our control, ala the robots of Asimov's imagination, would we not have simply created a new form of slavery?

-Arrian

Not if we made them in such a way that they'd WANT to serve us - that is, they'd serve us of their own free will. We give them free will, but make them so that they're predisposed towards service

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Which are all social systems, whether the owners are the state, the party, or your tribe. Nobody has ever made a point of saying "hey, take all the valuable resources you want, we don't care" - or at least, they haven't survived on the planet long enough for anyone to take notes that they said that.

There's a difference between creating an enemy for yourself in an attempt to rule over them and then protecting yourself from them, and just protecting yourself. If you create enemies for yourself you need much more protection for yourself, and the act is hostile.

Of course the rulers don't distiguish between the two, but the victims do. If I take your land and then set up guards around it you will hardly call that peace just because you don't try to take the land back by force.