• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

ChubbyHuggs
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:22 PM)
ChubbyHuggs's Avatar
Humans should never gain knowledge of immortality.
SomTervo
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:00 AM)
SomTervo's Avatar

Originally Posted by gaugebozo

Just as soon as our colossal overlord has decided the calculation has reached he proper uncertainty level to finish his overlord thesis, we are FUCKED.

Hello Games already did it a couple of times 🌝
zeemumu
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:02 AM)
zeemumu's Avatar

Originally Posted by tonysidaway

Haven't we been seeking to do just that for a while without significant controversy?

But I think I can see some ethical dilemmas. For instance, in the Black Mirror episode White Christmas we develop in some nearby future the capacity to create a "cookie" from an existing human brain. This is a simulation that has sentience and can this be manipulated, threatened and tortured.

But that's not a hard boundary, as was suggested. Examples of beneficial uses of such a technology are to enable a sentient mind (or a reasonably faithful facsimile thereof) to survive the death of the body.

I would also suggest Surface Detail, one of Iain Banks' greatest novels, as a fairly good exploration of the pros and cons of that kind of machine intelligence. In particular, his discussion of what the narrator calls "The Simming Problem" is quite inclusive in its definition of machine intelligence.

Not quite what I meant. Going beyond a certain point in the development of sentient machines would pretty much be setting yourself up to be replaced, and there's also the issue bringing something self-aware into the world for the pure purpose of servitude. But for your point they touched on that in a game called SOMA where you repeatedly upload a scan of a guy's brain that thinks it's real and keep wiping it from existence when it has a mental breakdown. Your character has issue with this but your buddy character is like "nah, it's fine. Robots."


Also living forever.

Living forever sucks.
Kenstar
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:13 AM)
Kenstar's Avatar
Easily available High fractions of C space travel speed

Easy way to fuck the planet up is to point a spacecraft at it and let it hit at relative velocity
Here's what just a single bullet at .25c would do:

0.25c is 75,000,000 m/s. The specific kinetic energy of an object at that speed is 2.81x1015 J/kg. (Neglecting relativistic effects, so this is a slight underestimate.) If we assume a 5 gram bullet, its kinetic energy is about 14 trillion joules. According to Wikipedia, that's on the order of about 30,000 bolts of lightning.

Another way to look at it: suppose the bullet disintegrates completely before hitting the ground. We can put a very loose lower bound on the rate of energy release by assuming it loses energy uniformly. The bullet would traverse 100km of atmosphere in about a millisecond, so that's 14 quadrillon watts of power.

Divide that by the surface area of a sphere, radius 10 km, and at that distance the heat output would momentarily be about 10,000 times brighter than the sun. At 1 km, it would be a million times brighter than the sun. The incandescent gas trail would probably reach billions or trillions of Kelvin before it had time to cool.

This is all under the assumption that the bullet vaporizes before it hits the ground. If not, you still get the same amount of energy released, but it all goes into the ground instead. 2.8 petajoules is about the energy released in a magnitude 7.1 earthquake.

http://ask.metafilter.com/178421/Eff...-in-atmosphere

Now warping space to get by the C speed limit via Alcubierre drive is fine and dandy, just dont ACTUALLY have an easy way to propel objects to significant fractions of C that just anyone could get their hands on
lastplayed
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:28 AM)
lastplayed's Avatar
What the apple tastes like.
DarkKyo
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:29 AM)
DarkKyo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alienous

Immortality.

I can't think of how it wouldn't bring the world to unavoidable ruin.

You're not thinking hard enough then.
tonysidaway
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:30 AM)

Originally Posted by Poppy

we have been trying to instill ai with the capacity to learn and be more functional than it is to the extent that it is nearly indistinguishable from humanity, but that seems more focused on functionality and making us comfortable and making technology better

imbuing something artificial with actual sentience though, seems like the most morally reprehensible thing i have ever heard of in my life

You're describing only the most successful and therefore the most prominent kind of AI research. But the other kind of research still exists and (in the early days) was the only kind that was known to exist. That is, early researchers were consciously attempting to reproduce the processes of human thought.

Although that strand of AI research ran into some dead ends that blunted its early promise, research into sentient machines hasn't been hampered by ethical concerns. It's just been overshadowed by statistical methods.

Why do you think we should abandon all research into creating sentient machines?
Poppy
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:35 AM)
Poppy's Avatar

Originally Posted by tonysidaway

Why do you think we should abandon all research into creating sentient machines?

because you dont have a right to bring something into an existence where it can suffer simply for your own benefit

basically thats just going to be like making the pass butter robot
Xero
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:39 AM)
Xero's Avatar
farscape peacekeeper wars spoilers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st1qeNC4JkU

Worm hole weapons.
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(09-14-2017, 12:45 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kenstar

Easily available High fractions of C space travel speed

Easy way to fuck the planet up is to point a spacecraft at it and let it hit at relative velocity
Here's what just a single bullet at .25c would do:

http://ask.metafilter.com/178421/Eff...-in-atmosphere

Now warping space to get by the C speed limit via Alcubierre drive is fine and dandy, just dont ACTUALLY have an easy way to propel objects to significant fractions of C that just anyone could get their hands on

Unless "trickery" is involved that violates the laws of physics- minus gravity you have to spend that much energy to gain it. So that technology would already be capable of achieving that kind of destruction via other means. I suppose thousands of perfect orbital slingshots could get an object to some fraction of it.
tonysidaway
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:49 AM)

Originally Posted by zeemumu

Not quite what I meant. Going beyond a certain point in the development of sentient machines would pretty much be setting yourself up to be replaced,

Well I'm a father, so I kinda get how that whole thing works. Cool.

and there's also the issue bringing something self-aware into the world for the pure purpose of servitude. But for your point they touched on that in a game called SOMA where you repeatedly upload a scan of a guy's brain that thinks it's real and keep wiping it from existence when it has a mental breakdown. Your character has issue with this but your buddy character is like "nah, it's fine. Robots."

Why would we want to condemn sentient machines to servitude? Well, perhaps we're evil, in which case bring replaced by our robot slaves might be a moral improvement.

But I notice that you're just exploring worst cases here, whereas I thought the idea was that the creation of sentient life absolutely must not be researched.

I think it's rather more nuanced than that. We're biological, we're evolved and we probably can't ever traverse deep space by some faster-than-light space opera magic. It might be a good idea to research the creation of a successor species that would share our curiosity but fit the form factor and time constraints needed for deep space travel. Or maybe not. But the argument can be made.
tonysidaway
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:10 AM)

Originally Posted by Poppy

because you dont have a right to bring something into an existence where it can suffer simply for your own benefit

basically thats just going to be like making the pass butter robot

Well that's a good argument against child slavery. But would creating artificial children imply an obligation to mistreat them? If we can treat them well, then does your objection not evaporate?
Alebrije
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:16 AM)
Alebrije's Avatar

Originally Posted by ChubbyHuggs

Humans should never gain knowledge of immortality.

Agree, just imagine an inmortal dictator or rich corrupt man. As all new knowledges rich people and politicians will be the ones that control it.
Poppy
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:18 AM)
Poppy's Avatar

Originally Posted by tonysidaway

Well that's a good argument against child slavery. But would creating artificial children imply an obligation to mistreat them? If we can treat them well, then does your objection not evaporate?

you can treat them as well as you want, but you simply have no way to guarantee that any one existence is going to be free from suffering. if you had control over every variable dictating whether or not a sentient being would really be free from distress 100% of their lives, then i question what the point was in trying to generate sentience in the first place since you'd basically have to manipulate them 24/7, i feel
Spyder_Monkey
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:22 AM)
Spyder_Monkey's Avatar
Unless it literally kills us, then no.
Demoskinos
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:22 AM)
Demoskinos's Avatar
How to create Funko Pops
Alienous
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:26 AM)
Alienous's Avatar

Originally Posted by DarkKyo

You're not thinking hard enough then.

Well

a) Immortality is widespread - complete resource depletion quickly ensues as the human race is unable to reach an equilibrium of growth.

b) Immortality is restricted - a social divide would form, and wars would surely follow. 'Who decides who gets to live forever?'. The best case resolution of such wars would be a).

Is there a c?
PSlayer
Junior Member
(09-14-2017, 01:31 AM)
Knowledge in itself is neither good nor bad,all that matters is how and for what purpose we use it.

Having said that,if i had to choose one knowledge to be forbidden it would be differences between IQ and/or Cognitive abilities among people from different geographical and cultural backgrounds.

It most likely exists but i don't see any social benefit into knowing as a hard fact and it can be used as a segregation tool for many.
Coriolanus
Banned
(09-14-2017, 01:31 AM)

Originally Posted by SG-17

Of course we aren't. But without knowledge we will never know.

Everything we are, everything we can be is directing us to our ultimate destiny. The proliferation of humanity across the stars.

That's not our ultimate destiny, but only a midpoint goal. Our ultimate destiny is most likely extinction.

Originally Posted by Poppy

because you dont have a right to bring something into an existence where it can suffer simply for your own benefit

...are you a vegan?

heck, if you go with just someTHING, that'd extend even to plants. The stance is nonsense.
Last edited by Coriolanus; 09-14-2017 at 01:33 AM.
Kenstar
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:31 AM)
Kenstar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Unless "trickery" is involved that violates the laws of physics- minus gravity you have to spend that much energy to gain it. So that technology would already be capable of achieving that kind of destruction via other means. I suppose thousands of perfect orbital slingshots could get an object to some fraction of it.

slingshots only work to a point, eventually you're coming and going faster than the planet can even have enough time of you in its Sphere of Influence to pull you towards it and adjust your trajectory much
Maintenance
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:33 AM)
Maintenance's Avatar
Immortality.

If we live forever we will ruin the galaxy.

(That applies not only to us but to any sentient being)
The Mule
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:41 AM)
The Mule's Avatar
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/q...imo125273.html

Originally Posted by Isaac Asimov

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.

The logic is cyclic, but unless we are going to erase all knowledge (i.e. wipe out all sentient life), it's the best we have to work with.

Originally Posted by Maintenance

If we live forever we will ruin the galaxy.

What do you define as "ruin" here? Colonising planets and moons? Eating up stars?
Last edited by The Mule; 09-14-2017 at 01:43 AM.
Poppy
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:43 AM)
Poppy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Coriolanus

heck, if you go with just someTHING, that'd extend even to plants. The stance is nonsense.

was pretty clearly having a conversation talking about sentient robots, not (non sentient) plants, so you can quit with the random bullshit that i didn't say thanks
BigDes
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:45 AM)
BigDes's Avatar
Probably we shouldn't find out how to make contact with Yog-Sothoth
Geist-
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:51 AM)
Geist-'s Avatar
If knowledge can be known, than we deserve to know it.
Coriolanus
Banned
(09-14-2017, 01:52 AM)

Originally Posted by Poppy

was pretty clearly having a conversation talking about sentient robots, not (non sentient) plants, so you can quit with the random bullshit that i didn't say thanks

These are natural developments of your stance. And i see you ignored that we already do this to animals.

I'll quit when i want, b. Same as you.
qcf x2
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:09 AM)
qcf x2's Avatar
I think the creation of life itself is one. I don't think we will ever get there, but it would be horrible.

More pressingly, genome editing. Once that pandora's box is truly opened Gattaca will look like paradise. I'd argue advanced AI and machine "intelligence" (not just doing what it's programmed to do) are extinction level threats.

Finally, I'm going to say that if we discover that there are 12th dimensional beings and we aren't the first in the universe but rather the lowliest, restricted by time and woefully aware of it, able only to relate to them as an ant would to us, totally unimportant to truly intelligent species in every way... well, that would be catastrophically depressing. A "what's the point" scenario.

Edit: If plants feel pain and fear.
Maintenance
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:17 AM)
Maintenance's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Mule

What do you define as "ruin" here? Colonising planets and moons? Eating up stars?

If we can reproduce and never die anymore, humans will grow like a disease on the whole universe. So yes to all that you mentioned and much more.
nded
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:26 AM)
nded's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maintenance

If we can reproduce and never die anymore, humans will grow like a disease on the whole universe. So yes to all that you mentioned and much more.

That sounds more like a problem for the humans than for the universe, to be honest.
The Mule
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:42 AM)
The Mule's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maintenance

If we can reproduce and never die anymore, humans will grow like a disease on the whole universe.

Why do you think humans growing out into the universe are a 'disease'?

On this planet we're destructive to other forms of life, but if we assume there's no (or very little) life out there, what are we a disease to? Barren asteroids, moons, and planets? I don't think they'll mind.
Maintenance
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:07 AM)
Maintenance's Avatar

Originally Posted by nded

That sounds more like a problem for the humans than for the universe, to be honest.

Yes, but we would take it with us to the end.

Originally Posted by The Mule

Why do you think humans growing out into the universe are a 'disease'?

On this planet we're destructive to other forms of life, but if we assume there's no (or very little) life out there, what are we a disease to? Barren asteroids, moons, and planets? I don't think they'll mind.

As far as I remember, nothing is infinite. As long as we keep growing indefinitely, we would need more and more energy, more and more space, more and more resources. After a certain amount of time humans would eventually reach a critical state where there wouldn't be anything left, since I don't recall the possibility of energy being created from nothing. Thus, we would end the universe as we know it.

Obviously, this is just a layman's opinion on the subject.
nded
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:14 AM)
nded's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maintenance

As far as I remember, nothing is infinite. As long as we keep growing indefinitely, we would need more and more energy, more and more space, more and more resources. After a certain amount of time humans would eventually reach a critical state where there wouldn't be anything left, since I don't recall the possibility of energy being created from nothing. Thus, we would end the universe as we know it.

Obviously, this is just a layman's opinion on the subject.

From what I understand the universe comes to an end with or without the intervention of a bunch of horny immortal humans. I am not sure how a universe that dies untouched and unwitnessed necessarily has any more moral value than one with humans crawling all over it.
Luminaire
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:17 AM)
Luminaire's Avatar
Humanity should not know what the universe actually looks like. Everything we see is merely an interpretation.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
(09-14-2017, 03:25 AM)
kamineko's Avatar
we're kind of backlogged at the moment, seeing as we're just discovering how poorly we've handled knowledge of the combustion engine. Who knows what other surprises await us?

honestly, our ability to measure navigational latitude spelled disaster for multiple cultures

jury is still out of the atomic bomb

time travel is still the GOAT thought-experiment IMO
Soul Beat
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:44 AM)
Soul Beat's Avatar
How the three shells work.
tonysidaway
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:10 AM)

Originally Posted by Poppy

you can treat them as well as you want, but you simply have no way to guarantee that any one existence is going to be free from suffering. if you had control over every variable dictating whether or not a sentient being would really be free from distress 100% of their lives, then i question what the point was in trying to generate sentience in the first place since you'd basically have to manipulate them 24/7, i feel

So we shouldn't ever have kids?
TheDanger
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:12 AM)
TheDanger's Avatar
how to build nukes and H bombs, basically any weapons of mass destruction or any weapons that could lead to the apocalypse.
Glass Shark
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:14 AM)
Glass Shark's Avatar

Originally Posted by SG-17

If we developed FTL we could send super-powerful observatories out to various distances to look at the Earth at what would be history.

The logistics of this are hurting my brain. Sounds like a really good premise for a science fiction story. Anything like this out there?
Lil'DigiOp
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:18 AM)
Lil'DigiOp's Avatar
Im too high to really get into some of yalls deep thought.

I can honestly say Ive never thought about this! Im def gonna have a conversation with my bro
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
(09-14-2017, 04:23 AM)
FreeMufasa's Avatar
Mr. X
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:24 AM)
Mr. X's Avatar
Bringing people back from death
Immortality
How to make a black hole
hobozero
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:30 AM)
hobozero's Avatar
How to create a true vacuum. (No, not a Dyson)
RPGamer92
Junior Member
(09-14-2017, 04:30 AM)
RPGamer92's Avatar
Why kids love Cinammon Toast Crunch
hobozero
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:45 AM)
hobozero's Avatar
Thought of another one: The Terrible Secret of Space

Luckily I am protected, as I have stairs in my house.
zeemumu
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:17 AM)
zeemumu's Avatar

Originally Posted by tonysidaway

Well I'm a father, so I kinda get how that whole thing works. Cool.



Why would we want to condemn sentient machines to servitude? Well, perhaps we're evil, in which case bring replaced by our robot slaves might be a moral improvement.

But I notice that you're just exploring worst cases here, whereas I thought the idea was that the creation of sentient life absolutely must not be researched.

I think it's rather more nuanced than that. We're biological, we're evolved and we probably can't ever traverse deep space by some faster-than-light space opera magic. It might be a good idea to research the creation of a successor species that would share our curiosity but fit the form factor and time constraints needed for deep space travel. Or maybe not. But the argument can be made.

I'm exploring worst case scenarios because we're talking about the hard stop line. Going past that line is the only point where those worst cases become an issue. If you're gonna put a replacement species into effect, you'd have to do it after we're all dead, like the sack people from 9. At no point would we be willing to share with another species on our level. There are people who can't even handle having other people on their level without throwing a fit.
Luminaire
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:19 AM)
Luminaire's Avatar

Originally Posted by hobozero

Thought of another one: The Terrible Secret of Space

Luckily I am protected, as I have stairs in my house.

You are simply living in an elevated prison.

Sleep well.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
(09-14-2017, 05:23 AM)
hipbabboom's Avatar

Originally Posted by hobozero

How to create a true vacuum. (No, not a Dyson)

I assume you mean something devoid of space. A volume where not even inflation is occurring. That sounds pretty scary :(
TheRedSnifit
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:28 AM)
TheRedSnifit's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydragonwarrior

How to make nukes.

They have no use for us, and even if we were to try to fend off an asteroid, it's far better to ward it off course gradually through other means.

Have you noticed how the early 20th century is defined largely by absolute slaughterfests like WWI and WWII? Have you noticed we haven't seen anything on that scale since nukes came on the scene?

Reason for that.
jchap
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:39 AM)
jchap's Avatar

Originally Posted by daviyoung

Burning coal, oil or gas for energy.
Creating plastic.
Industrial farming.

The things you list are why the standard for living for the poorest is greater than it was for kings a few centuries ago.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
(09-14-2017, 08:21 AM)
nekkid's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hollywood Duo

Realistically no. But hypothetically time travel would be way too dangerous to mess with.

Only going backwards. Going forward wouldn't have much impact.

Thread Tools