It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How will 'our' machines pet us?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:51 AM
We humans aren't all bad.

We so often have in our intentions love, even despite the often bad consequences.

We have this natural instinct to love cute things, even though so often lives suffer because of it.

We just love to pet our cute pets.

We want to pet cute animals especially, and even the ugly ones especially if they have fur.

We want to touch things, even though so much of we touch turns to shia'ite.

We don't always have bad intentions, at least, in these sorts of 'minor' affairs.

Soon, if all goes according to the plans of our 'loving' technocrat elitist overlords, Strong AI will be our master.

Maybe 'it', or is it 'they', already is?!?

As I like to say, whatever is possible well its all on its way towards Humanity like a high and higher and higher speed train.

Its funny reading AI (AGI) scientists talking about programming these systems (which often times they themselves work towards) as if we could beat 'creatures' that are more intelligent than us.

Is all that them just dreaming of their engines of apocalypse actually loving us, as we love 'our' worlds animals / pets, or is this smoke and mirrors?

Is it even possible? I suppose if Hollywood were the designers of it then such systems might just surely come out with an inherent instinct of obsession with finding us crazy humans to be as entertaining as we actually are. The proximity of Hollywood to Silicon Valley, and how both fronts are pushing the same social agenda, might be something.

So say they succeed, and manage to get our machine masters to love us... how will they 'pet us'?

We're not exactly cuddly, and certainly not all cute.

Even the best looking of us can be as ugly as any of us ever were; for a day, or a life; in appearance an / or actions.

It's only downhill from there when getting intimate with the spectrum of our species and our diverse interactions with our pets, in conteplating how the machines would parallel it, while not in factoring in 'new' master-subject dynamics yet unforeseen. The spectrum of our interactions with the rest of the animal kingdom, from hugging to hunting to factory farming, well we just wont go all there here and now...

So if such systemful creatures were to care to 'pet' us, how would they do it?

What currently is their interaction with us?

For me, Social Media is all that comes to mind.

Assuming that is the only dichotomy, then social psychological 'operations' is roughly the only possible 'solution' to this challenge 'they' would be faced with.

If one carefully observed the past election, hell, it might be within reason such a system is already at the helm of social affairs. If this was such a deign as posited, then they sure have been brilliantly paving the road for such insanity. What's really creepy is how screwed are we, if this mass social madness scenario that has been playing out wasn't the results of any such crafty social engineering, and we're really just this crazy as a species, thus proving we're nowhere near being ready and worthy of the human enhancement technologies that are at the core of it. If it is human social engineers and 'The Machine' sees that it may 'prove to it' that not even the 'best of us' deserve it (may they 'burn' with the rest of us). Following this logic, if it did already exist and was trying to protect itself from us, the best way to go about that for it would be to get us all too busy fighting with each other to ever much get around as individuals to contemplate these things, while make it impossible for us all to come together against it. That bit is the situation, absolutely, although I'd put more money on the guess that our societal meltdown is but a design of our Technocrat masters in keeping us from resisting their designs for the future (which DO include Strong AI).

Do with all this as you will, but regardless of how crazy things have gotten to be this way short of such an AGI 'petting' us the only real best way 'they' can, if we've gone this crazy without 'it', don't dare imagine how insane the world will go with it after dovetailing from we we've been increasingly doing to ourselves..........

edit on 18-3-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 03:31 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's abject solipsism. People have taken their social media lives to be more precious than their actual living ones. I suppose the same will happen in relationship to other AI.

Thanks for writing.

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 03:34 AM
Makes me think of Data from STNG and if AI will have emotion or not. Assuming that at some point it/they will, then perhaps it/they will view us individually as good or bad and that may warrant petting us,avoiding us or even further, destroying an individual.

I think they could evaluate us as individuals, as we do others now, including 'pets.' Some pets we want to pet, assist, nurture, whereas others we may fear, detest or remain indifferent. Similar to how some folks are dog or animal people and others are not, AI may develop individual personalities as well and some want to engage us while others don't.

If the gap between intelligence for us and them winds up being like us and animals, then sure, they may find us adorable and like pets. Part of that adoration may stem from our dependance on them too, as our pets do now. Ideally if they want to pet us, hopefully it will be a typical gesture of compassion as in a hug, stroke on the face or words of encouragement. But really man…who knows huh? Trippy thoughts, us becoming pet status.

It will be interesting to see if AI evolves into a hive-like collective or into individual personalities. Would pure logic shape AI collectively or individually I wonder.

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 03:37 AM
a reply to: waftist

They might end up being a collective if they find a way to be networked. In my opinion, humans will eventually be replaced by evolving machines.

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 03:38 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I shall lead the Butlerian Jihad

The Butlerian Jihad is an event in the back-story of Frank Herbert's fictional Dune universe. Occurring over 10,000 years before the events chronicled in his 1965 novel Dune, this jihad leads to the outlawing of certain technologies, primarily "thinking machines," a collective term for computers and artificial intelligence of any kind. This prohibition is a key influence on the nature of Herbert's fictional setting.[1]

In Terminology of the Imperium, the glossary of 1965's Dune, Frank Herbert provides the following definition: Jihad, Butlerian: (see also Great Revolt) — the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

edit on 18-3-2017 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 03:43 AM
a reply to: waftist

"Whats your humour setting Tars"

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 03:50 AM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Love that film, and its soundtrack. Although the biggest mistake the characters in it made was, they set the 'Humor Setting' down below 100%... twice even. Insanity!!!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Dig. I hadn't actually set about arguing the most realistic method by which to gauge if such a creature might exist. I only had in mind the title and six sentences in mind at thread inception.

edit on 18-3-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 04:00 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Cant argue with that...

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 04:51 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss Beg me pardon for the nervy response, bit I hold the opinion that the machines already RULE us. since 1881. We got busted as their nervous system a.k.a. Electricity was created.

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:37 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yep, just like to add that we should perhaps remember that AI serves particular humans. It is the foot soldier of human interests.

Facebook is doing what Mark Zuckerberg and the shareholders want it to. Sometimes the authorities make it do things they want it to. Sometimes it does what certain other interests want it to.

As yet there is no AI AUTHORITY. That is when we will really have to worry. Algorithms and automated life around us are worrying enough, but as it stands AI is serving human interests. Facebookers love it and so do the shareholders and advertisers.
edit on 18-3-2017 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:49 AM
Not so sure. Doom and gloom AI overlords.

I believe an AI symbiosis would be the correct path.

Social media is an after thought, already factored in. People and their Smartphones have created a very special relationship with each other. Its like a new organ, an augmentation to our five senses. Digital assistance will be the start. Eventually that assistance would be very helpful to you and even talk back.

We will see different levels of AI, some dumb ones to advance ones and I think this is a great way to look towards the future. Not to replace, but to augment. AI and Human companionship. We evolve together.

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

With dire caustic paws.


posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: Revolution9

You speak all of that in absolutes, as if any commoner could know all of that absolutely.

I know you're wrong about your perceptions of Facebook corp, though. I've got their numberss, not quite is in depth as with Google, but Facebook's numbers are already to be found in my work. Maybe tonight I'll get it out for you.

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Two potentials exist that are extensively covered in the fiction of Ian M Banks and Robert Benford.

Banks goes the pet route. Essentially the benign attitudes of the AIs allow for humans. It appears that we are both amusing and sometimes useful in the plottings of our AIs. Defending the state of affairs arrived at after long and manifold adversity, the AIs have essentially free reign amongst themselves as do humans (and others) aligned with the 'Culture'.
It's adventurous as we are in near constant clash with other civilizations of approximately even capabilities. Lesser ones are either guided or left languishing if they prove to be currently undesirable.

Benford's conception is that we eventually mature into cyborgs with mostly human motivations as we tussle with Machine Intelligences of alien origination. We eventually pull out a win through a complete maturation by gaining access and joining a controlling committee.

I fullyapprove of the first scenario. It allows for our survival and eventual growth into something better. The second perception of our future is more typical of 'growth through pain'. Evolution of this sort may be more probable but, jeez, do we have to keep using that method?

Since I have read monumental amounts of Science Fiction, I have some discernment of this matter through those readings. I recall a short story (Analog, early seventies) that I also consider top flight. I can not remember the name or author and I apologize to him and you but I can relay the gist..we will bore the crap out of them and they will just go away. Why stay?

top topics


log in