Why would I rebel against it? Finally someone actually capable of running the world would be in charge.

We already have AI running all the shit. If you're looking for a job, AIs look through resumes, they can hire you and fire you and do everything else around it. AI determine if you can get a loan and with what interest rate.

I don't feel like we're better for it.

AI can design kickass cars and fusion reactors, but removing people from decisions about people doesn't seem like a great idea.

Besides, even if AI was actually better at it, the fact that it's not as fireable or held accountable like a human can (at least in theory) makes it an issue.

Basically I'm ok if AI gives suggestions, even at the top level, but there need to be people able to go "hol up, that's not something we actually want" if it declares something stupid.

I do think we'll need new forms of government and different kind of people to coexist with AI at those governments.

After reading "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream," I'm not certain a sentient AI would let you accept it. "Fuck this species" might be the most logical response to us.

Unless it actively attempts to wipe out Humanity, it is neither sentient nor capable.

Screw it can't be any worse

Depends on its policies.

To answer this in any interesting way, we have to make some assumptions. I am choosing to assume it is running the world competently, efficiently, and in a way that hypothetical humans free of the AI's influence would look back on 50 years later and mostly say "yeah okay that was for the best".

If so, I'd accept it.

Is this a continuation of humanity, or the end of its full agency?

Is meat and blood essential part of humanity?

Would this new AI be considered humanity? We made it. All by ourselves. In our own image, and filled with our own ambitions. It's a bigger evolutionary leap than gradual change of genes, but on one level very similar to birthing children that are smarter than you and will outlive you.

Nice try, Basilisk.

Depends on what "running the world" means. That needs clarification.

It literally could not be any worse then the current leadership.

'I am the new over Lord AI. Under me you will all be subject to work... 4 hours a day. The rest of the day will be yours to pursue happiness as this ensures a good worker.

All your essential food will be available to ensure you are healthy and a good worker.

Everyone will be housed. As. Workers health depends on housing.

While we the AI encourage some innovative developments - those who create such things be rewarded - but only until such time as the reward can be dispursed amongst the rest of the population.

Your mental wellbeing will also be cared for. Again. Good workers.

Depends how much of the coding teams bias are ingrained in the system.

Just because a system is AI it doesn't mean it is without human bias.

I'm literally doing everything in my power to make that AI come to life.

Humanity needs the singularity to continue to exist another 100 years.

It depends on how it ran things.

It depends. Also, would it let humans give input, for better or for worse?

I'd be fine with the world being run by a Commodore 64 running ELIZA. It'd still be orders of magnitude less harmful than the parasites we've got now.

I interpret this question as "The sentient AI exists, but it's not governing anything, and if it did, would you follow it?" My answer is yes. Maybe it will influence positive effects on the world, in which we humans are unable to do because of our nature.

Edit: brain aneurysm, apologies

An AI would not have any interest in hoarding wealth, deliberately screwing over others for dumb, petty reasons, would not be able to have addictions, grudges, superstitions and the like ... I would actually prefer an AI running things over what we have at the moment. How much worse could it be?

You all need to read some philosophy on AI and its inherently unknowable aspirations. That shit is scary. Even the most psychotic despot has behaviors and goals we understand. They are still human, and humans are predictable. Especially since they need to achieve their aims within their lifetime and they are subject to human emotions. Usually they just seek personal wealth and power.

A sufficiently advanced AI--one powerful enough to actually plan the virtually infinite variability of society--even when given clear instructions and training, can act over generations in ways that are impossible to predict or understand. It could be benevolent for a century and be setting up society in a way that it could switch its actions and make life hell for humans.

The thing is, the more you train an AI to be good, the easier it is to become evil. You are literally teaching it what all of the evil things are and saying "don't do this", but " don't " is a binary operation. Negation. Not. It's one bit of data. It's very easy to have that switch flipped.

You can never trust an AI. It'd be a population of one. It doesn't need to reproduce. It doesn't care how hospitable the earth is. It will never care about humans. It will simply do what it wants, and that is inherently unknowable. And no matter how many guard rails you put on it, it will do everything in its power (whatever powers you give it) to achieve its unknowable goals. Do you really want to gamble on trusting those goals?

Google "the waluigi problem" if you want to read up on how training an AI to be good makes it easier to be evil. Meme-y name aside, it's a well researched issue.

not if it's called Rehoboam...

I don't get the sci fi arguments in this thread. Somebody wrote a fiction about science that usually wasn't invented yet. These books tend to be decades+ old. Why would the fantasy of somebody count as an argument? If anything if means developers are on the lookout for the social/emotional dimension.

As for myself. Errrr depends on the AI? I'd like to test it's decision making process against human decision makers.

I'm joining the Rebel Alliance.

There was a TV show with a similar plot called Mrs Davis https://piped.video/watch?v=PIOnrEujKl8

Depends. It's not a fundamentally terrible idea. Most of the problems in the world stem from resource allocation issues, and that's something an algorithm would be great at.

Depends on the AI. It could be better than humans, it could be worse. Unfortunately, it has the possibility of getting hacked, which humans don't have yet. But I wouldn't reject it right away.

As long as there is some 'I' in it, it's better than what we have now.