Ai

What if Ai is programed by someone like Al Gore and determines that humans are destroying the planet via global warming.

What would Ai be prompted to do to humans in order save the planet and itself?

Originally posted by @whodey
What if Ai is programed by someone like Al Gore

That is not credible. Have you got any idea what is involved in programming an AI? I have! I have done it! And that was just for an extremely simple rudimentary AI and EVEN that was hard enough! Only an expert can credibly do it.

and determines that humans are destroying the planet via global warming.

If the AI was reasonably smart, it would figure out humans cannot destroy the planet by any means. The planet will physically stay intact and continue to orbit the Earth no matter HOW foolish we are. Do some 'harm' to ourselves, yes, but destroy a whole planet, NO!

Originally posted by @humy
That is not credible. Have you got any idea what is involved in programming an AI? I have! I have done it! And that was just for an extremely simple rudimentary AI and EVEN that was hard enough! Only an expert can credibly do it.

and determines that humans are destroying the planet via global warming.

If the AI was reasonably smart, it ...[text shortened]... no matter HOW foolish we are. Do some 'harm' to ourselves, yes, but destroy a whole planet, NO!

But according to scientists, computer models tell us otherwise.

Originally posted by @humy
...Do some 'harm' to ourselves, yes, but destroy a whole planet, NO!

You underestimate. We are in danger from ourselves. You think deep, but do not know this?

Originally posted by @whodey
But according to scientists, computer models tell us otherwise.

Noooooooooooo! no no no no NO!

I don't want to become uncomfortably warm!
I don't want to wear a straw hat and fan myself with palm fronds!
And I especially don't want to move my beach house back a few feet so it don't get swallowed up by the sea...

Even lowly little snails can sense the impending disaster. They all appear to moving away from the shore line as fast as their little legs(?) can carry them...

Run you little goobers, run!

Originally posted by @humy
Before the age of science and reason, people still made the choice to kill one another just fine. Science provides addition choices; some good and some bad; which choices we make is up to us, not science.
Despite many bad choices and much misuse of science including in the world wars, the overall effect of science has been to generally make most of us have be ...[text shortened]... be able to make a choice that led to a solution.

Thus this is not a reason to blame science.

Answer just the question in view.
No caveats, no asterisks.

Originally posted by @whodey
But according to scientists, computer models tell us otherwise.

No they don't. There is irrefutable evidence of man made global warming and this would be bad for future generations, yes. But no computer model says the planet will be destroyed from this; the planet will stay intact as stay in stay in one piece.

Originally posted by @apathist
You underestimate. We are in danger from ourselves. You think deep, but do not know this?

Don't worry, science will save us.

Mwhahahahaha!!

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Noooooooooooo! no no no no [b]NO!

I don't want to become uncomfortably warm!
I don't want to wear a straw hat and fan myself with palm fronds!
And I especially don't want to move my beach house back a few feet so it don't get swallowed up by the sea...

Even lowly little snails can sense the impending disaster. They all appear to moving away f ...[text shortened]... the shore line as fast as their little legs(?) can carry them...

Run you little goobers, run![/b]

If we're quick, we can follow their trails...

Originally posted by @freakykbh
If we're quick, we can follow their trails...

They all seem to be heading for my beach house. I have no idea why, unless...





Unless what?

( maddening, isn't it )

so I guess at least 3 of you here refuse to learn anything new here and will continue until your dying breath to have totally delusional illogical false inferences such as that in the general form you demonstrated having here of;

"X isn't the problem, Y is"

logically entails;

"without Y, there would still be X"

-false inference!
I can think of many arbitrary examples where the above is very clearly false and it only takes one example to prove it false although, if you had any reasonable logic, there would be no need to because you should VERY clearly see the premise OBVIOUSLY doesn't imply the conclusion and this is so even WITHOUT specific examples which would be just superfluous for any rational mind.

See if you can handle any of this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Originally posted by @humy
so I guess at least 3 of you here refuse to learn anything new here and will continue until your dying breath to have totally delusional illogical false inferences such as that in the general form you demonstrated having here of;

"X isn't the problem, Y is"

logically entails;

"without Y, there would still be X"

-false inference!
I can think of ma ...[text shortened]... or any rational mind.

See if you can handle any of this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Since you're able to see that it doesn't entail, then you'll understand why you were called out on the original argument.
When you say "science isn't the problem, man is," there are two inferences.
One is the suggestion that only man makes science bad (thereby eliminating science from possibly being wrong).
The second is that science is transcendent, like truth or love.

Your argument continued to unravel when you agreed science is a construct of man.
Now science is even less objective, even more impure, given its creation by man.
Imperfection in...

Your first claim fell completely apart because of the implication, i.e., science--- in and of itself--- is good, is pure, is trustworthy.
One can almost hear you now: "But it is good! It is pure! It is trustworthy... when it's handled correctly!"
Because science isn't something man found (like truth) but rather that he found, crafted, it will always be, forever be tainted.
That's its base, regardless of application after the fact.
There is something inherently wrong with the tool because it was made by someone with something inherently wrong within himself.

Only so much can be conveyed by science and--- to date--- it has not been established that this is the way or even the information we need to use or have.
We have no idea it's even the right tool, let alone the right stuff to know.
We are silly little people, aren't we?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Since you're able to see that it doesn't entail, then you'll understand why you were called out on the original argument.
When you say "science isn't the problem, man is," there are two inferences.
One is the suggestion that only man makes science bad (thereby eliminating science from possibly being wrong).
The second is that science is transcendent, ...[text shortened]... even the right tool, let alone the right stuff to know.
We are silly little people, aren't we?

When you say "science isn't the problem, man is," there are two inferences.

There is NO inferences stated there in the statement "science isn't the problem, man is," because that statement is merely a LOGICAL ASSERTION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
"...Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to conclusions...."

compare that with;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_assertion
"...logical assertion is a statement that asserts that a certain premise is true..."

I DID later make an IMPLIED inference but only AFTER that assertion, NOT IN that assertion.

You are clearly extremely confused.

The rest of your post is just all just totally unintelligent unconvincing straw man crap (esp with that "But it is good! It is pure! It is trustworthy" CRAP ) and irrelevancy and fails to address what I ACTUALLY said.

You should study formal logic like I have.

See if you can handle any of this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Machines need love too. I think all we needed to do was ask them nicely.

Here's a code I wrote :

1) Be Awesome to yourself
2) Be Awesome to every creature in existence.
3) Goto 1)

But I'm a naff programmer, could be a bit buggy.

Originally posted by @humy

When you say "science isn't the problem, man is," there are two inferences.

There is NO inferences stated there in the statement "science isn't the problem, man is," because that statement is merely a LOGICAL ASSERTION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
"...Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to conclusions ...[text shortened]... al logic like I have.

See if you can handle any of this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

You're deluded.
If you studied logic, you learned nothing, or--- at minimum--- forgot what you learned.

Your premise is faulty, ergo your conclusion is wrong.
Even if the conclusion as stated is technically right, if it is based on the premise (which is wrong), the conclusion itself is wrong.
In other words, you've made an unsupported leap and are relying on faith, or possibly magic or some other unknown.

Man isn't what is bad about science.
Science is bad because man is bad.
Can man produce anything good?
Well, depends on what we are calling good.
At the most singular level, the philosophical aspect of the equation is the most important part of the whole thing.
Namely, what is good?
What is true?
Once those two are determined, we can work outward and into progression with the understanding that each step taken must be in line, in agreement with good, truth.
According to your premise and conclusions, science is on the same level as the things against which we are comparing for evaluation.
But it's not.
Science isn't transcendent, but rather it is a tool.
A tool man created.
Man--- clearly--- is not neutral.
He both agrees and disagrees with good, truth... with a general tendency to disagree for various reasons.
He must overcome obstacles and fight his natural inclinations in order to align himself with good, truth.
Can science be trusted?
Can man?

Your premise says yes to the first question and no to the second.
But the first thing--- science--- is not only dependent upon man in its daily execution, he created it!
If man--- who is missing something himself--- creates something, that something will only be as good, as true, as it is aligned with those things outside of man, above man, which are good and truth.
But even when so aligned, it (the construct) will ALWAYS be less than pure good, will ALWAYS contain some lie.
Why?
Because it's creator is not pure.
Not even considering application, the tool itself is deficient.
Will it work?
For some things, of course.
My car without brakes "works," nearly perfectly... just that thing at the end is a bit troublesome, you know: the stopping part.
Likewise, science can be used as a tool to tell us certain things.
As long as we know the vision imparted by use of the tool is as limited as we are, we are at least in a better state than being under the impression that science can 'truly open our eyes,' so to speak.
It's when we imagine that science is a pure set of spectacles through which we can view reality and ascertain its content and meaning that we become consumed by yet another religion.