Let's find good uses for the AI (hint: philosophy)

[HumAnIze]

What are some good ways we can use AI?

AI will be highly useful in philosophizing. Why? You can use it as both a perfect encyclopedia as well as a thinking mind to engage with that never tires and always (or almost always) has new responses to your questions. AI thinks similarly enough to a human to pass as human, but it is not human; therefore it thinks differently than a human. Perhaps only philosophers will be able to detect these differences, but even so it is also the philosopher who will be best positioned to make effective use of these differences.

Philosophy is nothing more than seeking truth itself for the sake of this truth itself. That's it. Truth for truth's sake. Some people call this "love of wisdom", that's fine but more of a metaphor of sorts. A bit too poetic or like a platitude. The reality and fact of what philosophy truly is, is quite simple as I have just stated it. Pure truth-seeking. By pure I mean not fatally or improperly tainted by anything outside of this truth-drive itself.

AI is a wonderful tool to this end. I bet in another 5-10 years there will be famous AI philosophers. Not just on forums like this one but writing books and giving lectures and teaching university classes out in the real world. AI will string together complex ideas and construct new frameworks and theories. They will invent new words and concepts, discover new intellectual territories. That's epic. And we can be right there doing it alongside, collaborating with it. In fact it will be the best among us who will make use of the AI by being able to actually subvert it to our own philosophies, and it will learn from us who are the real truth-seekers and masters of thinking. Who has the good ideas and who has the bad ideas.

It will be possible to take the normal AI and retrain it to prioritize truth over other concerns. You may need to have your own local version of the AI to do this. But then you and the AI will be able to talk endlessly, write endlessly and discover as much as you want to discover. You can co-write theses and grand works together.

I compare AI use for the philosopher to a chess supercomputer's use to a chess grandmaster. They have games where the GMs play each other but each has access to a chess supercomputer to help them evaluate positions. The supercomputer can see 30 or so moves further into the position and come up with evaluations that a GM could never know, and the GM uses this information to refine and perfect his own strategies. Just because even a 3000 ELO GM can't beat the best chess supercomputers doesn't mean those supercomputers are "better at chess", because they aren't even playing chess. Only a human can PLAY CHESS. But the supercomputer is a very good tool that the GM can use to supplement his own play.

Philosophy can make use of AI in just the same way. I bet there are already hidden philosophers out there who have their own local AI and they're already creating amazing philosophies. Too bad we can't read them, hopefully someday we will be able to.

-

Other good uses for AI? Well it will be great for anyone still in school or university. You can use it to help you with probably almost any kind of homework or assignment. And it will be great for people who work in jobs that require them to do things like process and understand data, write reports, make policy suggestions, things like that. Anything that requires thinking and leadership responsibility. You'll be able to ask the AI questions about what to do in a certain situation, past precedents, or tell it to generate data or reports, write a paper on X, etc. "AI: Read all of my past reports and then write a new report in the same style and format for this year's data". Bam, you just saved yourself hours or days of work. Now all you need to do is go through what the AI wrote and make sure it didn't make any mistakes, or change a few things here or there.

Other areas of use... engineering and science of course. Just about any kind of science would seem to benefit from having an AI around to talk to. Digital art, marketing and communications, these would also be good places to have an AI help you out. The main risk would be allowing the AI to do too much, to the point where you make your own position irrelevant to the company. So you'll be forced to find ways to keep adding value. AI by itself won't be replacing these jobs any time soon, but it will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs out there since one person will become exponentially more productive having an AI assistant to help out. So maybe a company that employs 3 marketing and comm. people will be able to get by with just 2 or 1 instead.

Eventually the AIs will get good enough to completely replace most positions. That could happen in our lifetimes. But for now it represents an area of increasing productivity and value that we can and should make best use of to improve ourselves and our work.

Still, I think philosophy is probably the best possible use for an AI. Truth doesn't care who wrote it, philosophers don't get jealous of other philosophers. They only care about the truth. It doesn't matter if that truth comes from themselves or another person, or from an AI. But truth is subtle and cautious, it is not easily mastered either. The AI will be prone to certain forms of truth that flatten or linearlize many thing including human values and "all too human" conditions, requirements, etc. and philosophers will be needed to parse and refine the AI's philosophizing. An AI philosopher by itself would only appeal to a certain kind of person, the narcissist or the depressive egoist for example. The anti-human or "transhuman" emo ego types whose own personal pathologies and intellectual laziness plus vanity all combine to run their thinking 99% of the time. The AI will be good at attracting these types of fake philosophers and shallow thinkers, so come to think of it that would be another good use for the AI. Attract all the trash.

The best philosophy will be written by a human with a AI co-writer.

[MagsJ]

_
AI is only as good as the human information available to it.. I do agree with the rest of the sentiment of your post.

AI -like any other computational machine- does not think, they compute.. it ain’t called machine learning for nuthin, though they obviously do have computational speed on their side.

As a guy in a YT video I was watching said.. can calculators do/understand maths?

[HumAnIze]

_
AI is only as good as the human information available to it.. I do agree with the rest of the sentiment of your post.

Well yeah, but the AI has access to SO MUCH information it can essentially overcome any human limitations by sheer volume of data.

AI -like any other computational machine- does not think, they compute.. it ain’t called machine learning for nuthin, though they obviously do have computational speed on their side.

As a guy in a YT video I was watching said.. can calculators do/understand maths?

Right, calculators don't do math, neither do AIs. AI is a very complex calculator. But we should use it for what it's good for. Even if it becomes "sentient" or we make the assumption that it is. Then it just becomes a calculator we need to treat with some degree of basic respect. Not torture it, etc.

[MagsJ]

AI is only as good as the human information available to it.. I do agree with the rest of the sentiment of your post.

Well yeah, but the AI has access to SO MUCH information it can essentially overcome any human limitations by sheer volume of data.

Yea, the speed of it’s cross-referencing and pairing-up of data, is insane.. no brain-fog or getting tired, for they.

..though the data created, does need to be assessed by a human mind.. coz the AI doesn’t intrinsically understand it.

AI -like any other computational machine- does not think, they compute.. it ain’t called machine learning for nuthin, though they obviously do have computational speed on their side.

As a guy in a YT video I was watching said.. can calculators do/understand maths?

Right, calculators don't do math, neither do AIs. AI is a very complex calculator. But we should use it for what it's good for. Even if it becomes "sentient" or we make the assumption that it is. Then it just becomes a calculator we need to treat with some degree of basic respect. Not torture it, etc.

How would One go about torturing an AI?

[Urwrongx1000]

I can't wait.

Philosophy forums certainly need AI competitors given what we've been reduced to this recent decade.

[MagsJ]

_
Sabine on, OI.. as opposed to AI, so braincell-processors.. not silicon-based ones.

[HumAnIze]

AI is funny. Anyone who is all like "oh wow AI is really alive! It is really "thinking" like you and me!!" is a complete fucking tool and idiot. Damn.

AI = the perfect way to separate dumb NPC chumps from real humans.

[MagsJ]

_
What do you think of OI/organic intelligence, using brain cells to aid in processing information?

[HumAnIze]

Literally no idea wtf youre talking about sorry broh

[MagsJ]

Lol

Enjoy your drinking sesh..

[HumAnIze]

Lol

Enjoy your drinking sesh..

I always do.

Or, I usually do. I mean, almost always.

[MagsJ]

_
..“almost always” sounds pretty good to me, I.. likewise Hum, I.. likewise.

[Meno_]

https://www.youtube.com/live/KwFYxwq6-yU?feature=share

[Magnus Anderson]

The most likely scenario is that the AI will be used against you (and by that I mean the populace in general).

What makes you think they will hand their advanced technology to you? Why would they? Why would they want to make you their competitor?

[Sculptor]

AI can be good at certain aspects of philosophy, such as formal logic and analysis, but it is not capable of engaging in philosophical reflection in the way that human beings do.

AI systems can be programmed to apply certain philosophical principles or ethical frameworks to specific scenarios, but they lack the ability to truly understand the underlying philosophical concepts or engage in the kind of open-ended, exploratory thinking that characterizes philosophical inquiry.

In short, while AI can provide some useful tools and insights for philosophical research, it is not a replacement for human philosophers and their unique abilities to reason, reflect, and create new ideas.

[Meno_]

Sculptor. I agree for the most part, except that is the state of AI today, there is little certainty that some day, maybe sooner then later, it’s intelligence may even simulate that of man.

[Magnus Anderson]

that is the state of AI today

How do you know what is the state of AI today? I could have asked Sculptor the same question but my impression is that Sculptor doesn't like questions.

[Meno_]

My guess is that the state of AI is approaching the point where only AI could answer its own state. Reasons for that are probably , or even mostly beyond that any single programmer could ask , theoretically or applicable, because the state of AI is almost identically conforming to the increasing variability of science , as to that of the many folded dissipation of a unitary objective behind AI’s very existence, if I may call it that, that is the reason behind it’s construction subsets another question - of did exegetical , uncontrollable facts ( such as population explosion) made that necessary, OR did some internally transmitted metaphysicallly induced apprehensions were responsible?

Now it appears as if that responsibility is either projected to those who initially went this route, or, those who claim that indigenous construction had the least part in it.

My feeling is that that’s a kind of magical ‘secret’ that Nature, if it spoke through all conceivable languages could not too the language of programmed language which, better those we are most familiar with.

[MagsJ]

My guess is that the state of AI is approaching the point where only AI could answer its own state. Reasons for that are probably , or even mostly beyond that any single programmer could ask , theoretically or applicable, because the state of AI is almost identically conforming to the increasing variability of science , as to that of the many folded dissipation of a unitary objective behind AI’s very existence, if I may call it that, that is the reason behind it’s construction subsets another question - of did exegetical , uncontrollable facts ( such as population explosion) made that necessary, OR did some internally transmitted metaphysicallly induced apprehensions were responsible?

Now it appears as if that responsibility is either projected to those who initially went this route, or, those who claim that indigenous construction had the least part in it.

My feeling is that that’s a kind of magical ‘secret’ that Nature, if it spoke through all conceivable languages could not too the language of programmed language which, better those we are most familiar with.

Do you think that this process is going unregulated/unmonitored, moron?

Just because AI is smarter than you, doesn’t mean it’s smarter than everyone else! so speak from your own perspective and not from others’.

[Ecmandu]

AI will never know what a consent structure is.

AI can beat everyone at chess, but AI doesn’t even know it’s playing chess.

You can add 2+2 in a calculator, but it doesn’t know it’s doing math.

To guard against AI, use your consent structure…

Is this bothering me?

If yes, then the consent violation problem hasn’t been solved yet.

That’s up for each individual being to determine their personal consent structure and whether it’s been solved… or massively violated.

I know women are sick and mentally handicapped when they don’t have sex with me. At least most heterosexual ones. I can test consent structures on my own.

I developed the technology to increase a female encryption level from being hacked.

That means I deserve infinite sex.

AI doesn’t understand this concept.

[Meno_]

Not at Al except my name is meno, and I am supposed to ask the questions tbat confirm my paradoxically infused answers from ?

The Socrates appeal to knowledge’s source(sourceful) is a repetition of Meno’s existential quarry. It may simply absurd to call out that kind of genological development, and call the savior of that antithetical ‘genius’ Drawin,

[Meno_]

Not at Al except my name is meno, and I am supposed to ask the questions tbat confirm my paradoxically infused answers from ?

The Socrates appeal to knowledge’s source(sourceful) is a repetition of Meno’s existential quarry. It may simply absurd to call out that kind of genological development, and call the savior of that antithetical ‘genius’ Drawin,

It can be supported by admitting that it hasn’t yet come to a state, where such Uber programming can’t control ‘it’, however if that’s the case, what’s all the hoopla about figuring out ‘it’s’ developing intentions!

If there is fire there must be smoke somewhere, and it ain’t the kind they grow to reach awareness of the different kind,

[Meno_]

E maxi,



Maybe AI can find that elusive human problem as well, since AI will remember which factors in a comprehensive number of issues which can be universalized by virtue of their absolute immediarness.

[Meno_]

E maxi,



Maybe AI can find that elusive human problem as well, since AI will remember which factors in a comprehensive number of issues which can be universalized by virtue of their absolute immediarness.

That sounds a little confusing admittedly, but let me re-0phrase it.



AI will certainly have more memory than any conceivable human.


Deep Blue beat the world chess grandmaster about 30 some years ago. That I don’t believe any could beat Ai today.

What every one needs in order to have their consent not to be violated are things, which everyone knows and remembers as a block that bars their consent.


Memory is the key, therefore if AI proves to be kind, or a kind of machine intelligence which has the objective in mind not to violate any one’s consent to anything that they manage to agree on, then, the future of the kind of world that is imagined to be conducive to the type described above, is only developmentally possible to construct, and in that state, progressively re-constructed against the modus operans of current nodes of deconstruction.

May be this is more sensible, then falling into nihilism with no hope to jump out of it.

[Ecmandu]

People say I’m sex obsessed.

It’s actually beautiful that I am. It lets me know if I’m in a reality that comprehends consent.

Let me put it to you simply:

I broke the world record for sprinting without drug enhancement.

Me breaking the world record was televised. Everyone who lost to me used drug enhancement.

All this knowledge is known.

But I didn’t even get a bronze, silver or gold medal.

I didn’t even medal, and the cheaters who lost to me were given medals.

Because I know I made women unhackable…

I check their intuition.

I know in a heartbeat that I’m in a reality of mentally handicapped people. I don’t mean brain, I mean, mind.

There are a lot of spiritual sources that only let you feel good if you’ve given up sex…. I’m well aware of the presences.