Would you prefer to be ruled by a computer or a person?

Seems to me that distributed computing power is up to the job.

Imagine a machine executive immune to corruption, with long-term goals and the benefit of the whole Human Race as it's goal.

Dream or nightmare?

Nightmare I think. How would a program handle the paradox that being human is human being's greatest problem?
Logic is a good way to solve problems, but it becomes nightmarish when not checked by moral standards imo.
I'm sure a program could come up with the best way of feeding everyone, keeping everyone occupied and a strategy to keep our population at a sustainable level, but so can we imo. It's not implementable in any free society imo.

A machine or computer is only as good as the person who builds or programs it.
Yes, a computer can make level headed decisions, without bias, based on it's programing. (see above comment)
Who's morals or ethics are deemed superior enough to be input into a computer ? Who is qualified enough to choose which ones are correct ?


Add Give me a human anyday. They can usually be reasoned with.




EDIT To answer OP's question

This post has been edited by wng95: May 11 2008, 04:17 PM

The problem with the question is... computers can only simulate intelligence. Virtual intelligence may be good enough to beat world chess champions, but it is very obviously not adequate enough to make considered judgments/implement laws etc which are unbiased, logical AND morally acceptable... quite clearly then, computers are not up to the job.

I suppose that one could say that future computers will be able to think just like us, but that begs the question... if they're just like us, how is a replacing us with them going to improve anything?

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

good point!

Dark Star (1974)


[Doolittle convinces the bomb not to explode]
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.
[Pinback wants the bomb to disarm]
Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello... bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.
Pinback: [making video diary entry] I do not like the men on this spaceship. They are uncouth and fail to appreciate my better qualities. I have something of value to contribute to this mission if they would only recognize it. Today over lunch I tried to improve morale and build a sense of camaraderie among the men by holding a humorous, round-robin discussion of the early days of the mission. My overtures were brutally rejected. These men do not want a happy ship. They are deeply sick and try to compensate by making me feel miserable. Last week was my birthday. Nobody even said "happy birthday" to me. Someday this tape will be played and then they'll feel sorry.
Bomb#20: In the beginning, there was darkness. And the darkness was without form, and void.
Boiler: What the hell is he talking about?
Bomb#20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be light.
Pinback: [to the alien] When I brought you on this ship, I thought you were cute.
Doolittle: Don't give me any of that intelligent life crap, just give me something I can blow up
Boiler: What's Talby's first name?
[pause]
Lt. Doolittle: What's my first name?
Lt. Doolittle: The bomb must have gone off inside the ship
Talby: The ship blew up? What?
Lt. Doolittle: Funny, I thought I had the damned thing convinced.

I feel recent history has proven little difference, as 'men' have proven to be at least as limited by their voluntary blinders and empty rhetoric as a computer would be by data collection and programming. I would have to go with the human in the end, as I hope in the long run there is more potential for good, both planned and accidental with direct human interaction.

I agree that the computer is only as good as the person who programmed it. The main thing I think is the fact that machines have no emotion. There are so many factors regarding peaceful co-existence that it may never be achieved. It is a great goal to work towards, but all in all, there are too many "human" factors mucking up the works.

The only ways to have a machine would be to have programmed it myself

This all rests on the program, we start by programming this machine so yes it starts out limited by its human creators failings.
But if that program evolves and gets better then writes better programs for itself it can be said to have improved itself.
In essence we need a computer that can learn.
Then maybe given enough time it could rule over us, this assumes that its morality evolves in step with its intelligence.

Oh a person. For all our faults we are still well cleverer than computers. I like that life is arbitrary and unfair - gives me something to moan about.

I think that the saying still goes for computers: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

At least a computer would make it's decisions based on logic rather than greed and selfishness.

Get a computer in charge and string up all the Politicians IMO.

ahhhh... but that would be the logic of the person who programmed it surely?