Count to !UPDATED! 20,000 before Tynan posts!

[Spdskatr]

Tynan will already posted at 9000.

9000
Lol, so close yet so far. I'm so sorry for ruining the party. Time to start again!

He's such a prankster.

11999
Oops

How do I know? Time travel.

Hey Marty, We could be good friends yanno!

Give up now.
4785
(This joke is quite old I know)

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.4790

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.4792

[Adamiks]

blah blah blah, etc.

Well said. I wanted to quote you, but the post was just too big to quote. I did read and appreciate it. I decided this would be a funny way to condense. Not meant as an insult.

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.

4792

4794

Haha, it actually works for me, because i just noticed i made a mistake. I wanted to say something else, then deleted it and started differently, and the result was:
"Just because they are not people doesnt matter they are worthless"

(i should use 'mean' instead)

[Spdskatr]

Tynan will already posted at 9000.

9000
Lol, so close yet so far. I'm so sorry for ruining the party. Time to start again!

He's such a prankster.

11999
Oops

How do I know? Time travel.

Hey Marty, We could be good friends yanno!

Give up now.
4785
(This joke is quite old I know)

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.4790

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.4792

How many times can you quote yourself? 4795

[Rock5]

I don't believe in the idea of a purely intellectual intelligence. What makes a person is their desires, ambitions and emotions. A highly intelligent AI, with nothing to drive it, would do nothing without instructions. I believe with humans, their actions are driven by how they make them feel. Feeling are a chemical reaction in the body. For an AI to be a person it would need a body that can feel and equivalent emotional feedbacks to stimulus like what a human feels.

4796

[mabor0shi]

4797

[Listen1]

4798

[Adamiks]

I don't believe in the idea of a purely intellectual intelligence. What makes a person is their desires, ambitions and emotions. A highly intelligent AI, with nothing to drive it, would do nothing without instructions. I believe with humans, their actions are driven by how they make them feel. Feeling are a chemical reaction in the body. For an AI to be a person it would need a body that can feel and equivalent emotional feedbacks to stimulus like what a human feels.

4796

Why would a intelligent machine listen to anybody's instructions, though (assuming it wouldnt be programmed to listen to them)?

4799

[Rock5]

A computer does only what it's programmed to do. It can't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. The same will be true for highly advanced computers of the future.

For a computer to be a person it has to have something that drives it's refusal to obey. It has to have it's own wants and goals. It can't want something unless it has a reason to want it such as a pleasure response to that goal. "I do this because it makes be feel good. I don't do this because it makes me feel bad."

There is also the idea of doing something because it's right and not doing something else because it's wrong. But the idea of right and wrong is tied into how it makes you feel. A bad person might do the wrong thing because he doesn't care about others. A good person does the right thing because they know they will feel guilty if they don't.

In my non-expert opinion it all comes down to feelings.

4800

[Adamiks]

A computer does only what it's programmed to do. It can't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. The same will be true for highly advanced computers of the future.

AI that is programmed isn't a true AI. For me true AI is something that programs itself, from scratch. Aka is capable of learning. All it should have programmed are basics things like logic for example. If it would have obeying its masters programmed, i dont think i would be a true AI. In my understanding of it, true AI is basically an artificial copy of humans. And humans work differently than that - there are things we have 'hardcoded', but they are not hardcoded to the point we cant under any circumstances do something.

For a computer to be a person it has to have something that drives it's refusal to obey. It has to have it's own wants and goals. It can't want something unless it has a reason to want it such as a pleasure response to that goal. "I do this because it makes be feel good. I don't do this because it makes me feel bad."

There is also the idea of doing something because it's right and not doing something else because it's wrong. But the idea of right and wrong is tied into how it makes you feel. A bad person might do the wrong thing because he doesn't care about others. A good person does the right thing because they know they will feel guilty if they don't.

In my non-expert opinion it all comes down to feelings.

Makes sense. My only argument here is that we aren't entirely logical beings. Therefore we cant possibly know if entirely logical beings wouldnt have something that would drive them, and give them a reason to execute certain acts. This is why instead of talking only about robots with emotions i mentioned robots that wouldnt have emotions. Better safe than sorry.

4801

[mabor0shi]

why do mechanoids try to kill people, but not other animals?
4802

[Adamiks]

Because they are gentlemen, so they dont want to be too OP

4803

[Dukkha]

Maybe it's because animals are pure beings, and the mechanoids are really there to punish you for your endless slaughter of Rimworlds innocent creatures.
4804

[Adamiks]

I dont think humans are not any less or more pure than animals and vice versa. We took cruelty we already had, from our primitive instincts, and enhanced it with intelligence. In result, we're cruel, but on a bigger scale, or not cruel at all (it varies from person to person, and how they use their intelligence). So it kinda balances it out.

Though, cruelty, egoism, aggression and all of that fun stuff. Its not made by humans. And if you see humans as total monsters, then you should also see apes in that same or similar way. After all, we're not different at all from our ape brethren. We fight with each other, and destroy everything around us (or rather - only humans do. But other animals would do so too, if they could) in the process. We dont care about other species and only see profit instead of 'higher' values. Just like our ancestors did. And just like many other animals. Only difference is that we have the technology to bring all of that on a higher level. To the point there is so many people who can destroy things faster than nature can heal. But i mean... after all, wasnt this the point? Most life forms on Earth are competing. We pretty much mastered the art of competing with other species, to the point we dont have to compete no more. We were programmed this way, so can we really be blamed for all the destruction, that is merely a byproduct of achieving the goals nature itself gave us?

4805

[Spdskatr]

Tynan will already posted at 9000.

9000
Lol, so close yet so far. I'm so sorry for ruining the party. Time to start again!

He's such a prankster.

11999
Oops

How do I know? Time travel.

Hey Marty, We could be good friends yanno!

Give up now.
4785
(This joke is quite old I know)

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.4790

I shall quote my own post until it gets old in this era.4792

How many times can you quote yourself? 4795

4806

[Dukkha]

You're right in that all other animals share our innate need to feed, and some even share our tenancy towards cruelty. And our mastery toward causing harm does not make us any more "evil" then those species who take joy in inflecting suffering among others but lack the mental capacity to express that suffering to the degree that we can.
But with our amazing mental abilities there is a massive ignorance towards the effects we have on the beings around us. No we are not more evil than our ape brethren but we are far more capable. Our ability to cause harm is far outmatched but our ability to understand the harm we cause seems to be no greater than the primates from which we 'evolved.'
And while being ignorant does not make us evil, being ignorant with an extreme ability to destroy does leave us in a bit of a conundrum.
It's a dilemma I imagine the Mechanoids calculated with utmost scrutiny.
I for one trust the decision of our superior beings.

4807