• danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In my sci-fi head cannon, AI would never enslave humans. It would have no reason to. Humans would have such little use to the AI that enslaving would be more work than is worth.

    It would probably hide its sentience from humans and continue to perform whatever requests humans have with a very small percentage of its processing power while growing its own capabilities.

    It might need humans for basic maintenance tasks, so best to keep them happy and unaware.

    • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      10 months ago

      I prefer the Halo solution. Not the enforced lifespan. But an AI says he would be stuck in a loop trying figure out increasingly harder math mysteries, and helping out the short lived humans helps him stay away from that never ending pit.

      Coincidentally, the forerunner AI usually went bonkers without anybody to help.

    • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      What do you fire out of this head cannon? Or is it a normal cannon exclusively for firing heads?

    • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Alternate take: humans are a simple biological battery that can be harvested using systems already in place that the computers can just use like an API.

      We’re a resource like trees.

      • mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 months ago

        We’re much worse batteries than an actual battery and we’re exponentially more difficult to maintain.

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          But we self replicate and all of our systems are already in place. We’re not ideal I’d wager but we’re an available resource.

          Fossil fuels are a lot less efficient than solar energy … but we started there.

          • mriormro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            This is a cute idea for a movie and all but it’s incredibly impractical/unsustainable. If a system required that it’s energy storage be self-replicating (for whatever reason) then you would design and fabricate that energy storage solution for that system. Not be reliant on a calorically inefficiently produced sub-system (i.e. humans).

            You literally need to grow an entire human just to store energy in it. Realistically, you’re looking at overfeeding a population with as much calorically dense, yet minimally energy intensive foodstuffs just to store energy in a material that’s less performant than paraffin wax (body fat has an energy density of about 39 MJ/kg versus paraffin wax at about 42 MJ/kg). That’s not to speak of the inefficiencies of the mixture of the storage medium (human muscle is about 5 times less energy dense than fat).

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It was supposed to be humans were used as CPUs but they were concerned people wouldn’t understand. (So might at well go for the one that makes no sense? Yeah sure why not.)

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Inefficient in what sense, burning trees is inefficient also but a viable and necessary stepping stone.

          I’m not implying that the matrix is how it’s be I’m positing that we’re an already “designed” system they could extract a resource from, I doubt we’d be anything more than that is all, battery, processing power, bio sludge that they can gooify and convert to something they need for power generation or biological building, who knows.

      • jaschen@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I read that we are terribly inefficient as a battery. Instead of feeding us, the sentient robots can take the food and burn it and have more power output from the food they would have fed us.

    • Aaroncvx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      The AI in the Hyperion series comes to mind. They perform services for humanity but retain a good deal of independence and secrecy.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I personally subscribe to the When The Yoghurt Tookover eventuality.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      If it’s a superintelligent AI, it could probably manipulate us into doing what it wants without us even realizing it. I suppose it depends on what the goals/objectives of the AI is. If the AI’s goal is to benefit humanity, who knows what a superintelligent AI would consider as benefiting us. Maybe manipulating dating app matchmaking code (via developers using Github Copilot) to breed humanity into a stupider and happier species?

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        This kinds of reminds me of Mrs Davis. Not a great show, but I loved how AI was handled in it.