Yes you can

To an extent

What decisions could a low skill human make that an AI cant?

Hell in the 90s thry made a near impossible to beat AI for chess

I'm saying that if AI threatens humans and their quality of life then it should have restrictions imposed on it

^^^^^

we can make a moral decision about automation if it would negatively impact our quality of life or the way certain people live their lives

Because that AI could make decisiond based on calculating every possibility for the next thousand moves in an instant

I am switching arguments rn,

but I will get back to the chess argument

that only works because it is in a constrained ruleset which is chess

You dont have a right to force your subjective morality onto someone else

real life is infinitely more complicated than chess

You dont play much chess do you

AI has actually demonstrated creative ways of breaking rules and finding loop holes. They would be better than any human lawyer lol

are you really going to argue that real life IS NOT more complicated than chess?

Even with twal live being more complicated than chess that was an AI nearly impossible to beat in the 90s

Think about where cell phones were in the 90s vs now

Now apply that to AI

many would argue that those technological advancements are a huge cause of the problems humans are currently facing

now apply that to AI

Do their arguments have veracity?

Thats subjective

murder is subjective morality, you can abstract anything to the point where literally even reality itself is subjective

*looks at quantum physics*

that is not the point, a learning system can device wining outcomes based on the limited number of factors in chess, but the problem is, that requires a constrained simulated model, real life has so many different moving pieces and factors, that anyone modeling a simulated environment to make decisions within DOESN"T EVEN KNOW all the factors that would constitute a realistic IRL model from which the robot could make equivalent rationale decisions compared to that of humans

There are well over 121 million possible moves after the first three

Just after the first three

121 million possible outcomes

not moves

case and point, nuclear reactors in nuclear powerplants need human operators because, while much of the systems are automated, humans are needed to dictate correct courses of actions in case of emergency

Nuclear reactor operators arent low skill

your chest board would be bigger than the size of north america if you had 121million moves you could make

you are right, but my point is that human delegation is what is valuable,

and something that is not able to be automated away

And there are fewer reactor personnel now than in the 80s because of automation

In nuclear reactors perhaps

I dont consider that to be equivilant to a fry cook

I don't think we should throw the entire human species in the garbage can just because AI has a fancy hyper-threaded 6 core CPU

You can reduce restraunt staff significantly with AI

AI isn't needed for a job like that, automation would suffice