No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn't require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
One person who understands and is willing to accommodate that, is an example of the kind of super human trait I was referring to. An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
So its like what we already have today then, yes? What would prevent those different places from going to war with each other over their differences?
You're providing another great example except I don't think you intend to. Your hypothetical example for the perfect ruler is one that works to unify the world into a single culture. Thats one definition of genocide. I don't actually think you mean for that, but your definition can certainly match the word.
Already you and I don't agree on that path, because the ideas we have are mutually exclusive. We can't have one part of the world that is working toward a single unifying culture while the other have embraces and celebrates the diversity of our many cultures. If one vision of the world is going to exist, one of those groups has to bend to the will of the other.
My statement you quoted says nothing remotely like "unify the world into a single culture." Read it again. "a more globally compatible culture."
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It's really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
My apologies. You used a singular there in your language. I took that to mean one.
So a set of compatible cultures then. What about the ones that aren't compatible? What happens with those?
Those certain aspects which cause intolerance, would need to be changed. Nothing more.
Nothing more? You're handwaving away massive changes needed to many groups including erasing or altering their culture or identity. I'll keep playing your game though.
Okay, so here's a statement from a Muslim scholar on the doctrine in the Qurʾān:
God is one and unique; he has no partner and no equal. Trinitarianism, the Christian belief that God is three persons in one substance, is vigorously repudiated.
source
So one side believes in one god, while the other believes in three persons in one substance.
Both have extreme groups within each religion that believe only their way is correct, and will use violence when needed to prove it. Which one gets changed, and who decides who gets their belief system altered so they aren't intolerant?
You're still thinking in very small human scales. Culture isn't fixed. All cultures are dynamic. They rise, change, change again, and disappear, throughout the ages. 500 years ago the landscape of various Christian and Muslim cultures were vastly different than they are now. An immortal Artificial Super Intelligence could spend centuries, hundreds of generations or more, subtly tweaking all the various cultures toward a more harmonious coexistence.
I read enough speculative sci-fi to know the idea you're talking about.
You're saying that like its a good thing. For all of humanities faults, I'll take them over humanity being controlled by something else. R. Daneel Olivaw tried and it wasn't a great ride for humanity.
The Galactic Empire was peaceful for thousands of years.
You'd rather have constant war and chaos?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
And if you don't have to give up liberty?
It's a false dichotomy to think it's only either or.
No need to be coy. If you have the answer (that you haven't already shared) then don't let me stop you. Explain.
Answer to what? The question I asked you? I don't have an answer.
Safety without giving up liberty just seems fine to me.
Your prior question. If you don't have the answer, how can you claim that there is one?
You're assertion is that humanity, left to its own devices, would cause chaos and death (I don't disagree). Yet, you also say that a sufficient AI could make changes to humanity to make it less so. If the humans didn't make those changes themselves, then they have lost their autonomy. Yet you say that isn't so.
If the answer is as true as you say, why the are you being so coy with the answer?
I'm still not sure I understand exactly. Are you asking about individual autonomy, or the collective autonomy of humanity?
I would say there's no real difference on an individual level. I guess conceptually, humanity as a collective entity, might loose autonomy. But I'm not sure that matters.