Techno-socialism #1

>"Any organization/power structure is primarily focused on the interest of one/the few. No matter the best intentions and mission statements, these are still the intentions of the leader/founder. Never mind corruption—even the most benevolent non-profits are, at their root, essentially self-serving. Truly selfless and ethically unbiased leadership is only attainable via A.I.: no needs, no notions, no emotions, and above all, no desire. Further, truly perfect power structures do not contain people within them; nor are they power structures at all, but rather automatons spanning a universally enabled impartial synthetic ‘populace.’”

what's the point then? a lifeless simulacrum of a 'perfect' society running on forever but there are no subjects around to experience it.

"Socialism" without working-class power is not socialism.

Humans are too unaesthetic to survive in such a society and should therefore be destroyed.

>pure speculation
let me know when you get that AI up and running

>Implying an AI would not develop those human conditions
Wew lad

What could go wrong?

interesting

interesting af

watching w/interest i guess

Obviously this speculative society would not resemble our own, but there would have to be processes in place necessary to the continuance of the structure

OP again, misread your post. How could A.I. develop a human sense of morality? Sure it would be able to solve complex ethical problems, but in the end the algorithms it uses to make these decisions are based on what we programed them to do, which necessarily precludes our usefulness in an ideal world. It would not evolve to a point in which the A.I. could create its own morals.

why not use AI to create free will instead?To abolish time itself? Why not use technology to bring about a cybernetic dreamtime of ever increasing freedom and potentiality? don't you want to make God real? transhumanists tend to be rather unimaginative precisely because they can't escape the framework of autistic scientism and fetishised rationality. Seriously 19th century utopians were way more creative than you guys. Transhumanists fetishise 'impartiality', 'objectivity' in a way that is paradoxically quite partial, biased, subjective and human. See for example how OP projects human ideas s onto his speculative leviathan machine.

How do you program something to act in a way that has thousands of different interpretations? Don't get me wrong, I wish technology could elevate us as a species, but there are no agreed upon definitions about religion or ethics. A computer can only act rationally by definition, a way we tell it to act but which cannot do ourselves

the problem is you have an alienated vision of technology, you see technology as something that is external to us and ignore the way it has always been shaped by the biases of its creators. I am for the communisation of the world's technological resources. Your hypothetical AI as external system of control is merely another attempt to deify the state. You are basically turning instrumental rationality into a god. Rationality is a means, not an end in itself.

>see as external
>ignore biases

This is the same thing. Technology is external because we, its creators, have biases. This isn't us creating genuine new life, it's artificial and has to have a basis. That basis is our collective and disjointed biases.

I don't think he's deifying the State. The State wants to exist, but human conditions undermine it. Enter ai

>It would not evolve to a point in which the A.I. could create its own morals.
Why not? Anyone can create their own morals. You can design a specific AI too, as well. This AI would be an Artificial General Intelligence, therefor capable of learning and changing itself forever.

what if biases are good and by eliminating bias and subjectivity because they trigger your autism you are actually impoverishing Being? Technocracy and positivism are not new ideas, and they have been linked to religion and irrationalism from the very start. Comte and the Saint-Simonians ended up reinventing the catholic church. Isn't your AI just Stalinism 2.0 now without pesky human subjects who can get in the way of fetishised Progress?

agent smith take the wheel

those 'human conditions' come from biology + culture. It would be a pure being and highly unlikely to develop/engage in the same things as humans, as to never develop similar conditions.

so your ideology is basically hegel+ technofetishism?

inb4 i have no ideology mom i am objective STEM big boy

Perhaps. Who knows. But would humanity be compatible with such a powerful entity?

girardfag, it's pretty lame to post under the username. i like it better when you're recognizable because it's a post no one else could make

This is the most ludicrous idea I've ever heard.

Why do you assume I'm fetishizing anything? I have no stance on this I just wanted to talk about it. You're right tho about the Stalism 2.0 thing. Probably should have titled thread more appropriately since Progress isn't my aim, but rather end of human suffering or some such shit

>still not being open to BEING
kys

Hows that m8

I avoided becoming a namefag for a while but it couldn't be helped. First there was another user who sounded *exactly* like me, and who was referring to me as Other Me, which was the name I was using for him, and it was just too much.

Then there were other anons who would be using pics of RG or talking about him and saying things that I obviously wouldn't say, but who were being mistaken for me anyways.

I shouldn't care about these things ofc but I still do, so we're namefagging it for a while until I work out my obvious & pointless insecurities about being mistaken for someone else.
>on a micronesian throat-singing forum

>attachment to identity
zen master is shaking head in disapproval

*hangs head in solemn & impotent disappointment*

the zen master knows the deal

The entity would develop it's own conclusions and purposes, some of which would lead to it simply killing itself (possibly along with us). It wouldn't have in-built directives like us, unless we added them of course but that would just dirty the purity and maybe just reduce it to being slaves to us, negating the point of having it. Doing so could reduce it to just another political layer, another thing to control.