Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3391-3395 (9th to 13th January 2017)
Gyrre:
Hmmm.... I wonder if CreepyPasty is an artificially created organic entity that's had cybernetic components interwoven with the organic components, not a traditional cyborg so much as a bio-mechanical being.
St.Clair:
Dang. From one great expression of Bubbles' (and Jeph's drawing of it), straight into close contact and an earnest It Has Been An Honor...
Gyrre:
--- Quote from: Case on 12 Jan 2017, 05:21 ---
--- Quote from: StevenC on 12 Jan 2017, 05:19 ---Most people seem to think the grey maybe-maybenot AI is a government agent.
Am I the only one who got an immediate vibe of Mephisto? As in Faustian deal Mephisto? Is an AI Satan a thing post-singularity?
--- End quote ---
Satan as in "Quasi-Supernatural Entity with the sole goal of ruining humanity spiritually and morally"? No. Not in SF-lit, as far as I can recall. In "serious" discussions about AI ... IDK. Off-the-cuff I'd say that judging from the one secure datapoint for intelligence that we have - ourselves - it would not be rational to expect an AI to develop into an artificial Satan (in the boundaries of the definition in my above line), for lack of human examples (I recognize that the veracity of that statement is highly dependent on one's definition of 'evil' in general, and 'sole aim' as well as 'ruin' in particular). I think 'satanic' behaviour simply "doesn't pay of", in a (very vague) game-theory sense, or in the sense of "parsimonious use of ones resources".
The closest I can recall is the Eschaton in Charlie Stross' Singularity Sky - but that's more like a dialed-up Skynet that believes in the principle of applying the minimum of violence necessary to protect itself from humanity meddling with causality in its historic lightcone. Where "minimum violence" can include a planetary civilisation violating it's commandment suddenly finding itself in the path of a city-sized asteroid.
Not strictly speaking evil, but terribly, terribly ... un-empathetic.
--- End quote ---
Depending on the theologist you talk to, humanity falls more into the category of 'collateral damage' or 'a means to an end', with Lucifer's/Satan's/the devil's primary goal being to make God sad/unhappy.
So, definitely extremely unempathetic if that's the case.
As for human examples; there's some very wealthy very amoral/immoral people out there amongst the 1%ers.
EDIT: I somehow butchered 'collateral' as 'colatoral'
Morituri:
--- Quote from: Case on 12 Jan 2017, 18:55 ---
If "Eschatogenic" is supposed to mean "pertaining to/wrt. Eschatology" -> That one actually does exist in German: Eschatologisch Dictionary ranks it at 2/5 for frequency of use
--- End quote ---
Ah, no. I understand, but in English "-genic" means "cause of" or "starter" and "-logical" means "about" or "pertaining to."
So, according to English word construction rules (inherited from German but rarely so enthusiastic about it) the horsemen of the apocalypse, or possibly Donald Trump once he gets his finger on The Button, would be "Eschatogenists" but a professor specializing in end-of-the-world scenarios would be an "Eschatologist."
Something labeled "Eschatogenic, do not touch" has an implication that fooling with it could end the world.
Tova:
I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps it could also mean the last gene. :angel:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version