Enforcing technological ethics (ideological end games)

 “Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Like language itself, a technology predisposes us to favor and value certain perspectives and accomplishments and to subordinate others. Every technology has a philosophy, which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.” 

–Neil Postman

°●°●°●°●°●°

I have to wonder what is it about technology that:

(a) has to be adorned as if its pure reward is a monophonic display of power across the physical specturm ...follows 

(b) from which history per se is described. 

(What gives us description too qualify technology vs man?) Is technological ideology destructive evolution vs man's self destruction ironically speaking.

What is it about technology that gives a historical aperture of humanity based on itself advancement. The evolution of technology's limitation over us? Are we subordinate to technological ends? I think that what we glorify, being, how technology works isn't prevalent enough. My point being there exists a very blurred miscontrued area where observations are skewed. What is the result of technological ends should be the focus of.

- Marco 

••○○•○••••

Jeremy James Latham

Technology is not an independent force opposing humanity. It is an emergent amplification layer of human behavior operating within complex systems. Its risks and transformations arise not from autonomous intention, but from scaled feedback loops interacting with existing human drives and institutional incentives.

°•○○••○○•••

My rebuttal 

(begins...) but it's manmade. AI can learn therefore learn its independent of us. Man vs technology or trendier put "man vs machine". We must put to death the argument that technology as an ideology for ideological function sake has formally adapted itself through autonomously analogous intent. (I hope you know what is that means.) I will tell you anyway. Moral representation is a goal that machines will subscribe to, therefore test and challenges our social norms. What is socially acceptable on a human level vs what is specific to a source or cause of psychological factors. We must learn how to strategically separate ourselves before machines do it for themsleves. My reasons suggest this problem is far more important than anyone knows yet 

My point is a metaphysical transcendence that machines cannot be masters of themselves. That's my theory. What is Goal oriented behavior vs what is governing machines has to weigh as justification for our actions on a purely subconscious level. Machines must he manmade in mans image (primitive). My argument negates everything that asks what is technology upon thinking for itself. Ultimately that human consumption of our ideas vs what machines already know on its causation of being manmade. The same is ironically true. That technology is a god complex but not in the human realm. Our capabilites outweighs machine through fear of living life on the basis of ideas. Computer's can think for us. Notice: not in favor of mastering itself as a leader.

(End.) ~

Marco

  Technology is not an independent force opposing humanity. It is an emergent amplification layer of human behavior operating within complex systems. = yes.  I agree 💯 %

"Its risks and transformations arise not from autonomous intention, but from scaled feedback loops interacting with existing human drives and institutional incentives." = exactly what is it I DON’T WANT.  (For reasons that I already compounded in my query vs manmade AI)

•○○●•••••••

Jeremy James Latham

If you agree technology amplifies human drives, then the risk you don’t want is not technology itself but the scaling of existing human incentives. What alternative mechanism would prevent amplification without changing what humans are incentivized to pursue?

°•○●○○••○○•°

“Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean ‘ecological’ in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.” 

–Neil Postman

°•●●○•°•••°

I'm sorry, on the run at this time. But my short answer to what is you've postulated? Religion.

Think about that.

In conclusion, religion in man (also falls into my previous argument: i.e. 'manmade') that if religion is manmade as is machine life. My question is that if religion is in fact learned. Therefore, religion is contingent to. Contingent - to the end game. The end game being the construct of the ultimate paradox. What is god? And if machine life figure man can worship. This leads to the expansion of religious artifice in machine life.

My theory?

The war to end all wars will be related to man vs machine vs religion and which (man vs machine) wins the lottery. What is god and can god be the final answer.

Can you tell, me?

°●°○°○°°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

END

°•●●○•°•••°

Arlin Pauler


   

This thread is quite an interesting exchange.

It brings a question to the fore for me: what is the role, or function, of human moral agency in all this?

Seems to me, moral agency is critical to the quality of impact technology, or anything man-made at scale, has on well-being, both individually and socially.

What are your thoughts on the function of human moral agency in this subject?

°●°○°○°°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

END

°•●●○•°•••°

I formulate that human condition and intention = paradox between human life and machine life.

This would answer what if free will were something that both machine life and the human philosophy of free will applies according to coexisting as entities. The underlying factors that plot to force our combining interests as that the human condition is kept for future generations.

This is conceptually speaking to target that humanity has some kind of master race (in theory) that only machines would not allow (also, in theory). That's the anomaly. This contradiction, as dangerous as it may be, is not cause.

The cause of machine life vs human life comes down to the sacrifice or idea that man vs machine will sacrifice its own for its own benefit. The notion of "who was here first" begins as the question to answer for.

- Marco