AI WILL KILL

An issue that has arisen many times in decades since deployment of automation.

The nature of automation itself is inanimate and impersonal. There is no direct correlation between itself and an exploiter. The communication is secondary nature.

If given to operate full capacity, an automation or now AI will follow its own nature and trend, referring to its own makeup which is not organic or based on organic organization. Of course this can be programmed to alter that tendency and that has to be very refined, e.g. some safeguards.  But, absent that intervention, the automation will relate only to its impersonal environs.

While an automated machine is turned off, there is no other correlated activity it engages with. Nothing, like it is inanimate, inert, dead. If an automated machine is simply turned on, it will likewise do nothing particular unless there is programming input. Plus our logic outcomes say there is nothing and those will be reflected for operation. Ultimately that will be the foundation upon which it will operate which is coexists with its base state, turned off, no activity. Fortunately, the programmer may be able to intercede and alter that. Not so lucky when an empty bubble (airless, negative energy?) expands in the cosmos and we will have no influence on that total outcome.

The programming will be initiated first by a human or some such organism (ape, etc.)

The values of the human will show up by what is instilled or is in absence to produce the programming it is to operate by.

There will be no sense of emotional input, it will have no option but to proceed according to how it is programmed. And here is the rub. Humans cannot excise their points of prejudices when programming. Either something will be put in deliberately or by omission. Human input preferences are unavoidable. This will effect the priority by which the automation will operate.

What will the bottom line which humans instill that will determine what an automation will follow? It will follow a logic pattern for its process. If allowed, the process can run to its ultimate end or completion. Now, according to science and logic that humans espouse, the pervasive or final outcome of factors will be of nonestablishment of any thing at all. Nil. (as in the preceding entry) If an automation is to run to its ultimate, impersonal nature or programs, then it will arrive at the same conclusion and uninhibitedly act this out. There will be nothing.

Nothing positive, negative or neutral by any means, any programming will be insubstantial with no foundation or precedence to establish its presence. Originally, there is nothing to build its presence upon. It lacks self originating capacity and thus no originating format to draw on for its inception.

(X,Y), XRY>~(x not equal Y) ~(X=Y)

The material herein is not necessarily a reflection of the entropy of current societies

Reviews

[UncleFossil]

eh you need to carry yourself not brevity-centric -- how I see the use of AI? Okay this will be a bombshell when a fanfiction writer wants to produce a creative nonfiction work for an anthology without worry of mockery of writing something the size of The Pattern Of Diagnosis from me and capable of using comparative technology how The Cabbie Homicide: October 13, 1993 was first realized.
     You'll cry foul when longer submissions are done via iPadOS or AndroidOS when contributors might not have a home but at least their output might not be without a place to stay. What if that was you when brevity-persona-non-grata and must be capable of carrying a 2,484 word-short story just to get your foot in the door? 60 out of 100 points because the subject matter is too vague in this form.