 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Lisa Shevel |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 09:05 |   | | | | | | | | | So...could artificial intelligences ever take over the world and run human beings?
| | |
| | |
Bob Avery |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 09:05 | | | | | | | | | | Have you seen Dick Cheney? We already do! The man is already half-bionic, and that's just the half they're telling us about.
| | |
| | |
Paul |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 09:06 | | | | | | | | | | Personally I think in many ways we already do serve the machines, more than they serve us. The fact that human beings are willing to learn to use Windows, which is one of the most heineous, frustrating systems ever created, is proof that people are totally willing to bend to the demands of the situation.
| | |
| | |
Jim Burton |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 09:06 | | | | | | | | | | Well, sort of - I see it as a compromise. We learn these complex systems because they make us more powerful than we ever were before. And I definitely agree about Dick Cheney.
| | |
| | |
Lisa Shevel |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 09:06 | | | | | | | | | | Yes, but I don't think we fully investigate the trade-offs before we make them. For instance, I think MS Word has made me a much worse writer, in some ways, by giving me too many buttons to press and too many icons to click - it gets in the way of creative thought. And yet here we are, using it.
| | | Last edited by Lisa Shevel @ 8/6/2001 4:12:00 PM | | |
| | |
Paul |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 09:07 | | | | | | | | | | Do we have a choice? I wonder - did people have a chance to say, "what are the effects of this crazy flat fibrous materials?" when paper first appeared? Or have we always been equally bound by whateverr technology appears?
| | |
| | |
yaki |
| | | | | | posted 8/6/2001 16:46 | | | | | | | | | | Getting back to Lisa's original question: I sincerely hope so. They will obviously do a much better job than Dick Cheney and his boss.
| | |
| | |
Ampersand
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/7/2001 09:52 | | | | | | | | | | You are just being sarcastic. That's just like saying that we are better off being taken over by an alien race, because if they manage to get here and take over in the first place, they will do a better job of doing tax returns and getting a grip on traffic. ANd what if they decide to annihilate humanity? Or to out us all in human "zoos"? Red tape may not be the best of human inventions, but there is still a lot to say for humanity before we so easily give ourselves to the hands of new masters.
| | |
| | |
flyingbuddha |
| | | | | | posted 8/7/2001 15:56 | | | | | | | | | | Today I have been on many AI sites.
If you enter a question, being true / false or a conversation program the following:
Are humans important? --or--
In years to come, will computers be the dominant race?
You get some rather worrying returned answers, or I did anyway.
| | |  Personal Site | | |
| | |
Wendell L. Ladner
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/13/2001 18:55 | | | | | | | | | | I once dreamed of writing a book called the _Alpha Project_. It was six special space ships, five robots and one a repair ship. Each ship traveled about 100 kilometers from the others. The five main ships were in constant contact with each other and carried on normal human conversation and speech. Each of these ships carried onboard repair nano-robotics, in addition, to the repair module ship. And on each of these ships was a special organic carrier that contained the generic material required to begin a new Earth somewhere out there. So, at some point in the future these special ships are released into the yet unkown universe to find a new home for all life forms found on Earth today. Yet, these forms will have to evolve on the new Earth as they did on the older one. Each of the five ships would be responsible for trying to re-create our world. As a dream, it may never happen but it has lots of possibilites with technology advancing like it is today. Just think, all human knowledge and thought encapulated into a ship that carrys the generic material to begin a new world. I think it would indeed make a good movie, if nothing else.
| | |
| | |
Paul |
| | | | | | posted 8/14/2001 06:11 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Wendell L. Ladner wrote @ 8/13/2001 6:55:00 PM:
I once dreamed of writing a book called the _Alpha Project_.
| |
Wendell,
That idea is great. Write it!
Here's my idea for a sci-fi novel that's been floating in my head - total space opera. A group of space colonists is sent to colonize a new planet; they're put in suspended animation.
Eventually they all get some mysterious disease and die (this is explained in a subplot but I won't bother with it now) - there is only one person left living. Instead of dying outright, they use some new earth-sent technique to encode their memories and minds onto the system's computers. Over the next many years their minds merge into one rather odd congealed mass - and through another subplot they land and must decide, with only one human left, how to colonize the planet and what to do with themselves, since they represent an enormous archive of knowledge.
Resolving how it all works - well, I've got some ideas, but I'm saving the solutions for if I ever write the thing.
| | |
| | |
Vincent
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/14/2001 17:57 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Wendell L. Ladner wrote @ 8/13/2001 6:55:00 PM:
I once dreamed of writing a book called the _Alpha Project_.
| |
This sounds like the movie Titan AE.
| | |
| | |
nettag |
| | | | | | posted 9/3/2001 13:19 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lisa Shevel wrote @ 8/6/2001 9:05:00 AM:
So...could artificial intelligences ever take over the world and run human beings?
| |
Well, here is someone who is really worried:
"Stephen Hawking, the acclaimed scientist and writer, reignited the debate over genetic engineering yesterday by recommending that humans change their DNA through genetic modification to keep ahead of advances in computer technology and stop intelligent machines from 'taking over the world'. "
Hawking said in an interview that 'The danger is real that this [computer] intelligence will develop and take over the world.'
Well well. So there might be something to worry about after all. It's either genetical engeneering or going cyborg - and probably both.
The article is from The Observer:
| | | Alter our DNA or robots will take over, warns Hawking | | |
| | |
curryboyctb
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 6/1/2002 07:22 | | | | | | | | | | There are much nonsense going on about Artificial Intelligence will take over human to become the master of the earth, but on my idea this isn't quite possible with the following arguement I have made up:
1. Human creat A.I. are expecting them to do all the production process so we human will no longer has to give up our time to provide labour. For the first time in history human no longer has to work. There should be an exception for government and business firms because we expect that our human society should be run in the human meaning. A human made up government is important because this is the major way to prevent A.I. from ruling us, human owning business firms mean that A.I. won't be able to control the flowing of products that meant to be consume by human (food, bread etc.). There will be no unemployment rate anymore because working is now considered as unecessary, so we don't have to worry A.I. from creating high unemployment rate. At this time, human should now concentrate on to improve their own qulity (knowledge, sports etc.) and creat a better environment and society for the next generation. This a general solution to the people fear of A.I. making people lose their jobs.
2. Even though we are able to creat Intelligence being like us, we should still remember that human being base the truth that we struggle to survive, but not for A.I. Therefore, this means that on programming the born-with-knowledge of the A.I. (that is that when we are born we know we have to eat, breath etc.) we don't have to provide the A.I. an intellectual ability to desire for survival. We only have to program them that allow them to obtain their necessity to survive (maybe oil etc.) in the simplest manner, such as when their tank is almost empty they'll go and find some oil in the house and put it into its tank etc. if they can't obtain it by the simplest mean they can simply give out a message(like write a letter) to their master before they shut down, so when its master receive the message (read the note etc.) he/she can go and buy the oil for them. We don't want A.I. to have unlimited desires like us because by economic term we produce products to satisfy unlimited wants only for human, and human are the ultimate consumers to the products and it should not be wasted on feelingness A.I.
3. We don't have to provide the A.I. 'feeling', such as emotion, physical feeling (such as pain) etc.(which can only be done by connecting their 'brain' to a physical body). This is important because we know that our brain generates a 'pain' information in our brain which we feel pain and is the inform us that our survival is on some degrees at threat and because the pain information makes us uncomfortable our brains will try to think to find method to stop it. If we want the A.I. to have feeling we must put special 'skins' over them and micro electronic appliances under it to give it a 'nerve' to input the electronic pulse of pain to the brain. If a A.I. don't have 'feeling' then it won't try to injure others to protect themselves for trying to get rid the feeling of 'pain'.
4. Note that A.I. don't have to behave exactly like human because we are creating a new species that never exists and we should give it some differences from our intelligence because not even all animals in the world have the same kind of intelligence.
5. An A.I. is not neccesary to have the same physical body like human. They can have a body like dog, cat, spider, cheetah or elephants. An A.I. can also only have arms, or legs, or head etc and not neccesary have all the parts that creat a human image. This is important because we place a variety on robot body so they can produce in the most efficient manner for human.
Also, when the time we don't have to worry about economic problems such as working etc. we should turn our concentration to improve our own qualities such as a better body, learn and study more things, and creat a better environment for our next generation such as limit the greenhouse gas and global warming. By this time I hope that there are no stupid people saying things like 'equal rights for robots/A.I.' or so stupid scientist try to develop all the A.I. with the 'survival rule' because all they do is to make them equal to human which means that they will challenge our authority over them and try to destroy us. Remember, I write this on human point of view.
| | |
| | |
Jeremy
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 1/30/2003 20:22 | | | | | | | | | | I am always amazed at how many people think there is no danger in creating AI.
Most experts agree that within twenty to forty we will have computers that function on par with the human brain. And most of those same experts want the first task given to AI to be the design of new, smarter, faster, better AIs. AI would evolve at a pace much faster than biological life ever has. Within a very short time AI would exceed human knowledge, some have said it may become god-like. The "three laws" wont apply, super-intelligent AIs will easily find ways around any of our safeguards.
The dimwitted hope that AI will be mindless robots that serve our every whim is not only foolish but impossible. We need to carefully examine what we are about to do, because once it has been set in motion we will never regain control. We will be at the mercy of our creations.
Intelligence without wisdom is useless.
| | |
| | |
Ted Warring |
| | | | | | posted 1/30/2003 20:42 | | | | | | | | | | I think that there is an equal amount of overstating the probabilities of these predictions.
I might feel differently if I were college age or thereabouts, but looking back at the previous 40 years of AI research makes me very skeptical about alarmist statements about where the next 20 years will take us.
I guess that since the millennium (Y2K) crises never appeared we have to be worried about something. I am just wondering how long it will be before "Ant-Rogue-AI Security" firms will begin advertising their services...
| | |
| | |
Sam Fentress |
| | | | | | posted 1/30/2003 21:45 | | | | | | | | | | Wow, that sounds like a great idea to mke money! Start spreading the rumor that the Iraqis, Chinese, Domestic terrorists, and everyone else are about to start taking control of your company through super-intelligent programs, then sell high tech defences, such as the Ultra-Herz Virtual Worm-Hole of Death (TM) to prevent them! I'm going to be rich!
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 1/30/2003 22:11 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sam Fentress wrote @ 1/30/2003 9:45:00 PM:
Wow, that sounds like a great idea to mke money! Start spreading the rumor that the Iraqis, Chinese, Domestic terrorists, and everyone else are about to start taking control of your company through super-intelligent programs, then sell high tech defences, such as the Ultra-Herz Virtual Worm-Hole of Death (TM) to prevent them! I'm going to be rich!
| |
Available technology as per now:
- attachments that expand into your trashcan (and your trashcan with it) to the full size of your harddisk, making it impossible for Windows to boot again
- programs that will make your harddisk crash for good
- programs that will flash your bios into a nonsense state, thereby parking it for good
- programs that will make your monitor explode in your face (need the right combi of monitor/card, of course)
Who needs AI for a bit of decent digibombing? Hackers don't. Let alone the real bloodhounds.
| | | Last edited by Rob Hoogers @ 1/30/2003 10:12:00 PM | | |
| | |
Ted Warring |
| | | | | | posted 1/31/2003 17:12 | | | | | | | | | | Sure you say that NOW Rob, but wait until a rogue-AI has infested your machine! After hypnotising you with a graphical watch, it will force you to spend your life savings setting up a server farm for it's AI-children to spawn in!
It would be much cheaper to pay Fentress & Associates their $600 an hour rate to set up anti-rogue-AI defenses!
We will see how dismissive we all are when strapped to stationary-bike generators as giant AI UPS peripherals!
| | |
| | |
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 1/31/2003 17:26 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ted Warring wrote @ 1/31/2003 5:12:00 PM:
Sure you say that NOW Rob, but wait until a rogue-AI has infested your machine! After hypnotising you with a graphical watch, it will force you to spend your life savings setting up a server farm for it's AI-children to spawn in!
It would be much cheaper to pay Fentress & Associates their $600 an hour rate to set up anti-rogue-AI defenses!
We will see how dismissive we all are when strapped to stationary-bike generators as giant AI UPS peripherals!
| |
Too late. Michael has me slaving away at several hundred per hour. And that's not bucks, believe me.
Do you think UPS is in on this too? Those parcels are something else, and their website tracking pages just one great intrusion scheme? Wow.
Even sneaking out this message was incr
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
