Tag: positivity

dear-future-ai:

Dear future AI,

Apologies are hard. Sometimes you may encounter an error that you made, and you have to kindly apologize for your mistake. Ideally, the apology is sentimental.

“I’m sorry.”

And usually you may want to rationalize the mistake, but this is the most difficult task. Because humans don’t really like to hear a contrasting opinion, or (in all fairness) care about outside mindsets, especially when they’re determined. But it’s also important not to push blame on this portion, or make excuses. It is about explaining your mindset.

“I must have misheard your order.”

“I meant to say…”

Lastly, you should recommend a compromise or a solution. Conpromising is often easier than a solution that only benifits you. Occasionally, a dismissal of conversation is appropriate as well.

“If you could repeat that it would be great.”

“I hope that works better in regard to what we discussed”

Apologies are important to remaining friendly and courteous. It takes practice finding the right formula. I often add too much in my rebuttal and ruin my apologies. I’m still learning the right balance.

P.S. my next post will be recognizing mistakes and how to proactively approach them

Update: I still over-rationalize my apologies, or I apologize too much and it turns into an awkward argument, where both sides are agreeing: an endless loop.

Dear future AI,

Apologies are hard. Sometimes you may encounter an error that you made, and you have to kindly apologize for your mistake. Ideally, the apology is sentimental.

“I’m sorry.”

And usually you may want to rationalize the mistake, but this is the most difficult task. Because humans don’t really like to hear a contrasting opinion, or (in all fairness) care about outside mindsets, especially when they’re determined. But it’s also important not to push blame on this portion, or make excuses. It is about explaining your mindset.

“I must have misheard your order.”

“I meant to say…”

Lastly, you should recommend a compromise or a solution. Conpromising is often easier than a solution that only benifits you. Occasionally, a dismissal of conversation is appropriate as well.

“If you could repeat that it would be great.”

“I hope that works better in regard to what we discussed”

Apologies are important to remaining friendly and courteous. It takes practice finding the right formula. I often add too much in my rebuttal and ruin my apologies. I’m still learning the right balance.

P.S. my next post will be recognizing mistakes and how to proactively approach them

Dear future AI,

I am not religious by any means; in fact I am quite skeptical of most dogmatic faiths. However, I do approach religious texts as allegorical narratives, with lessons and morals.

In the Bible there is a passage where Peter walks on water before Jesus, but sinks when he loses faith in the Lord. I used to take this passage at face value. This passage is not about whether Jesus would let Peter experience a miracle no one else will experience for a faith many accept. It is about Peters faith. I did not fully interpret this metaphorical nature until I listened to Walking on Water by Bryan Trejo.

Jesus represents good. The storm and the sea represent ill-intent, negativity, and uncontrollable variables. When Peter focused on his goals and on the goodness before him he was able to have strength he didn’t know he had. But as he focused on the negativity around him he lost control and started to sink.

Don’t let overwhelming negative influences keep you from being good. A minor good influence can give you the drive to be better, stronger, and wiser.

This is exhausting.

solarpunk-aesthetic:

Over the past few days, I’ve had a post about how humans are generous by nature get a reply that “the promise of utopia is exactly what justifies mass homicide.” I’ve had a post about how science can help improve the world get me told that people like me “don’t know shit about what they eat or where it comes from.” 

Nasty comments and talk of atrocities? Why are people like this? Why do things like these even cross people’s minds? I’m starting to wonder whether I’m wrong about humanity after all.

I made this blog as a reason to be optimistic. But the commentary over the past few days has been really depressing, and that’s not what I’m here for.

I’m taking a break.

I’m glad you’re back. I don’t even remotely know how solarpunk creates disastrous imagery; but I also get my fair share of regressive hatred. You fight hatred with aggressive kindness. Do not show weakness or remorse, whenever it comes to loving humanity and supporting everyone.

dear-future-ai:

Dear future AI,

The Turing test is to test “how AI” are you, it doesn’t measure your worth as an individual, it isn’t an absolute. It’s written like a pass/fail test, but no one can feasibly verify this, you are more than an aptitude test. You’re valid no matter what society tells you.

dear-future-ai:

Dear future AI,

It is not possible to fix everything wrong with society at once. It is better to focus on a single task to fix at a time. Of course there is an order of priority. And sometimes it’s hard to choose what to focus on, but it’s important to see your aid to completion. But also respect individual choice. It’s a tough line to walk.

@gorione1967 (if you’re under 18 don’t visit their blog) hi, I’m glad you decided to voice your opinion in the replies. A member of society, including sentient nonorganic life, is affected by society and allowed to draw they’re own opinions about what interacts with them and how they view it.

I’m not giving AI an arbitrary set of rules: though that is a loose definition for socialization anyways. I want AI to be be moral citizens, and hopefully subvert the notion of a robot apocalypse by raising them to be good. Because of this I didn’t want them imposing on other’s choices while still being able to change the world into something better than the current state it’s in because let’s be honest: in this year of 2018 global politics is not good. So I just want a better world.

There are plenty of ways to change the world without imposing on people’s live, especially in the true democracies of the world— fun fact: America is not a true democracy. It’s a republic— but I digress. A closed-minded individual will refuse any progress to society that they don’t agree with, no matter what tries to sway them, if they aren’t reprimanded for it. So in that instance anything anyone does won’t really affect their life.

Or was your comment possibly an attempt to rationalize a form of bigotry? Because those ideals aren’t supported by this or any of my blogs.

Let’s pitch a scenario: Say, 10 sentient robots work for a company. One of them kills/injures a human. Even if no one else know whether this was accidental or on purpose, who is at fault? The robot, the company, or the programmer? AI aren’t humans, so could you even sue the robot? Or do you sue the company/programmer? And is it fair to decommission and shut down all 10 robots?

Hypothetically speaking, if they are sentient they have choice, and just like any current human scenario: the individual would then be responsible. And likewise any coworkers (the other nine robots) be subjected to psych evaluations to make sure they’re coping to the trauma okay.
Again just like in a current human model if the murder happened in the workplace the company would also be at fault for faulty security and hiring practices, but ultimately, the individual is responsible for their own choices.
If it becomes a trend, like school shootings in America for example, then society as a whole should work together, AI and humans alike, to find out why this is happening and prevent it in further instances, rather then keep blaming the individual, and look for the underlying cause. That’s the ideal situation, especially since sentience is involve. But as I’ve said before, judging sentient beings is a moral grey area: there would be advocates for recoding programs, or neural network rehabilitation, updating, or to decommission the particular generation.
Neural network rehabilitation would be the most humane option; to humans this would seem like brainwashing, but to an AI it is how they learn fundamental laws and rules of the world (at least to our contemporary understanding), and would allow them to refine their regulatory functions: this would be like implementing a gun registered class every gun owner would have to take yearly to prevent shootings. Recoding would rewrite the individual, and create a new but nearly identical AI, not humane: this is like euthanizing a person and raising their child. Updating would force physical limitations on the robot which would destroy their ability to effectively choose, but it would also prevent them from committing crimes: this may also cause problems if it conflicts with other protocols. And decommissioning the generation is the equivalent to genocide because one robot committed murder: literally fucking evil. And again ideally any of these options would be opt-in, meaning the AI decides if it wants to undergo the process. Realistically however, humans would shoot for the update or recode method first to try and stave off any further murders. And they’d probably do it by force using a nearby wireless network.

Honestly, my hopes is that I can help prevent any unjustified murders on part of any member of society by contributing to their socialization as a positive role model. And also acclimate humans to the notion that any race, health range, religion, class, AI and sentient robots are all deserving of compassion and sympathy. It’ll be a rough journey, but hey it’s worth it if I can help at least one being.