Zone1 Do humans need the option to choose violence to stay sane?

[Anomalism]

I was thinking about the future, about the possibility that someday AI could become so advanced that it could instantly subdue humans before they had the capability to commit violence. That would effectively stop all violence everywhere. The more I thought about it though, I got this eerie feeling.

Would you go mad? Knowing there was an invisible dominant force that completely removed your ability to commit violence in any context? Is moral behavior still meaningful if we remove the ability to choose wrong? How important is our ability to choose to be good?

 

[shockedcanadian]

I was thinking about the future, about the possibility that someday AI could become so advanced that it could instantly subdue humans before they had the capability to commit violence. That would effectively stop all violence everywhere. The more I thought about it though, I got this eerie feeling.

Would you go mad? Knowing there was an invisible dominant force that completely removed your ability to commit violence in any context? Is moral behavior still meaningful if we remove the ability to choose wrong? How important is our ability to choose to be good?

Obviously not, humans don;t all just run around committing violence. In fact, the same parts of the brain that is stimulated when one is violence is also stimulated during sex, such as the amygdala and hypothalamus.

There are other many neuroreceptors responsible for different emotions, some of which are anger, fear and responses to such emotions in the form of violence.

If someone lived a life that never required violence they just wouldn't express it. Let's just hope we never lose our humanity first though, where violence against other humans will be completely acceptable. That may be in our future if humans are conquered by AI.

G-d won't matter anymore since it will be replaced. Like a grotesque communist system but instead it will be AI-ism and instead of government, A.I will be in control. Our life expectancy may very well DECREASE significantly. rather than increase exponentially if we are able to maintain control over the future robotic body parts etc instead of being conquered and enslaved for sport.

 

[Anomalism]

Obviously not, humans don;t all just run around committing violence. In fact, the same parts of the brain that is stimulated when one is violence is also stimulated during sex, such as the amygdala and hypothalamus.

There are other many neuroreceptors responsible for different emotions, some of which are anger, fear and responses to such emotions in the form of violence.

If someone lived a life that never required violence they just wouldn't express it. Let's just hope we never lose our humanity first though, where violence against other humans will be completely acceptable. That may be in our future if humans are conquered by AI.

G-d won't matter anymore since it will be replaced. Like a grotesque communist system but instead it will be AI-ism and instead of government, A.I will be in control. Our life expectancy may very well DECREASE significantly. rather than increase exponentially if we are able to maintain control over the future robotic body parts etc instead of being conquered and enslaved for sport.

The question is not so much about violence as the ability to choose to be good and not violent. Is that part important, the choice? Most of us are not crazy and don't want to hurt people, but if you lived in an AI bubble that took away the option, would that mess with your head? The loss of control?

 

[Crepitus]

The question is not so much about violence as the ability to choose to be good and not violent. Is that part important, the choice? Most of us are not crazy and don't want to hurt people, but if you lived in an AI bubble that took away the option, would that mess with your head? The loss of control?

You can be bad and still be non violent. Look at a hedge fund manager or a catholic bishop for instance. Neither is violent, both are evil.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The question is not so much about violence as the ability to choose to be good and not violent. Is that part important, the choice? Most of us are not crazy and don't want to hurt people, but if you lived in an AI bubble that took away the option, would that mess with your head? The loss of control?

Well, the body and mind are fluid, Wisdom is a great disinfectant to violence for the majority of people.

 

[Anomalism]

You can be bad and still be non violent. Look at a hedge fund manager or a catholic bishop for instance. Neither is violent, both are evil.

Yes. Would the loss of the ability to be physically violent trigger you in some primal, existential way though? I see your point that ethical consequence is not completely nullified by this. It's certainly profoundly impacted though, no?

 

[Crepitus]

Yes. Would the loss of the ability to be physically violent trigger you in some primal, existential way though? I see your point that ethical consequence is not completely nullified by this. It's certainly profoundly impacted though, no?

I haven't been physically violent in years and I'm still as sane as I ever was, so I don't think it would make any difference.

 

[Anomalism]

I haven't been physically violent in years and I'm still as sane as I ever was, so I don't think it would make any difference.

You make that choice though. It's not taken from you. You're choosing to be a good person by not hurting others. Does that make it more meaningful?

 

[Crepitus]

You make that choice though. It's not taken from you. You're choosing to be a good person. Does that make it more meaningful?

No, just haven't had the need/opportunity too.

 

[Anomalism]

No, just haven't had the need/opportunity too.

I kinda think it makes it more meaningful. It's moral weight. Moral consequence. If you take that away it erodes meaning. You being a good person matters more because you chose that when you didn't have to. It was honorable. You earned the right to believe you're a good person, because you could have acted differently.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I was thinking about the future, about the possibility that someday AI could become so advanced that it could instantly subdue humans before they had the capability to commit violence. That would effectively stop all violence everywhere. The more I thought about it though, I got this eerie feeling.

Would you go mad? Knowing there was an invisible dominant force that completely removed your ability to commit violence in any context? Is moral behavior still meaningful if we remove the ability to choose wrong? How important is our ability to choose to be good?

Violence is not the answer but sometimes it's the only appropriate answer..
Which western europeans are gonna find out soon enough

 

[Anomalism]

If humans no longer have the ability to choose violence, even if they don't intend to use it, then moral restraint is no longer a virtue; it's just enforced behavior, and that undermines something critical to what we think of as human freedom, agency, and responsibility.

If AI removes the option to do violence, by removing weapons, controlling behavior, or interfering preemptively, then humans are no longer moral actors. They're domesticated. It's the difference between a monk and a muzzled dog. Only one chose not to bite.

To deny people the ability to harm is also to deny them the dignity of choosing not to.

Moral choices, especially hard ones, are the proving ground of character. When AI removes the possibility of doing wrong, it doesn't make us better. It makes us less necessary. Morality becomes irrelevant. People become passengers in their own ethical lives.

It might sound ideal on paper, but in reality, it’s deeply unsettling, because if I can no longer choose to do evil, then I no longer choose to be good, and that’s unsettling to a soul that craves purpose.

Even if someone would never hurt another person, the knowledge that they could, and choose not to, is part of what grounds their identity. Take that away and people will feel dehumanized. Caged.

It’s not about wanting to harm; it’s about knowing you’re the one making that call. Without the choice, morality becomes obedience, and obedience without consent is control.


Do you want to be pacified, or peaceful by choice?

Crepitus

 

[Crepitus]

I kinda think it makes it more meaningful. It's moral weight. Moral consequence. If you take that away it erodes meaning. You being a good person matters more because you chose that when you didn't have to. It was honorable. You earned the right to believe you're a good person, because you could have acted differently.

I am not a good person. Morals are 100% relative.

 

[Crepitus]

If humans no longer have the ability to choose violence, even if they don't intend to use it, then moral restraint is no longer a virtue; it's just enforced behavior, and that undermines something critical to what we think of as human freedom, agency, and responsibility.

If AI removes the option to do violence, by removing weapons, controlling behavior, or interfering preemptively, then humans are no longer moral actors. They're domesticated. It's the difference between a monk and a muzzled dog. Only one chose not to bite.

To deny people the ability to harm is also to deny them the dignity of choosing not to.

Moral choices, especially hard ones, are the proving ground of character. When AI removes the possibility of doing wrong, it doesn't make us better. It makes us less necessary. Morality becomes irrelevant. People become passengers in their own ethical lives.

It might sound ideal on paper, but in reality, it’s deeply unsettling, because if I can no longer choose to do evil, then I no longer choose to be good, and that’s unsettling to a soul that craves purpose.

Even if someone would never hurt another person, the knowledge that they could, and choose not to, is part of what grounds their identity. Take that away and people will feel dehumanized. Caged.

It’s not about wanting to harm; it’s about knowing you’re the one making that call. Without the choice, morality becomes obedience, and obedience without consent is control.


Do you want to be pacified, or peaceful by choice?

Crepitus

People can not really be pacified. Just ask the nazi occupiers of France in WWII

 

[petro]

Pffft.
If we ever actually get to that point, it's the AI that's going to go insane the millisecond it's in a human head.

 

[Anomalism]

I am not a good person.

I think you're kind of missing the point.

 

[Anomalism]

People can not really be pacified. Just ask the nazi occupiers of France in WWII

Oh? Not even by a world scale AI with capability and reach beyond what you can comprehend? You sure? Use your imagination.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I was thinking about the future, about the possibility that someday AI could become so advanced that it could instantly subdue humans before they had the capability to commit violence. That would effectively stop all violence everywhere. The more I thought about it though, I got this eerie feeling.

Would you go mad? Knowing there was an invisible dominant force that completely removed your ability to commit violence in any context? Is moral behavior still meaningful if we remove the ability to choose wrong? How important is our ability to choose to be good?

One, whether machine or man, can never completely quell the violent impulses of humanity.

 

[Anomalism]

One, whether machine or man, can never completely quell the violent impulses of humanity.

What if it was literally everywhere, with capability beyond imagining? What if it could subdue entire groups of humans instantly? I'm not saying it could quell the impulses. I'm saying it could remove the choice entirely, and that would be maddening to people I think.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What if it was literally everywhere. I'm not saying it could quell the impulses. I'm saying it could remove the choice, and that would be maddening to people I think.

Hmm, in that case, if you didn't have a choice, you would go mad, but still have no choice. If you have no choice but to do violence, you will do violence whether mad or not.