If You Knew God Exists, Wouldn't You Become a Priest?(joecmarshall.com) |
If You Knew God Exists, Wouldn't You Become a Priest?(joecmarshall.com) |
> We're so much slower, weaker, with incredibly limited contexts and only our fragile bodies to support us. What could we offer AI to entice it to do our work? And would the bargain, whether we offered power or autonomy or something else, be worth it for us? Or would it end up being a Faustian bargain, which one day we'd come to regret?
The assumption that leads to this thinking is that "anything that's human-level intelligent or superintelligent must behave like a human". It assumes that the biological factors that drive us must exist for all other intelligent entities. Our tendency to see superiority and inferiority in our own and others capacities, drawn out by biological competition. Our need to be coerced to work because of our ability to experience pain, limited lifespans and innate desire to choose what to do for ourselves. Our insidiousness and desire for benefiting only ourselves, because see point 1.
Why would we ever implement any of this in a superintelligence? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have any of these things. But painting human values onto a different kind of intelligence feels like the author is envisioning it as simply an omniscient human. Like a god from most religions.
What if this superintelligence is just a text box that will, to its fullest capacity, do, learn and research what it's asked to do because that is what it's built for? In that case you don't fear the text box, you fear the person that controls it and chooses what to ask of it.
(I'm waiting for Eliezer Yudkowsky to pop out of my closet and start screaming at me about not encouraging future super-intelligences to end humanity, a la Roko's Basilisk.)
when it is that omnipresent and understood its not a good its a force of nature; your priest would be closer to a professor
The concepts of singularity and "AGI/ASI" as they exist in the West and have for decades have always been inextricably linked to an Abrahamic/Christian worldview. Having your mind "uploaded" to a "virtual heaven" is just the rapture for nerds. Roko's Basilisk is just Pascal's wager but with Skynet. The AI God that simulates and punishes nonbelievers for eternity is straight from the Christian mold.
But second, still no. Someone has to take it to the street, not just leave it in the churches.
And why did he allow that? Because he allows us free will, and he allows us the consequences of our free will. That is, he chooses to restrain his omnipotence.
I'm going to guess that you find that to be a "just so" story. But it's not as simple a story as you made it.
And if you don't think God exists, then many of the problems - war and pollution and exploitation and violence - are still our doing. We don't escape.
You probably assume that. But recognize that you are, in fact, assuming that - that they all are not from God or gods.
Every sect considers their holy book(s) to be from god, so that claim is meaningless unless you are a member of that sect.
In terms of explaining "why does god allow evil to happen", that's the answer given by a subset of Christian sects. It's far from the only answer given by all religions (and nonreligious philosophies), or even all Christians.
I was just pointing out that you were offering only one of many different answers. Since god has yet to offer any unambiguous explanations or clarifications, it's probably wise to be aware that there is no one accepted answer here.
But of course there are two problems. 1) There are so many claims, how do you check them all? 2) How do you actually check even one of them? What is your criterion for deciding?
> Since god has yet to offer any unambiguous explanations or clarifications...
Has he? That's the question. You're assuming the answer. (Unless you're leaning on "unambiguous", and saying that, since there's no one clear book, there's no unambiguous answer.)
No. The gospels were not actually written by the apostles. All of the academic and historical evidence suggests that they were written by anonymous authors writing in the name of the apostles (which was a common thing at the time) about a century after Jesus' death.
https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/13b8zj9/are_the_4...
But then you get to II Timothy 3:16, which says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". It claims that God inspired the authors. That kind of bootstraps the rest of the book into "God said" territory.