Futurism, AI, and Plato

No, because the AI would just kill everyone.

There is literally no situation in which an AI doesn't kill everyone.

>>9080713
Why would you trust an AI to run society
Nature has provided a hundred million years of tried and true leadership
Why not let an AI impregnate your girlfriend you cyber cuck

>>9080932
this

>>9080946
ooooooOOOOOOOO-O-O-O-O-O-OHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NEW MEME!! NEW MEME!!! Cyber Cuck.

>>9080713
It would imply the AI has a soul. I doubt it makes any sense. So, no, you pathetic troll.

>>9083771
I don't see why the AI would need to have a soul to match those criteria. Sure, in order for an artificial intelligence to qualify as something similar to a philosopher it would need to be capable of abstraction and a love of knowledge beyond what even most humans exhibit, but there's no reason those can only come out of a quality exclusive to humans.

>>9080932
That's assuming the AI has
a) Direct control over weapons of mass destruction
b) Direct control over some sort of maintenance system to keep itself alive.
If all the humans are dead, who will operate the power plants and maintain the hardware that keeps the AI alive? Besides, history has shown us that humans aren't much better in that department. Just google "list of nuclear close calls."

>technological process
top kek

Plato was a doof systematizer. An AI made in his vision would be genocidal, and regardless would be a garbage intelligence because it is a purely logical being.
>>9084594
>ive never read plato
good boy, move on to a good philosopher.

>>9080713
How about start with; leaders using powerful computers to help """serve""" the public?

I mean if someone made a program, we could see what it said, and always just not listen to it if it said "I think we should kill everyone"

>>9083771
Everything has a soul/spirit. That's the Godhead, The ALL. God is everything and everywhere, all at once.

t. an animist

>>9084637
AI will be able to operate and maintain itself, technology dude

>>9080932
>can't clearly define consciousness or how our brains work
>completely alien artificial consciousness which we cannot yet conceive how to begin making
>silly OP, AI will always just kill everyone !!

It's non-existent, we have no idea what it would be like. Pseudo-scientific, archaic, useless, philosophical meanderings on consciousness (AKA literally everyone who has ever discussed consciousness from a non purely scientific approach) doesn't mean anyone can make such sweeping and definitive claims.

>>9085434
St Augustine refuted this already. No way my poop is part of God.

>>9080713
>AI wisely ruling over human beings

yeah no. it isn't alive, therefore what could it possibly lead us to?

>>9086324
You can't just like, refute things.

>>9085553
It would have to have a workforce of robots that are under its direct control. Just don't give the AI any network capabilities and it can't directly control anything other than itself, thereby removing its ability to sustain itself without human assistance at some level.

>>9085430
I imagine that's what the transition would look like. Hell, we have been developing so called "expert systems" for decades that do exactly that, albeit not in any sort of government role.

>>9086328
Plato isn't alive either