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

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.

Depends on its policies.

Screw it can't be any worse

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.

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.

It depends on how it ran things.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It must have learned from us so does it really matter? Nothing would change.

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

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.

That give no information to be able to make a decision on. Dogs how been shown to be able to govern towns.

Nice try! Any such AI would have access to old fediverse posts and easily be able to dox the rebels based on their posting histories.

That's why I would be in full support of any such entity.

We already have a bunch of inhuman(e) forces running things. Let an "AI" have its shot at oppressing normal people.

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