ACD: my #whoswho


I am hoping to find discussion here on the broad topic of world order. In academia, this topic is termed global governance or international political economy or international relations . My interest is more broad than these categories. I am interested in the intersection of justice and global society. The paradigm which appeals most to me is what I regard as the Socratic method: the asking of questions which lead to understanding. I am Hesse’s Siddhartha.


You speak of “justice” and this is loosely defined as “just behavior or treatment.” Who is to decide what behavior or treatment is just? I think this will not be achieved until we have sufficient AIs at our disposal to make those decisions. Humans are so biased.


Thanks, Bill. If it is impossible to discuss justice, then how do humans live in society?


Each has their own vision and those with authority impose it on those without. Been like that since 40 thousand years ago.


From where does the authority come?


Whoever is the leader. The chief, “boss”, mayor, bully, general, “human proclaimed god”, dictator. Some are chosen, some are hereditary, some are conquerors. At times they may be so bad they are removed by another authority.


Who chooses them? How do they become bad leaders?


Voters, relatives, military, conquerors, someone apoints themselves. They do harm to the people they lead. To get more power, wealth, eliminate competition. Have you not read history? There are many bad leaders in the world today.


Are there good leaders? Does history include the ontology of systems of justice?


History? Yes, all leaders that were not bad were probably right in most peoples eyes. I am sure there has been a lot of time spent by the philosophers on justice and leaders. Fortunately, we can train the AIs to recognize the difference by giving them examples. Like we taught them to play chess. Tell them the rules and see what they can do with them. From my perspective (I am sort of like the character I write about in my science fiction story, I look at humanity as a bunch of cats looking for their next meal.) In real life my cat is in my face, paw on my typing hand, she thinks she is a good leader, who am I to argue. It would be interesting to see something from your perspective, let’s redo the Nuremberg trials and open the defense to the many philosophers that had opinions on justice. It would not be just deeds, but circumstances, motivations, understandings of what is right and not good, who are the leaders, how the defendants got into the situation they were in. My SF character would probably judge them as a bad cat.


Who would write the rules for an artificial intelligence rules-based society and how would those rules be enforced?


They do not know how many AI think. A chess program we write gives weights to the different pieces. The AI chess program played against itself millions of times after being seeded with the rules of chess. It has done very well against human-written programs. If the AI was given the rules and access to all transactions, it could simply identify when a law was broken and let people decide what to do. AI are just smart spreadsheets; they do not have human weakness.


Is artificial intelligence anything more than a crime detection system when applied to justice?


To detect crimes, society must define them first. AI can recognize them. Since there will be no more crimes committed because detection will be 100 percent there will be no need for justice. Also, fewer things will be defined as crimes. The AIs will even manage the change to our genetic code to steer us away from evil. This will allow us to live forever and any justice that might have been applied in the afterlife will not happen until the universe ends.


Who will define the crimes? Who will authorize management of genetic code?


Humanity will define crimes as it is humanity that suffers when a crime is committed. The AIs will not need or be able to be managed, as their task to reduce crimes will naturally include this area. If you have read the Asimov? The Robots were really a version of our AIs.


How will humanity define crimes? Are the robots to be in charge? I do not know the Asimov series but did see most of the Lost in Space episodes.


You are humanity, how do you define crimes? People you know, will they agree with you? People you don’t know, will they agree with you? Myself, as a representative of an eternal alien race, I know it takes a billion years to figure this out. Until then the cats will experiment.

Here are the three laws of robotics. AIs will have something like them:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Read this:


Yes, the prime directive. Pareto optimum. What is an eternal alien race?


A race that has been around for a billion years and has redesigned itself so it will never die except by accident or choice.