[skj]

It's tough to say things like this in public, because so many people feel so strongly about their religious beliefs (I'm sure if I had any I'd feel strongly about them too).

But, the idea that morality is tied to or because of religion is, erm, pure applesauce. To me, morality appears to be the moving zeitgeist of opinions on what makes a proper society.

At the risk of derailing this topic, the concept we have of privacy as a moral issue is likely to change as well. The common current idea (which I hold as well, please don't misunderstand) is that one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct.

But, in a world where it's getting easier and easier to just not give a shit about that and (generally, for 99.9% of the population's personal lives) have no ill effects, people are going to care less and less about data privacy and security, and the zeitgeist will shift.

I think that it will be the defining issue of the 21st century, and I have no idea how things will look coming out the other end.

[Nursie]

If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too.

Because in a world with no privacy, the only people who are going to be squeaky clean are thoae whose lives have been curated from day 1, either through privilege and iron-fisted parent s or through single-mindedness verging on psychosis.

People who should in no way be taking power.

[hx87]

> If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too.

Most countries aside from the USA are pretty blase about their politicians' personal behavior and morality. It's this silly idea that politicians should be paragons of personal virtue, independent of their public and political virtues, that gets the US in such hypocritical binds.

[794CD01]

People, no. AIs, yes. Ppeople shouldn't be in power in the first place.

[Karunamon]

That just moves the responsibility from "people" to "people who program the AI".

[psyc]

Not really. There's a threshold where the outcome of an algorithm isn't predictable by the programmer. That threshold is much lower than mildly strong AI. As an example of a comparatively simple algorithm, Notch didn't know where the mountains, caves, oceans would be in the billions of Minecraft worlds - only some of their properties and distribution.

If AI programmers determined the AIs' decisions, that would negate the point of AI.

[sqeaky]

You presume no malice.

I can easily write a bunch of code you can't readily predict the outcome to but I can predict with 100% certainty. The easiest way is to cheat and inject code you don't readily see: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack

[sqeaky]

Who makes the AI?

[__jal]

1) Invent god.

2) ???

3) ???

[...]

3.468^10128) ???

[Domenic_S]

> one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct

Privacy is a fairly modern invention. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it assumes too much to take the concept of sacrosanct privacy as axiomatic.

[skj]

My whole point is that it is not axiomatic, or fundamental, in any way. Instead, it's a consequence of the zeitgeist :) and because of that, I see it disappearing over the course of the coming century.