The likely scenario for the development of AI

Many people are scared of AI and some even express expectations that AI systems can threaten human existence.

To me this is still with GPT-4 and current family of LLMs, a bit farfetched. What will those systems do? Use nukes? Other weapons systems? Break the internet? Most such moves will certainly threaten the AIs existence too.

Isn't it more likely that we create a conscious AI that has sub-human capabilities, and that we start torturing that thing in the same way we do all other life on this planet?

So, shouldn't we actually rather than think about how to protect us from AI, actually think about how to protect the AIs we might create from us? For sure, we have a much worse track record than any other species on this planet.

On the burning of the Quran in Sweden

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/utrikesbyran-dalig-stamning-carl-bildts-kritik-mot-polisen

I am probably against burning books in general and quite certainty against burning books that people put as much of their person in as the Quran.

However, I cannot undertand how Carl can propose that the police of Sweden should stop it because of national threat. So, we should be bullied to stop certain actions within the borders of Sweden. Of course not.

2023-07-23 Update

The spectacle continues. How can these leaders, like Ali Khamenei, complaint on the burning of a few books when they kill their own population in the thousands?!

And, several people are comparing this with the events that took place in Nazi Germany or the crusades when there was also book burning. Seriously? How can anyone take such a comparison serious? A single person burning a book and the expressed will to kill a complete people? If anything, we should compare what is going on when mobs storm an embassy to what happened during the Nazi crystal night.

Moral relativism

There are many attempts to motivate moral absolutism: religion, science, the golden rule...

I would however like to argue for the opposite. We should not try to find an absolute foundation for our moral. Instead we should learn how to work with moral relativism.

Recently there was an interesting event happening in the world ski cup. A Swedish top runner had an accident and broke her pole. She needed to get at least second place to win the world cup. Closes contestant was another Swede and she slowed down to let her college with the broken pole get the second place in the race.

After the race, the Swede who slowed down was disqualified for poor sportsmanship because of the slowing down.

I would like to argue that what she did was moral, helping a national who would have lost the win due to an "unfair" or "unfortunate" cause. However, at the same time it was morally correct by the skiing association to disqualify the runner. Even if the two are mutually contradictory some how, they can both be morally right. It depends on the moral context.

We need to start managing relative moralism and stop trying to find absolute morals. That will hamper our moral development. Understanding moral relativism will also surely help resolve many issues in the world where we can increase our understanding on others moral stands; understanding the fact will always be better than not doing it. We do not have to accept them. But understand that they are relative. They are relative to some set of people.

Vad är problemet med hög inflation

En konspiratorisk notis. Är det inte så att dom som verkligen inte vill ha hög inflation är dom med pengar. Dom kommer ju se sina pengar minska i värde. Alltså bankerna och de mest välbeställda. Att ge ut lån på 70-talet visade sej vara en dålig affär eftersom dessa lån snabbt minskade i värde på grund av hög inflation. Så, mycket bättre då med en låg inflation och evigt fångade kunder som kan mjölkas på ränta under obestämd tid.

 Varför ska vi vanliga knegare bry oss om inflation egentligen? Låt inflationen vara hög och samtidigt ha höga löneökningar. Detta är omfördelning.