A planetary population of completely gullible fuckwits that believe a fancy search engine is capable of anything beyond fevered hallucinations...
....well SHIT.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
-24 points (27.8% liked)
No Stupid Questions
41249 readers
1688 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't see how a star sign would be able to run for office.
A complete failure of modern society
- The singularity happening
- it (the machine consciousness) by some twist of fate being benevolent towards us
- we, by another twist of fate, are unable or unwilling to destroy it out of ignorance
- the stars align and we allow it to become involved in governance and administration
And then it still needs to be able to dismantle capitalism to allocate resources efficiently and where needed and not hoarded to increase the power of a select few.
probably some way to extert real power, like if it controlled a vast sum of money
and it would need to have a bunch of really complex economic models and tons of computing power
no simple answer to this, I like the question btw
A general AI would be very good at playing the stock market.
But Gemini is not a general AI and it’s dumb as fuck. (As are all LLMs)
Honesty, empathy and respect.
Good luck ever convincing me an LLM has any of those. I'm not even convinced most of humanity does.
Good luck convincing me a human world leader has any of those.
LLMs have way more empathy and respect than humans do
Which makes sense, they're not trained on our actions - they're trained on our words
LLMs have way more empathy and respect than humans do
LLMs are almost certainly unable to feel either of those emotions. Their responses are definitely more empathetic and respectful than those of your average social media commenter, but that doesn’t imply they have any subjective experience of such emotions.
LLMs undeniably display empathy, how or if they experience it subjectively is another matter entirely
But if you want to get philosophical and dive into how LLMs work, I have a strong argument that they have mechanisms that work very similarly to emotions, with or without subjective experience
A different world.
You’d have to offer free lobotomies first.
There's no president of the world...
There's no president of the world yet.
Extinction of the human race.
Why are people downvoting this "No Stupid Questions" post?
A huge amount of people on social media are conditioned to hate everything AI to the point where even asking a genuine, non-critical question gets you downvoted. A large part of this is people who haven’t really thought deeply about the subject - they’ve just absorbed the popular sentiment from the spaces they hang out in. AI is often seen as a symbol of big, greedy, unethical corporations, so any engagement with it is treated as suspect by default.
On top of that, there's also a kind of tribal signaling at play. Being anti-AI has become a way for some to show they’re on the “right side” of issues like workers’ rights, art ownership, or tech overreach. So even curiosity can be read as siding with the enemy.
Because it's one thing to not shame ignorance, and quite another to entertain people who are being deliberately obtuse.
It's certainly reasonable to offer a charitable interpretation of the question, rather than assume mal-intent.
"What would it take for an AI to be given governance over the world?"
Yeah that's pretty much what I was going for.
Kinda surprised about the downvotes but glad people came out to comment about it anyways.
Well, not being a very-much-finished space program would be a good start.
Considering we have no consensus on what a suitable human president would be, I'm not sure how we can give parameters for a machine version.
I'm not sure that would be very difficult if we tried. The current issue in picking a human global ruler, is that it would require super human traits. By definition no human could satisfy them. But a sufficiently advanced AI might.
The current issue in picking a human global ruler, is that it would require super human traits
I disagree. The current issue is picking mutually exclusive contradictory traits.
One person will one religious freedom. Another will want a theocracy. Both of those cannot be true at the same time.
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn't require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
One person who understands and is willing to accommodate that, is an example of the kind of super human trait I was referring to. An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn’t require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
So its like what we already have today then, yes? What would prevent those different places from going to war with each other over their differences?
An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
You're providing another great example except I don't think you intend to. Your hypothetical example for the perfect ruler is one that works to unify the world into a single culture. Thats one definition of genocide. I don't actually think you mean for that, but your definition can certainly match the word.
Already you and I don't agree on that path, because the ideas we have are mutually exclusive. We can't have one part of the world that is working toward a single unifying culture while the other have embraces and celebrates the diversity of our many cultures. If one vision of the world is going to exist, one of those groups has to bend to the will of the other.
My statement you quoted says nothing remotely like "unify the world into a single culture." Read it again. "a more globally compatible culture."
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It's really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
“a more globally compatible culture.”
My apologies. You used a singular there in your language. I took that to mean one.
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
So a set of compatible cultures then. What about the ones that aren't compatible? What happens with those?
It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
Those certain aspects which cause intolerance, would need to be changed. Nothing more.
Those certain aspects which cause intolerance, would need to be changed. Nothing more.
Nothing more? You're handwaving away massive changes needed to many groups including erasing or altering their culture or identity. I'll keep playing your game though.
Okay, so here's a statement from a Muslim scholar on the doctrine in the Qurʾān:
God is one and unique; he has no partner and no equal. Trinitarianism, the Christian belief that God is three persons in one substance, is vigorously repudiated.
So one side believes in one god, while the other believes in three persons in one substance.
Both have extreme groups within each religion that believe only their way is correct, and will use violence when needed to prove it. Which one gets changed, and who decides who gets their belief system altered so they aren't intolerant?
You're still thinking in very small human scales. Culture isn't fixed. All cultures are dynamic. They rise, change, change again, and disappear, throughout the ages. 500 years ago the landscape of various Christian and Muslim cultures were vastly different than they are now. An immortal Artificial Super Intelligence could spend centuries, hundreds of generations or more, subtly tweaking all the various cultures toward a more harmonious coexistence.
You’re still thinking in very small human scales.
I read enough speculative sci-fi to know the idea you're talking about.
An immortal Artificial Super Intelligence could spend centuries, hundreds of generations or more, subtly tweaking al thel various cultures toward a more harmonious coexistence.
You're saying that like its a good thing. For all of humanities faults, I'll take them over humanity being controlled by something else. R. Daneel Olivaw tried and it wasn't a great ride for humanity.
The Galactic Empire was peaceful for thousands of years.
You'd rather have constant war and chaos?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
And if you don't have to give up liberty?
It's a false dichotomy to think it's only either or.
No need to be coy. If you have the answer (that you haven't already shared) then don't let me stop you. Explain.
Answer to what? The question I asked you? I don't have an answer.
Safety without giving up liberty just seems fine to me.
Answer to what? The question I asked you? I don’t have an answer.
Your prior question. If you don't have the answer, how can you claim that there is one?
You're assertion is that humanity, left to its own devices, would cause chaos and death (I don't disagree). Yet, you also say that a sufficient AI could make changes to humanity to make it less so. If the humans didn't make those changes themselves, then they have lost their autonomy. Yet you say that isn't so.
If the answer is as true as you say, why the are you being so coy with the answer?
I'm still not sure I understand exactly. Are you asking about individual autonomy, or the collective autonomy of humanity?
I would say there's no real difference on an individual level. I guess conceptually, humanity as a collective entity, might loose autonomy. But I'm not sure that matters.
This some Deus Ex shit
A rape conviction (apparently)