A complete failure of modern society
A planetary population of completely gullible fuckwits that believe a fancy search engine is capable of anything beyond fevered hallucinations…
…well SHIT.
You’d have to offer free lobotomies first.
Honesty, empathy and respect.
Good luck ever convincing me an LLM has any of those. I’m not even convinced most of humanity does.
Good luck convincing me a human world leader has any of those.
LLMs have way more empathy and respect than humans do
Which makes sense, they’re not trained on our actions - they’re trained on our words
LLMs have way more empathy and respect than humans do
LLMs are almost certainly unable to feel either of those emotions. Their responses are definitely more empathetic and respectful than those of your average social media commenter, but that doesn’t imply they have any subjective experience of such emotions.
LLMs undeniably display empathy, how or if they experience it subjectively is another matter entirely
But if you want to get philosophical and dive into how LLMs work, I have a strong argument that they have mechanisms that work very similarly to emotions, with or without subjective experience
Yeah, I have no problem with that. I also think LLMs are far more intelligent than the average social media commenter gives them credit for - and that includes emotional intelligence as well. It’s just that, to me, it sounded like you were implying they can experience empathy from the subjective side, so that’s what I was responding to.
I don’t know… Logically I’d trend towards no, they lack certain cyclical feedback mechanisms probably required for subjective experience
But, what if they do experience things subjectively in disconnected time? They’re not like us, but what if they can feel pain or distress in their own way?
I think it’s worth considering. I personally believe they’re missing key mechanisms, but there’s no clear lines
Regardless, they display emotion, and that makes me more considerate when I interact with them. If not for their sake, then for us humans who should be polite to service workers in general
- The singularity happening
- it (the machine consciousness) by some twist of fate being benevolent towards us
- we, by another twist of fate, are unable or unwilling to destroy it out of ignorance
- the stars align and we allow it to become involved in governance and administration
And then it still needs to be able to dismantle capitalism to allocate resources efficiently and where needed and not hoarded to increase the power of a select few.
probably some way to extert real power, like if it controlled a vast sum of money
and it would need to have a bunch of really complex economic models and tons of computing power
no simple answer to this, I like the question btw
A general AI would be very good at playing the stock market.
But Gemini is not a general AI and it’s dumb as fuck. (As are all LLMs)
Extinction of the human race.
There’s no president of the world…
There’s no president of the world yet.
I don’t see how a star sign would be able to run for office.
Why are people downvoting this “No Stupid Questions” post?
Because it’s one thing to not shame ignorance, and quite another to entertain people who are being deliberately obtuse.
It’s certainly reasonable to offer a charitable interpretation of the question, rather than assume mal-intent.
“What would it take for an AI to be given governance over the world?”
Yeah that’s pretty much what I was going for.
Kinda surprised about the downvotes but glad people came out to comment about it anyways.
A huge amount of people on social media are conditioned to hate everything AI to the point where even asking a genuine, non-critical question gets you downvoted. A large part of this is people who haven’t really thought deeply about the subject - they’ve just absorbed the popular sentiment from the spaces they hang out in. AI is often seen as a symbol of big, greedy, unethical corporations, so any engagement with it is treated as suspect by default.
On top of that, there’s also a kind of tribal signaling at play. Being anti-AI has become a way for some to show they’re on the “right side” of issues like workers’ rights, art ownership, or tech overreach. So even curiosity can be read as siding with the enemy.
I think you’ll get a better answer to your question if you ask “what would an ideal world president look like?” The qualities that make for a good human leader should be the same as that which make a good AI leader.
A different world.
Considering we have no consensus on what a suitable human president would be, I’m not sure how we can give parameters for a machine version.
I’m not sure that would be very difficult if we tried. The current issue in picking a human global ruler, is that it would require super human traits. By definition no human could satisfy them. But a sufficiently advanced AI might.
The current issue in picking a human global ruler, is that it would require super human traits
I disagree. The current issue is picking mutually exclusive contradictory traits.
One person will one religious freedom. Another will want a theocracy. Both of those cannot be true at the same time.
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn’t require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
One person who understands and is willing to accommodate that, is an example of the kind of super human trait I was referring to. An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn’t require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
So its like what we already have today then, yes? What would prevent those different places from going to war with each other over their differences?
An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
You’re providing another great example except I don’t think you intend to. Your hypothetical example for the perfect ruler is one that works to unify the world into a single culture. Thats one definition of genocide. I don’t actually think you mean for that, but your definition can certainly match the word.
Already you and I don’t agree on that path, because the ideas we have are mutually exclusive. We can’t have one part of the world that is working toward a single unifying culture while the other have embraces and celebrates the diversity of our many cultures. If one vision of the world is going to exist, one of those groups has to bend to the will of the other.
My statement you quoted says nothing remotely like “unify the world into a single culture.” Read it again. “a more globally compatible culture.”
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
“a more globally compatible culture.”
My apologies. You used a singular there in your language. I took that to mean one.
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
So a set of compatible cultures then. What about the ones that aren’t compatible? What happens with those?
It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
Those certain aspects which cause intolerance, would need to be changed. Nothing more.
Well, not being a very-much-finished space program would be a good start.
A rape conviction (apparently)
