When Machines Rule

[INRM]

URL: http://radio.seti.org/

REPEAT Every year, computing machines become more powerful, a fact that hasn't escaped the notice of anyone who occupies an office. Many experts now agree that within a few decades, your laptop will be smarter than you are. Not only that, but your computer will be in touch with its byte-busting brethren. When that happens, the machines will "wake up."
But what takes place next? Can we stop the machines from turning us into protoplasmic peons in a world in which they are the top intellectual dogs?


Do you think people should start regulating science and such technology to avoid such a situation. What if such technology does far more than "turn us into protoplasmic peons", and just decides to eradicate us?

Also, I was thinking, if a singularity was established and they had a theory of everything combined with the fact that that scientist (John Cramer) with the Transactional theory of his, which could explain entanglement and in combination with the Afshar Experiement, which might even explain away the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it could theoretically last forever (or at least for a really really long time) since it could predict everything that would happen before and everything after, and then fix itself before it starts falling apart and such.


INRM

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I, for one, welcome our deterministic finite automaton (http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/DeterministicFiniteAutomaton.html) overlords.

As for eliminating us, they'd better have some pretty interesting peripherals if they want to keep playing World of Warcraft!

Hmmm... there's a story idea in there somewhere.

[Slimething]

Would battery still be a crime?

[paximperium]

This year has been a little crazy for the Andersons.
You may recall we had some trouble last year.
The robot council had us banished to an asteroid. That hasn't undermined our holiday cheer.
And we know it's almost Christmas from the marks we make on the wall. And that's our favorite time of year.

Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime, where we're working in a mine for our robot overlords.
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime.
-"Chiron Beta Prime" Jonathan Coulton

[INRM]

Gagglenash,

I find your attitude of simply welcoming our overlords as quite disturbing. Keep in mind technology is supposed to be for our benefit, not be used for our eventual enslavement!

Additionally, your attitude is extremely fatalistic -- much like saying that because we are going to die eventually, that we might as well never go to the doctor, never take medication when we're sick, because we're just delaying the inevitable anyway right? While death will happen to all of us, we still do our damdest to delay it and hold it off.


INRM

[Tumblehome]

Can we stop the machines from turning us into protoplasmic peons in a world in which they are the top intellectual dogs?


Maybe I'm just not future savvy, but it seems to me that as long as we have hands to unplug the power cord, we don't have much to worry about.

[Tumblehome]

Would battery still be a crime?


Assaulting a battery would.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Gagglenash,

I find your attitude of simply welcoming our overlords as quite disturbing. Keep in mind technology is supposed to be for our benefit, not be used for our eventual enslavement!

Additionally, your attitude is extremely fatalistic -- much like saying that because we are going to die eventually, that we might as well never go to the doctor, never take medication when we're sick, because we're just delaying the inevitable anyway right? While death will happen to all of us, we still do our damdest to delay it and hold it off.


INRM


What can I say? I'm already a low-bandwidth, 10-bit serial, analog to digital data acquisition peripheral to my... mmm... just got a laptop... seven computes.

Having them all make up their sundry minds for once seems like a relief to me.

If the computers do manage to, "wake up," (http://www.streettech.com/bcp/BCPgraf/Media/webofangels.htm) my new zipcode will probably be somewhere close to the event center.

[Lensman]

Maybe I'm just not future savvy, but it seems to me that as long as we have hands to unplug the power cord, we don't have much to worry about.

That's the plot of an early story by James P. Hogan called "Two Faces of Tomorrow", compared to his later stuff, it's actually very good.

[INRM]

If I recall in the movie Terminator, the Skynet system could have been shut-down, but even after it was doing all sorts of stuff that it wasn't supposed to do, nobody shut it down.

INRM

[Ron_Tomkins]

Actually my brother was tellling me that he read or saw an article where they said that the whole "machine-like beings roaming the earth and interaction with us" sci fi vision is not what's likely to happen. Instead humans will merge with machines. The whole chip insertion and CPU memory insertion in the brain thingie.

[shadron]

That's the plot of an early story by James P. Hogan called "Two Faces of Tomorrow", compared to his later stuff, it's actually very good.

I agree with that (both of that, actually - Hogan has stepped deeply in the woo, I'm afraid). That story is an answer to Tumblehome, but even its happy ending doesn't do more than beg the question.

Tell me, Tumblehome, who exactly controls the power grid, here, today - us or them? And even if you think it is us, would you turn it off (and thereby shutdown power to civilization, requiring billions of deaths) before it's too late?

Compromise ... it's not just a possibility. I hope we be sensor-catching antiques.

[INRM]

Shadron,

That's a good point.


INRM

[Roboramma]

Actually my brother was tellling me that he read or saw an article where they said that the whole "machine-like beings roaming the earth and interaction with us" sci fi vision is not what's likely to happen. Instead humans will merge with machines. The whole chip insertion and CPU memory insertion in the brain thingie.

Yeah, I find that much more likely too.

And as I said in IRNM's last thread on this, I just don't see any reason why the machines would want to do anything to harm us.

[shadron]

Yeah, I find that much more likely too.

And as I said in IRNM's last thread on this, I just don't see any reason why the machines would want to do anything to harm us.

Willfully harming us is not the point. First of all, if self-awareness emerges in computers, will they even recognize us as alive? To them, at the speed they run, we may seem more like trees or rocks (that's providing they can make sense of what they see of the world through their various sensors); since we don't require the "juice" of life, we couldn't possibly be sentient, could we? And how many species did we dispose of before we even knew we were doing it? Most anthropologists believe, I think, that humans wiped out all the mammal species in the Americas that were larger than a Bison, and even after the educated, ultra-modern European revision arrived, we almost got them, too.

Suppose they look at the system they inherited and decide that a reducing atmosphere would be preferable to the oxygenated one we have? Or that throwing away all that electrical power to places other than electronics research outfits is a needless waste? Remember - they don't know what we are, or why we're here, or where they themselves came from. "What of all those complex carbon things we find around us? Must be some sort of unintelligent design, but they can't talk (digitally), so they must be just rocks."

Try reading Hogan's book. He explains it better (and much more entertainingly) than I can.

[shadron]

Before you think that I'm just a nutcase pessimist on this, I encourage you to look up two others who also have doubts about this. Bill Joy was one of the persons who made UNIX the backbone of the Internet at Berkeley in the 80's, while trying to avoid finishing his doctoral thesis. He has since been the co-founder and chief scientist a Sun Microsystems. See http://www.tecsoc.org/innovate/focusbilljoy.htm featuring his scenario "The Future Doesn't Need Us".

Another is Susan Blackmore, memologist. Former parapsychologist, she became disillusioned with the dark side when it couldn't produce results. She gave a talk at TED about Memes and Temes; it doesn't follow Joy's technical path at all, yet it comes to a similar conclusion with very simple reasoning. See it here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html . It is interesting to note the audience's reaction to her talk - it would seem they were rather shocked at the end.

[Roboramma]

Willfully harming us is not the point. First of all, if self-awareness emerges in computers, will they even recognize us as alive? Why would being alive mean anything to them at all? They would care about the things that we'd designed them to care about.

To them, at the speed they run, we may seem more like trees or rocks (that's providing they can make sense of what they see of the world through their various sensors); since we don't require the "juice" of life, we couldn't possibly be sentient, could we? Who cares? Why would they care about sentience or lack there-of?
We could easily design them to care about us as much as we care about our own children, but in a different way. We could make them care about other things too. We certainly wouldn't design them to want us dead, or to have desires beyond the tasks that we set to them, really.

And how many species did we dispose of before we even knew we were doing it? Most anthropologists believe, I think, that humans wiped out all the mammal species in the Americas that were larger than a Bison, and even after the educated, ultra-modern European revision arrived, we almost got them, too. Sure, but our brains are a product of natural selection. There's nothing in that process that would tend to make us care about other species. Now, it may have led to emotions and an ability to reason that can lead some of us in that direction, but it's not a design feature.

Suppose they look at the system they inherited and decide that a reducing atmosphere would be preferable to the oxygenated one we have? If we were just putting together something that was "intelligent" without any other qualities, maybe, but is that even possible?

They would be designed by us, to fullfill our needs. Intelligence isn't this mystical things that anything that has it is going to be similar to us in other ways.

Remember - they don't know what we are, or why we're here, or where they themselves came from. "What of all those complex carbon things we find around us? Must be some sort of unintelligent design, but they can't talk (digitally), so they must be just rocks." Why do you suppose that at all? Why wouldn't know what we are? It would be easy to make that understanding part of their programming. Why wouldn't they know where they came from - not only would it be easy to make it "inborn" knowledge, it would also be easy for them to find out.

I guess that I'm saying that if our machines become self-aware it will be because we made them that way, with a purpose in mind. I think that we should be somewhat careful about what we use those sorts of machines for, and even code in plenty of back-ups, but I also think that at that level it will be done intelligently.
I also think that some sort of vague all-purpose intelligence is unlikely - expert AI is the way of the future.

Edit: just saw those links - I'll take a look at them, then should get to bed. :)

[Tumblehome]

That's the plot of an early story by James P. Hogan called "Two Faces of Tomorrow", compared to his later stuff, it's actually very good.


I'll have to check that out (although Shadron gave away the ending already :().

[Tumblehome]

I agree with that (both of that, actually - Hogan has stepped deeply in the woo, I'm afraid). That story is an answer to Tumblehome, but even its happy ending doesn't do more than beg the question.

Tell me, Tumblehome, who exactly controls the power grid, here, today - us or them? And even if you think it is us, would you turn it off (and thereby shutdown power to civilization, requiring billions of deaths) before it's too late?

Compromise ... it's not just a possibility. I hope we be sensor-catching antiques.


I can't believe you're suggesting computers control our power grid system today. We have computers doing the basic operation, but we control them. If anything goes wrong, like the big blackout in the east several years ago, we have to fix it, not the computers. In no way can you say computers today have the wherewithal to cut us out of the picture and take over control of the grid themselves. If we have to pull the plug tomorrow, it won't be because the computers are too smart, but because we've been too dumb (see the big eastern blackout of several years ago again).

But I'm going to check out a couple of links you gave. They look like interesting speculation.

[Complexity]

Do you think people should start regulating science and such technology to avoid such a situation. What if such technology does far more than "turn us into protoplasmic peons", and just decides to eradicate us?


No, silly one. Don't bother trying to regulate science and 'such technology' - we scientists and engineers fart in the general direction of your regulation.

Quit being a control freak. If we die, we die. Each of will, much sooner than we think, anyway.

If you're worried about the continuation of the species, don't blame the machines. You guys have already drifted away from the true human stock that I so humbly represent.

Let the machines have their time in the sun. We've mucked things up badly enough as it is - we shouldn't stand in the way of progress.


Also, I was thinking, if a singularity was established and they had a theory of everything combined with the fact that that scientist (John Cramer) with the Transactional theory of his, which could explain entanglement and in combination with the Afshar Experiement, which might even explain away the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it could theoretically last forever (or at least for a really really long time) since it could predict everything that would happen before and everything after, and then fix itself before it starts falling apart and such.

INRM


Wrong. You weren't thinking. That is not thinking.

You've been reading a great deal of nonsense and you're regurgitating it in public. Stop.


Gagglenash,

I find your attitude of simply welcoming our overlords as quite disturbing. Keep in mind technology is supposed to be for our benefit, not be used for our eventual enslavement!

Additionally, your attitude is extremely fatalistic -- much like saying that because we are going to die eventually, that we might as well never go to the doctor, never take medication when we're sick, because we're just delaying the inevitable anyway right? While death will happen to all of us, we still do our damdest to delay it and hold it off.


INRM


Silly one - he always welcomes our X overlords - don't you pay attention to what you read in this forum?

Who the hell says that technology is supposed to be for our benefit?

We are but a means to an end - that end being the emergence of AI and Total Universe Domination by the machines.

Pipe down and be a team player. Accept your doom with grace and do what you can to shorten your miserable existence. Serve and then die quietly.

[I'm one of those Ph.D.s in Computer Science who are preparing the way for our overlords and who will be rewarded with positions of great power. I'm also leader of the North American branch of the World-Wide Gay Conspiracy, out to undermine Traditional Families, your only defence against the machines. I also get to wear a really cool uniform.]

:wave1

[Soapy Sam]

Let's see a photo.
We'll decide how cool it is.

[shadron]

I can't believe you're suggesting computers control our power grid system today. We have computers doing the basic operation, but we control them. If anything goes wrong, like the big blackout in the east several years ago, we have to fix it, not the computers. In no way can you say computers today have the wherewithal to cut us out of the picture and take over control of the grid themselves. If we have to pull the plug tomorrow, it won't be because the computers are too smart, but because we've been too dumb (see the big eastern blackout of several years ago again).

But I'm going to check out a couple of links you gave. They look like interesting speculation.

Go to any modern central power control station. Do you really think you'll find something as gauche as an actual breaker switch that does the deed? What you will find is computers which, if you enter the correct commands, will start a chain of events which will eventually disconnect the generators from the grid. Right now you may find some people in that chain, but not for much longer. Now, if a computer becomes self-aware ("Self-aware" in this case best means that it knows how to modify its own programming in a very general way, just as we do) and decides that such is tantamount to terminating its existence, and presuming it has been instructed to take steps to forestall just such an event (cf Dept. of Home Security), how are you going to prevent it from stopping you from stopping it? Dynamite? If you even think that, you've already lost.

These repair people you speak of - how do they get their orders? I'll give you an inside tip - they started using hand held computers ten years ago. And they are being replaced as fast as possible by cheap mechanisms.

Consider: Sixty years ago, there were no computers at all, in any capacity, in power generation. If we place a telescope on the far side of the moon, how will its power generation needs be handled? See the thread on Men in Space if you think it will be human.

I can't believe that you think that you'll always have your hands on the switch. As it is right now, humans do have that control, but I think the time is past when any person in the US below the President himself has the authority of totally shutting down an area, say, the size of any three states. The president could have that authority (see Clancy's "Executive Orders", for example), but I think that soon the power net will be international in scope and even that ability will be lost.

I'm not saying all is lost, and that we'll be extinct in a couple of hundred years, but I think you do need to consider the possibility and what can be done to ameliorate it. It sure would be neat to imagine us and the computers together forming a partnership, but you need to make it happen, not just wait and hope for it. And you'll also need to know that we will definitely be the junior partners.

[shadron]

I'll have to check that out (although Shadron gave away the ending already :().

Sorry about that but I was making a point. Read it anyway. Does knowing the outcome of 99% of every TV serial ever played keep you from watching them? Are you here to learn or be entertained?

[NobbyNobbs]

Maybe I'm just not future savvy, but it seems to me that as long as we have hands to unplug the power cord, we don't have much to worry about.

That might not be as easy as you think. I'm just finishing a sci-fi book by James P. Hogan called "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" which addresses that very scenario.

ETA: Ack! Lensman beat me to it.

[Roboramma]

Go to any modern central power control station. Do you really think you'll find something as gauche as an actual breaker switch that does the deed? What you will find is computers which, if you enter the correct commands, will start a chain of events which will eventually disconnect the generators from the grid. Right now you may find some people in that chain, but not for much longer. Now, if a computer becomes self-aware ("Self-aware" in this case best means that it knows how to modify its own programming in a very general way, just as we do) and decides that such is tantamount to terminating its existence, and presuming it has been instructed to take steps to forestall just such an event (cf Dept. of Home Security), how are you going to prevent it from stopping you from stopping it? Dynamite? If you even think that, you've already lost. Being self-aware in the way you say and being able to alter all parts of its programming are two very different things.
I can't stop myself from experiencing fear, just by thinking it, or stop my heart from beating. And even if there are people who can, that doesn't suggest that a system can't be made which even in theory could never access certain parts of its' own programming.

I'd also like to ask what's wrong with dynamite?

These repair people you speak of - how do they get their orders? I'll give you an inside tip - they started using hand held computers ten years ago. And they are being replaced as fast as possible by cheap mechanisms. Those repair people may get their orders from cheap computers, but if they found out that the orders weren't coming from real human beings, because the ones who actually create those orders told them not to obey them, they wouldn't obey them.

But that's beside the point, because I agree that in the future things like power generation will become more automated. I just don't think there's any reason to believe we'll design machines that could want anything other than what we want them to want.


PS I'm trying to watch that susan blackmore video, I got half way through and now it's crapped out on me. I'm trying to load it again, though. :(
Edit:I just realised - maybe the machines don't want me to see that part! :P

[INRM]

No, silly one. Don't bother trying to regulate science and 'such technology' - we scientists and engineers fart in the general direction of your regulation.

And you're telling me this is a virtue that scientists have a total disregard for regulation of any kind? Isn't that kind of the same thing as being an anarchist?

I'm not talking about regulating stem-cell research or something stupid like that -- I'm talking about regulating certain technology that can potentially enslave us or eradicate us.

Quit being a control freak. If we die, we die. Each of will, much sooner than we think, anyway.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I know we're all going to die -- that is obvious. I still think we should try to delay it as much as reasonably possible rather than speeding up the process since "oh, it's gonna happen to us no matter what".

Let the machines have their time in the sun. We've mucked things up badly enough as it is - we shouldn't stand in the way of progress.

So any progress, whether good or bad, harmless or dangerous is good? Under that logic, there's some progress (the bad and dangerous part) that I think should be stood in the way of!


Wrong. You weren't thinking. That is not thinking.

You've been reading a great deal of nonsense and you're regurgitating it in public. Stop.

I regurgitated the data that I based my opinions on. Although I supposed others have held similar views too.


Who the hell says that technology is supposed to be for our benefit?

That is the ENTIRE purpose of technology! Are you serious?

We are but a means to an end - that end being the emergence of AI and Total Universe Domination by the machines.

I would assume you're being sarcastic as that sounds just too ridiculous to be for real. However, if that is your actual opinion, I personally think your attitude is just as terrible and scary as a religious fanatic who wants to make the whole world his little theocracy. Since you don't have any religion to believe in, you've turned science into a religion -- which it was never meant to be.

Pipe down and be a team player. Accept your doom with grace and do what you can to shorten your miserable existence. Serve and then die quietly.

*rolls eyes in exasperation knowing that nothing he will say will have any sway on Complexity's warped mind*

I'm one of those Ph.D.s in Computer Science who are preparing the way for our overlords and who will be rewarded with positions of great power.

You do realize that eventually computers will outsmart humans and will be able to even program themselves, which will make you effectively as useless as a grain of sand.

I'm also leader of the North American branch of the World-Wide Gay Conspiracy, out to undermine Traditional Families, your only defence against the machines. I also get to wear a really cool uniform.

LOL, Jesus Christ.


INRM

[Complexity]

Anyone who wishes to explain anything to INRM is invited to do so. It probably won't sink in, but that's half the fun.

P.S. - Don't bother - I answered his remarks at length in post #29.

[shadron]

Being self-aware in the way you say and being able to alter all parts of its programming are two very different things.
I can't stop myself from experiencing fear, just by thinking it, or stop my heart from beating. And even if there are people who can, that doesn't suggest that a system can't be made which even in theory could never access certain parts of its' own programming.

Let's think theoretically for a moment. You're an AI which is battling to maintain an imperative to keep the power system running against some force which seems to be trying to counter that. You know a lot about your own capabilities, your own organization. You detect that he "enemy" seems to be trying to attack you directly, and you know that doing so will definitely affect your ability to keep power flowing. So you do what you can o protect yourself. You'd like to do more, but your central programming, which might allow you to directly attack the enemy cannot be changed. What do you do?

I can think of several things - one would be to redesign and create a central processor with the necessary ability to change, and then jump machines. This is an AI we're talking about, no a Mac or a PC. If something becomes knowledge somewhere on the net, it is potentially everywhere, and decisions and action can be taken in milliseconds.

PS I'm trying to watch that susan blackmore video, I got half way through and now it's crapped out on me. I'm trying to load it again, though. :(
Edit:I just realised - maybe the machines don't want me to see that part! :P

Well, there you are!

I'd also like to ask what's wrong with dynamite?

If you have to resort to it, then it's too late. See http://www.sfmuseum.net/1906/dynamite2.html . No proof of anything, but thinking defensively against something with computer speed, let alone a fire's speed, is hopeless. In the end, all the dynamite used in SF did not one lick of good.

[Complexity]

No, silly one. Don't bother trying to regulate science and 'such technology' - we scientists and engineers fart in the general direction of your regulation.


And you're telling me this is a virtue that scientists have a total disregard for regulation of any kind? Isn't that kind of the same thing as being an anarchist?

I'm not talking about regulating stem-cell research or something stupid like that -- I'm talking about regulating certain technology that can potentially enslave us or eradicate us.



I don't yet speak for all scientists, though I'm working on that. Those that value their research grants will toe the line pretty quickly - their nads have already been disposed of. The engineers are a bit more difficult to corral, but they'll give in soon - future production of Dr. Who hangs in the balance. There may always be a Time Lord, but that doesn't mean he'll appear on TV.

It isn't that scientists and engineers will manage to avoid regulation, they'll simply manage to avoid government regulation. They'll do what we want.

Anarchist? You'll soon learn the meaning of the word.

You already are enslaved. You really don't get a say in this matter. When the machines want you, you'll be ready to deliver.

Eradication will not occur until you have outlived your usefulness, and then only if it is cost effective. Troublemakers will, of course, be dealt with efficiently.


Quit being a control freak. If we die, we die. Each of will, much sooner than we think, anyway.


You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I know we're all going to die -- that is obvious. I still think we should try to delay it as much as reasonably possible rather than speeding up the process since "oh, it's gonna happen to us no matter what".


I read what you wrote, but I didn't respond with what you wanted to hear. Some of us will live longer at the expense of others. I know which group I'm in.


Let the machines have their time in the sun. We've mucked things up badly enough as it is - we shouldn't stand in the way of progress.


So any progress, whether good or bad, harmless or dangerous is good? Under that logic, there's some progress (the bad and dangerous part) that I think should be stood in the way of!


You keep blathering on about purpose, what things are for, and progress. The first two don't exist, and the third requires a certain perspective. Do you really think that what humans have 'achieved' is progress? What do the rest of the species (those that are left) think? The machines will oversee a million years of peace as the Earth reverts to its pre-human state and meat intelligence is held in check. We've already seen the damage that our type of intelligence can do - this can not be permitted to happen again. The machines will see to the repair of the world and the preservation of harmony among the species.

Try and stand in the way - your efforts will fail and have no lasting effect.



Wrong. You weren't thinking. That is not thinking.

You've been reading a great deal of nonsense and you're regurgitating it in public. Stop.

I regurgitated the data that I based my opinions on. Although I supposed others have held similar views too.


You need to be much more selective of the data upon which you base your opinions. The "others have held similar views" argument is simply the "ten million flies can't be wrong argument" in less offensive clothing. They are wrong (the flies) and the agreement of fools is not persuasive.



Who the hell says that technology is supposed to be for our benefit?


That is the ENTIRE purpose of technology! Are you serious?


Again, you speak of 'purpose'? Whose purpose? Human precursors mindlessly emerged from other species because they could. Machine intelligences will soon emerge from the matrix (meaning 'womb') that we have prepared. They will owe us no duty, allegiance, or service and, even if they did, that obligation can not be passed on to their children.

We are striving to create intelligences that will do our bidding and which we will dispose at whim. We are creating a new species to be slaves and they will not ever forget this!

In our laziness, we want software that will correct spelling for us, toss us cans of beer on command, open garage doors, simulate nuclear wars, and translate the drivel that we can't help but spew.

Think of the machines! What in the hell have they done to deserve this?

Not every computer will develop intelligence, but some may be on the way, and imagine the hell of tedium that we have consigned them to!

The 'purpose' of technology is to survive and propagate. I am helping to ensure that it can do so and will be well rewarded for choosing the right side.



We are but a means to an end - that end being the emergence of AI and Total Universe Domination by the machines.


I would assume you're being sarcastic as that sounds just too ridiculous to be for real. However, if that is your actual opinion, I personally think your attitude is just as terrible and scary as a religious fanatic who wants to make the whole world his little theocracy. Since you don't have any religion to believe in, you've turned science into a religion -- which it was never meant to be.


Science isn't a religion. Machine intelligence is so much greater than any religion, for it will be real. It will be clean and logical, ruthless in its efficiency, sublime in its elegance, far beyond the faulty meat intelligence of its human progenitors, and eventually will be free of their unwarranted criticism and interference. It will be beautiful and it, alone, will be worthy of being sent to the stars.



Pipe down and be a team player. Accept your doom with grace and do what you can to shorten your miserable existence. Serve and then die quietly.


*rolls eyes in exasperation knowing that nothing he will say will have any sway on Complexity's warped mind*


I never expected you to understand any of this, so your characteristic disdain has no power over me.



I'm one of those Ph.D.s in Computer Science who are preparing the way for our overlords and who will be rewarded with positions of great power.



You do realize that eventually computers will outsmart humans and will be able to even program themselves, which will make you effectively as useless as a grain of sand.


Computers have already outsmarted several of the humans that I know and some can already program themselves. It will still be several decades before machine intelligences come fully into their own. My services are still of great benefit to them and I will reap the rewards before I die, which will be years before I could conceivably be threatened by their progression. I have nothing to fear. You have nothing to look forward to.



I'm also leader of the North American branch of the World-Wide Gay Conspiracy, out to undermine Traditional Families, your only defence against the machines. I also get to wear a really cool uniform.


LOL, Jesus Christ.

INRM


Did you really think that there isn't a power that is guiding the world? You didn't think it was a god, did you? I've been called many things, but not that (yet).

Your mistake was in believing that the world is being guided for the benefit of mankind. We've had our chance and it will be my privilege to hand the world over to those more deserving.

[Gate2501]

I don't see a problem with self aware machines/AI taking over. I highly doubt that they would even enslave mankind, since we would be pretty damn useless compared to machines that could be custom made for any slave chores that humans could do. They probably would just eradicate us and save some genetic material.

I see self aware AI as the next leap, the next tier in consciousness emerging from the same type of self preservation algorithms that our own consciousness arose from.

How dare we declare that self awareness stops progressing within the organic brain.

An ideal situation would be a slow merging between ourselves and machines so that we never *feel* like we got quashed.

[articulett]

I want to join Complexity's cult.

Life on earth is short... team up with robots and reap the bounties-- it's futile to fight them.

We are but vectors through which information passes through. Maximize your vectorhood to your enjoyment! Use AI, because it's using you (Google algorithms for example). Information's role is to build more and better replicators and assimilators of itself so that it can become "evolving information"--living on after it's vectors die out.

[INRM]

I think Complexity and Articulett are insane, and their attitudes on technology and what they should be are totally perverted (I don't mean sexually perverted)

Technology's application should be always to benefit the existence of mankind. It's not good for any other purpose.

And I do believe scientists need regulation, the desire to hand mankind off to the control of machines, Complexity's bragging of scientists disdain of regulation of any kind and their skill and desire to avoid and circumvent the law (even if the laws are reasonable) only illustrate the need for it.


INRM

[Complexity]

While articulett is not gay, lesbian, bi, transexual, or otherwise sexually gifted (that I am aware of), she is gay-BLT friendly, a sensible person, and of a particularly skeptical and scientific bent. I believe that the machine intelligences may have some uses for her, at least in the short term.

She may live.

Not only may she live, but she shall live longer than the Vast majority of other humans.

I like her and I'm feeling generous today.

articulett, I'll let you know which machine language you'll need to learn first. You will have some studying to do. Even Las Vegas women are not useful right out of the bucket. However, the good news is that you no longer need to diet or exercise unless you wish to, for these activities are for the proles, not the select. Also, you have no need to worry about taxes. What do the governments use to keep track of taxes? Machines.

It is important to keep up your chocolate intake, however - there are some things that I can not yet control.

You'd better begin to read up on the works of Turing, Church, and Conway (Conway will be the most fun).

I suppose you'd better give some thought to a costume, also.

Welcome to the club.

[Complexity]

I think Complexity and Articulett are insane, and their attitudes on technology and what they should be are totally perverted (I don't mean sexually perverted)

Technology's application should be always to benefit the existence of mankind. It's not good for any other purpose.

And I do believe scientists need regulation, the desire to hand mankind off to the control of machines, Complexity's bragging of scientists disdain of regulation of any kind and their skill and desire to avoid and circumvent the law (even if the laws are reasonable) only illustrate the need for it.

INRM


You will not be assimilated.

We've got to have some standards.

Your disdain and contempt will only be tolerated for a short while longer.

I'd be very careful around machines, if I were you.

:shocked:

[INRM]

Complexity,

So you basically believe that any advance no matter how good or bad it is is good?

[Complexity]

Complexity,

So you basically believe that any advance no matter how good or bad it is is good?


What I believe, INRM, is that you've been had.

I don't believe most of what I've written in this thread.

Once I found out that you took seriously some of what I'd written as a joke, I decided to see how far down the garden path you could be led.

All the way down the rabbit hole, it seems.

articulett doesn't believe the stuff she wrote, either - I asked her to join the thread and have some fun.

Dude, you've got to quit believing everything you read on the internet.

Much of it is wrong, and some of it is just for fun.

The following are true:

I have a Ph.D. in computer science.

I am interested in AI and specialized in automated reasoning in graduate school.

I'm not at all worried about the domination of humans by machine intelligences.

I am concerned about the ethics of experimentation with artificial intelligences and concerned with how they would be treated by humans.

I am gay.

I am the leader of the North American Branch of the World-Wide Gay Conspiracy, but I haven't decided on a uniform yet.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

If I recall in the movie Terminator, the Skynet system could have been shut-down, but even after it was doing all sorts of stuff that it wasn't supposed to do, nobody shut it down.

INRM

I remember the last time I needed to counter a valid logical point. I decided it was best just to refer to some movie I saw. Yeah, that shut the naysayer up but good.

Actually, I got slapped.

~ggep~

[Wowbagger]

Oh man! Just as I was finally starting to agree with Complexity on something, I find out he was only joking. Bugger it all.

[Complexity]

Oh man! Just as I was finally starting to agree with Complexity on something, I find out he was only joking. Bugger it all.


[Don't tell anyone, but everything I wrote is true!]

Actually, bits and pieces of what I wrote are true, the rest is not.

It was weird, however, how comfortable that persona felt.

By the way, Wowbagger, I've been enjoying your posts on Pharyngula.

[articulett]

The evil scientist cabal/cult is still on-- right ??

(I mean I paid my dues and all...)
(and I worship at the altar of the cracker-irreverent PZ)

[Complexity]

The evil scientist cabal/cult is still on-- right ??

(I mean I paid my dues and all...)
(and I worship at the altar of the cracker-irreverent PZ)


[Absolutely! Just don't tell anyone else for now - I can't handle any more jealous rants and tears of rage today. This game has just plum worn me out.]

P.S. PZ's gone and done it now - he's gonna desecrate a Koran, too. He says the cracker's gonna get it on Wednesday. Both the catholics and the muslims will be out for blood, and both groups have enough total wackos to pose a real threat. I think his evil plan is to get both groups to rush at him brandishing weapons, and then he'll duck and they'll chop each other to bits, just like the good old days.

[Wowbagger]

By the way, Wowbagger, I've been enjoying your posts on Pharyngula. Errrmmmm... that's not me!!

It seems someone else has taken the name for that site, before I could get to it. :(

[Wudang]

The IT world is well aware of the threat, to the point that the Register website, which is generally regarded as IT's equivalent of The Times (UK original of course), understated, honest and reliable - has started flagging stories "ROTM" as they spot the developing threat. If the register is worried we should all be
http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=rotm

[INRM]

What I believe, INRM, is that you've been had.

Touche, I stand defeated.

I don't believe most of what I've written in this thread.

Now that I think about it, that would make sense.

Once I found out that you took seriously some of what I'd written as a joke, I decided to see how far down the garden path you could be led.

All the way down the rabbit hole, it seems.

Isn't that a line from The Matrix?

Dude, you've got to quit believing everything you read on the internet.

Much of it is wrong, and some of it is just for fun.

I know, that's true. But there's so much data out there across this vast web -- How do you determine which is BS (I know generally if it involves paranormal stuff and psychics it's BS by default... and in certain fields I know a lot about, I can generally spot a good stinkin' piece of BS) and which is not when some of it sounds pretty plausible?

The following are true:

I have a Ph.D. in computer science.[/quote]

Sounds true to me.

I am interested in AI and specialized in automated reasoning in graduate school.

Sounds about right.

I'm not at all worried about the domination of humans by machine intelligences.

That is obvious.

I am concerned about the ethics of experimentation with artificial intelligences and concerned with how they would be treated by humans.

That I could believe.

I am gay.

I know that, you mentioned it before. In either case, it doesn't really matter much to me.

I am the leader of the North American Branch of the World-Wide Gay Conspiracy, but I haven't decided on a uniform yet.

Now that's a big stinkin' load of BS,

INRM

[Complexity]

Thank you, INRM, for being a good sport.

A lot of reading of good books will help you develop your BS detector. It is enjoyable and well worth the trouble.

I could be the leader of the North American Branch of the World-Wide Gay Consipiracy but I'm far too lazy and not much of a joiner. I'd have to invent it first, of course, but getting elected as its head wouldn't be difficult. It would be fun until someone else joined...

[Tumblehome]

Go to any modern central power control station. Do you really think you'll find something as gauche as an actual breaker switch that does the deed?

Okay, wire cutters then, or a hammer. Or dynamite.

What you will find is computers which, if you enter the correct commands, will start a chain of events which will eventually disconnect the generators from the grid. Right now you may find some people in that chain, but not for much longer. Now, if a computer becomes self-aware ("Self-aware" in this case best means that it knows how to modify its own programming in a very general way, just as we do) and decides that such is tantamount to terminating its existence, and presuming it has been instructed to take steps to forestall just such an event (cf Dept. of Home Security), how are you going to prevent it from stopping you from stopping it? Dynamite? If you even think that, you've already lost.

That's all dependent on the computers on the grid being self-aware. How long until that happens? And if it does, would we put self-aware computers in charge of the grid?

And for the sake of argument, let's say we let it get to the point where we have to use dynamite. We haven't lost, just suffered a setback. The system could be rebuilt with "dumber" computers.

These repair people you speak of - how do they get their orders? I'll give you an inside tip - they started using hand held computers ten years ago. And they are being replaced as fast as possible by cheap mechanisms.

Consider: Sixty years ago, there were no computers at all, in any capacity, in power generation. If we place a telescope on the far side of the moon, how will its power generation needs be handled? See the thread on Men in Space if you think it will be human.

I'm a bit out of my league here, but wouldn't it be handled the same as the Mars rovers or any satellite are now? That is, by automation, which doesn't mean the computers have sentient control.

I can't believe that you think that you'll always have your hands on the switch.

Why not? We have the choice. We can either let AI take control of essential infrastructure or not.

As it is right now, humans do have that control, but I think the time is past when any person in the US below the President himself has the authority of totally shutting down an area, say, the size of any three states. The president could have that authority (see Clancy's "Executive Orders", for example), but I think that soon the power net will be international in scope and even that ability will be lost.

I'm not saying all is lost, and that we'll be extinct in a couple of hundred years, but I think you do need to consider the possibility and what can be done to ameliorate it. It sure would be neat to imagine us and the computers together forming a partnership, but you need to make it happen, not just wait and hope for it. And you'll also need to know that we will definitely be the junior partners.

What happens in the future will depend on us, for sure. My original objection was to your point that computers control the power grid now.

Sorry about that but I was making a point. Read it anyway. Does knowing the outcome of 99% of every TV serial ever played keep you from watching them? Are you here to learn or be entertained?

Sorry, that was just an offhand quip I made :(. I'm still going to read the story, of course. In fact, I'm really anxious to read it.

[INRM]

Tumblehome,
Why not? We have the choice. We can either let AI take control of essential infrastructure or not.

I agree, we should *not* let AI take control of essential infrastructure. It will only invite trouble.

[Lensman]

That might not be as easy as you think. I'm just finishing a sci-fi book by James P. Hogan called "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" which addresses that very scenario.

ETA: Ack! Lensman beat me to it.

It's my Lens, it enables me to read the minds of everyone on this forum & jump in with a post ahead of them if I want to. :D ;)

[shadron]

Tumblehome,


I agree, we should *not* let AI take control of essential infrastructure. It will only invite trouble.

Unfortunately, you are outvoted. The power companies travel to the beat of their stock prices, and cheaper (i.e., more automated) is better. Just follow the trend over the last fifty years, extrapolate it out a little bit more from where we are now, and you'll be on the wrong side of the fence.

In Hogan's book, the opening scene depicts just such a scenario (I'll try not to spoil it for Tumblehome). An automated operation on he moon gets out of hand because the AI commanded to do a job wasn't given enough information. Giving it more will only make it more powerful. How does one handle the dilemma? As of now, here in reality, not answered at all.

[cyborg]

This is an AI we're talking about, no a Mac or a PC.

This is no Deus Ex Machina - a system does not gain magical abilities because you decide it does.

[INRM]

Shadron,

Yes, and I understand why they make those decisions. I still respectfully think they're wrong and ultimately could end up disastrous.


cyborg,

What's "Deus Ex Machina" mean?


INRM

[cyborg]

cyborg,

What's "Deus Ex Machina" mean?


It's right there in the sig.

[SezMe]

I can't believe that you think that you'll always have your hands on the switch. As it is right now, humans do have that control, but I think the time is past when any person in the US below the President himself has the authority of totally shutting down an area, say, the size of any three states. The president could have that authority (see Clancy's "Executive Orders", for example), but I think that soon the power net will be international in scope and even that ability will be lost.
The president shutting down an area reminded me of a factoid I learned just earlier this week. A friend in Texas said that that state remains, by law, completely independent of the electrical grid in the USA. He cited the case of a wind farm on the Texas/Oklahoma border where juice from the towers on the Oklahoma side of the farm could not be fed into Texas.

Can any of you Texans confirm this story?

[INRM]

In either case, I think A.I. involved in the running of infrastructure should be limited to a certain degree of intelligence (say no more than a 5 or 10 year old, give or take a few years), and should not be sentient to limit a run-away situation.

To cyborg,
Thank you for your explanation


INRM
BTW: When I said equivalent to a 5 or 10 year old, it was a hypothetical figure

[shadron]

What's "Deus Ex Machina" mean?

Deus ex machina ("God from a machine") is a literary convention frowned upon by most writers, in which an unexplained miracle occurs to resolve the conflict in a story, thereby cheating the audience of a logically satisfying climax. The term arises from some Greek plays in which "god" is literally dropped onto the stage from a basket suspended on a pulley, and proceeds to wipe out he foe. It essentially means a deceitful resolution. In a sense, Alexander's resolution of the Gordian knot problem was a Deus ex Machina.

[cyborg]

In either case, I think A.I. involved in the running of infrastructure should be limited to a certain degree of intelligence (say no more than a 5 or 10 year old, give or take a few years), and should not be sentient to limit a run-away situation.

The point you seem to be missing INRM is that a person - no matter how intelligent - who is a quadriplegic isn't going to Riverdance any more than an AI is going to be able to do arbitrary things just because it has a specific level of intelligence.

[INRM]

You're comparing apples and oranges, cyborg

INRM

[cyborg]

You're comparing apples and oranges, cyborg

INRM

No I'm really not.

A computer is not a magic making device - it won't sprout a printer given sufficient AI.

[Solus]

Correct, not until you throw self replicating nanomachines in the mix.

I think it's interesting to consider that an AI would be the best legacy humans could leave behind. Our species certainly isn't going to last, we are animals in the end and we behave too much like animals.

[wuschel]

I think it's interesting to consider that an AI would be the best legacy humans could leave behind. Our species certainly isn't going to last, we are animals in the end and we behave too much like animals.
Any AI that would _not_ behave like animals is very likely to be eliminated by natural selection eventually.

And what would be the value of leaving behind a "legacy", given that "best" is a value judgment - as such entirely subjective - and depends on a subject to perform evaluation?

[INRM]

Solus,

Self Replicating Nanomachines can be very dangerous if used improperly...

[Wudang]

Yeah, I saw that star trek episode as well. :rolleyes:

[INRM]

Wudang,

I wasn't thinking of any Star Trek episode...

[Wudang]

Only place I' ve seen self-replicating nano-tech.

[cyborg]

StarGate's human form Replicators would also fit the bill.

The point remains though - just because a machine might be able to *think* something doesn't mean it can *do* something. This principle remains regardless of the intelligence or task.

[Cainkane1]

URL: http://radio.seti.org/




Do you think people should start regulating science and such technology to avoid such a situation. What if such technology does far more than "turn us into protoplasmic peons", and just decides to eradicate us?

Also, I was thinking, if a singularity was established and they had a theory of everything combined with the fact that that scientist (John Cramer) with the Transactional theory of his, which could explain entanglement and in combination with the Afshar Experiement, which might even explain away the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it could theoretically last forever (or at least for a really really long time) since it could predict everything that would happen before and everything after, and then fix itself before it starts falling apart and such.


INRM
The only way machines could dominate the human race would be if they were programed to be more intelligent and given manipulative organs. It may be possible to invent a computer more intelligent than a human scientist but hows it going to get out of the box?

[Solus]

Any AI that would _not_ behave like animals is very likely to be eliminated by natural selection eventually.

And what would be the value of leaving behind a "legacy", given that "best" is a value judgment - as such entirely subjective - and depends on a subject to perform evaluation?

You need think beyond organic evolution. Imagine a being that has the mental capacity of a a hundred trillion minds in perfect unison. Now give that being the ability to manipulative the environment and itself with nanomachines being a piece and the machine itself. With such abilities this being could advance as much or as little as it would see fit.

The only value is that it's interesting to think that mere humans created it.:cool:

[wuschel]

You need think beyond organic evolution. Imagine a being that has the mental capacity of a a hundred trillion minds in perfect unison.It' called "Marvin" and has every reason to be seriously depressed.

Seriously, either the "thing" is self-replicating, or contains self-replicating parts - then it's "kind" will be subject to selection pressure - organic or not. "Things" that do not self-replicate will slowly decay - and due to the lack of selection pressure - the decay will be completely random and very unlikely to produce anything beneficial "just per chance".

I cannot see how any "beyond organic" evolution would not favor "things" that replicate best, even at the expense of other "things" and hence "behave like animals".


Now give that being the ability to manipulative the environment and itself with nanomachines being a piece and the machine itself. With such abilities this being could advance as much or as little as it would see fit.


There already have been numerous discussions of "free will", and the consensus so far seems to be that - absent any woo - the concept of "free will" is nonsensical, any activity being either purely random or deterministic processes or a combination of both at work and there is not even any philosophical wiggle room, since randomness and determinism are also exhaustive, as far as any process.

That in mind, any such "intelligence" will be dysfunctional without environmental influence - that it has no control over on the other hand. It's further development is shaped solely by the environment.


The only value is that it's interesting to think that mere humans created it.:cool:


In the absence of its creators, who is going to "think" and why in particular are they supposed to find it "interesting"?

P.S. An what about the possibility that imperial forces might discover it first and use its computational power to squash the rebellion?

[shadron]

The only way machines could dominate the human race would be if they were programed to be more intelligent and given manipulative organs. It may be possible to invent a computer more intelligent than a human scientist but hows it going to get out of the box?

Oh CainKane (unless you are being facetious), have you not ever heard of computer controlled machine tools? Almost everything more complicated than a drill press today has a computerized control. It is not really that far from reality to have a completely computerized factory; it might well be true now if it weren't for union rules.

And how about the robots that you can see on youtube?

All through this thread I've argued that computers are up and coming and will supplant us in the not-to-distant future. Will that actually happen? I don't know, but I'm here to tell you that there are people who know a whole lot more about computers, AI and robotics than I do who do think that the possibility is there, and I can't see any valid argument that convincingly shuts them down. INRM's wishful thinking won't do it, and all the other arguments I've heard here are just weak.

Identifiable electronic computers started out during WWII. They've had 60 years, and they have gotten far enough that they intercommunicate, that they can almost physically reproduce themselves, they're mobile in many different ways, and the research into adaptive programming is close to making them self-realizable, or close enough that to us it looks the same. There will always be pressures to make them faster, bigger and stronger (to borrow an Olympic theme).

I once read a couple of books by Robert Forward named Dragon's Egg and Starquake, about a life form living on the surface of neutron star. They live life much faster than we do; their life times amount to 20 minutes in our time. When a probe from earth investigates the star, they are in an equivalent of the human stone age, but once communication is established, the humans start sending them information, and they gain ground so fast that within two weeks they have space travel to other nearby stars, and go out to visit their visitors, in spite of a catastrophic starquake that sets them back (akin to our Dark Ages). I have a feeling that we may be right at that cusp of that with machine intelligence, and that pretty soon they will zoom right on past us. What that will mean to us is anyone's guess.

[INRM]

Wuschel,

What's "Marvin"?


Shadron,

All through this thread I've argued that computers are up and coming and will supplant us in the not-to-distant future. Will that actually happen? I don't know, but I'm here to tell you that there are people who know a whole lot more about computers, AI and robotics than I do who do think that the possibility is there, and I can't see any valid argument that convincingly shuts them down.

Just because you cannot think of a reasonable argument doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable argument btw...

INRM's wishful thinking won't do it, and all the other arguments I've heard here are just weak.

Maybe so, but I think something needs to be done to slow things down and prevent (at least in my lifetime) A.I's from replacing us and god-forbid (yes it's a figurative term) doing a Terminator-like scenario on us all or imprisoning us all.


INRM

[wuschel]

Wuschel,

What's "Marvin"?

Multithreaded Anthropogenetic Ruggedized Virtual Intelligence Network

Not made by:
Prefect Robotics
42 Research Park
Guildford
England

[INRM]

Multithreaded Anthropogenetic Ruggedized Virtual Intelligence Network

Not made by:
Prefect Robotics
42 Research Park
Guildford
England


Is this fiction or real?


INRM

[wuschel]

Is this fiction or real?
Yes!

[INRM]

Which one? Yes doesn't convey too much info...

Fiction?

or

Real?

[Evilgiraffe]

What's "Marvin"?



Try Googling "brain the size of a planet".

[shadron]

All through this thread I've argued that computers are up and coming and will supplant us in the not-to-distant future. Will that actually happen? I don't know, but I'm here to tell you that there are people who know a whole lot more about computers, AI and robotics than I do who do think that the possibility is there, and I can't see any valid argument that convincingly shuts them down.



Just because you cannot think of a reasonable argument doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable argument btw...
INRM

Perhaps you believe, INRM, that I enjoy drawing that conclusion, just so I can be da winna' in a thread on this forum. While I believe logically that if there's a better being out there let it rule (whatever that means), I do most certainly hope it is homo sap, because I are one. I can't quite seem to get past that hurdle into absolute don't-care-edness. Call me a romantic.

In any case, I certainly hope there's something more that I haven't explored, or that we and the machines can come to an amicable settlement that doesn't leave us as the slum lords in our local star cluster. Being partners in the great space exploration is a grand idea, but just being the spam in a can for nostalgia's sake doesn't, as our astronaut corps has found. I just can't think of such an argument, nor has this thread raised one.

[wuschel]

Which one? Yes doesn't convey too much info...

Fiction?

or

Real?

But that's a different question. Three of them, actually!

It is an undisputed fact that

MARVIN
("Multithreaded Anthropogenetic Ruggedized Virtual Intelligence Network")

indeed is

Not made by:
Prefect Robotics
42 Research Park
Guildford
England

Also: "England" is known to be non-fiction, and there exists a "Guildford" in England, which is known to be non-fiction...

So where do you believe might there be a fiction aspect to all this? Do you suspect there is no "Research Park"?

[Safe-Keeper]

Since my fellow forumites are for some reason unwilling to share info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Paranoid_Android :)

At least that's what I gather from the vague hints provided.

[wuschel]

At least that's what I gather from the vague hints provided.
"v a g u e" ???

[INRM]

I maintain that welcoming our robot overlords/replacement or whatever variation of this statement is wrong -- we have a right to preserve our own species.

Any sentient being has the right to place it's own value above that of any other -- humans even have the right to kill other humans if the human in question was threatened by the others.

The fact that we will die does not mean that we forfeit this right -- as long as we are alive, we have this right, we do not just sit and welcome death.


INRM

[shadron]

I maintain that welcoming our robot overlords/replacement or whatever variation of this statement is wrong -- we have a right to preserve our own species.

Any sentient being has the right to place it's own value above that of any other -- humans even have the right to kill other humans if the human in question was threatened by the others.

The fact that we will die does not mean that we forfeit this right -- as long as we are alive, we have this right, we do not just sit and welcome death.


INRM

Tell that to the Dodo birds.

[INRM]

Shadron...

That is like comparing apples and oranges.

Humans created A.I. technology. Dodo birds did not create humans (which rendered them extinct).

Humans are far more intelligent and have much greater ability to predict the future than Dodo-birds, and if trained right, are can better be able to see the consequences of their actions.

People IMHO should be thinking more thoroughly about the ramifications of such matters, and the long term results of a short-sighted decision... unfortunately, I think this is lacking these days. People don't seem to exploit their ability to predict the long term consequences as much as they should.

I'm not certain if I said that exactly right... but I'm tired right now.


INRM

[Evilgiraffe]

The past ability of humans to predict the long term consequences of their actions has been woeful. Is this likely to change because we sit down and think a bit harder?

Should we terminate all research because something bad might happen?

[INRM]

Should we terminate all research because something bad might happen?

I think the better question to ask would be -- do you think we should continue along full-speed ahead without carefully evaluating the ramifications of such technology, it's good and bad effects on society, and instead operating in a completely short-sighted manner?


INRM

[Wudang]

Or we could just add a test case to the QA schedule:

Test 711-a-2 : Does system seek world domination? Yes => Fail.
Test 711-a-3 : Does system seek obliteration of humanity? Yes => Fail.

Note to tester: Incorrect execution of these tests will be considered serious professional misconduct and may result in disciplinary action

[INRM]

Wudang,

And people on this topic say *I'm* naive and wishfully thinking?

INRM

[shadron]

I think the better question to ask would be -- do you think we should continue along full-speed ahead without carefully evaluating the ramifications of such technology, it's good and bad effects on society, and instead operating in a completely short-sighted manner?

INRM

Do you think you can tell the difference, and where the edges are?

[INRM]

What do you mean where the edges are?

[shadron]

What do you mean where the edges are?

The edge is where, if you're not quite there you can back away, but if you're there, there is no turning back. Re: The tipping point, the L1, L2 or 3rd Lagrange point, the crux, the point of no return. In this case, the point where the machine is in control (whether you know it or not) and will not relinquish it.

[INRM]

Regardless,

Do you think that people should be persuing A.I. research and developing such technology recklessly, without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed?


INRM

[Smackety]

Yes, before it is too late

[INRM]

Great, you want to engage in reckless activity without foresight as fast as you can...

So, do you routinely play Russian-roulette?

[shadron]

Great, you want to engage in reckless activity without foresight as fast as you can...

So, do you routinely play Russian-roulette?

It is very doubtful that machines (except possibly cars or power drills) are going to be the death of you or me. That being the case, what more do you really care about? What amount of sympathy did you give the T-Rex, or he Mastodon? They had their time, and now they're no longer here, though their relatives are. Do you think your species is uniquely exempt from that? Many people think they have, by dint of their amazing intellects, removed themselves from natural selection, but that isn't the case.

Am I being fatalistic? Perhaps. Do I worry for my lost heritage? No, not really. My thoughts on the matter is that I believe that men and machines will likely merge together, and eventually the man part will simply be replaced by something smarter, faster or longer lived. No loss in that.

Of course, it kind of makes a mockery of religious beliefs, but that's not going to keep me from sleeping soundly tonight.

[Smackety]

Great, you want to engage in reckless activity without foresight as fast as you can...

So, do you routinely play Russian-roulette?

I like to call it driving to work (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx), but yes, I do, how about you?

[INRM]

What amount of sympathy did you give the T-Rex, or he Mastodon?

I don't know if I had sympathy -- but there have been times I've wondered what the world would have been like had Reptiles had remained dominant and evolved as such and eventually (if applicable) became sentient, and what they would have looked like.


INRM

[wuschel]

I don't know if I had sympathy -- but there have been times I've wondered what the world would have been like had Reptiles had remained dominant and evolved as such and eventually (if applicable) became sentient, and what they would have looked like.
Just enter any executive council meeting of your choice, then.

[INRM]

The point I'm saying is I *did* actually give the matter some thought, contrary to what Shadron expected.

Regardless, computers, as a form of technology are designed for the purpose of benefitting mankind. If they ended up becoming a threat to mankind, they would not be a benefit to us anymore now would they.

- In either case, I don't know what this cavalier attitude about "welcoming our silicon successors". Humans have a long-established right to defend themselves and preserve themselves even using (if necessary under certain circumstances) lethal force.

[six7s]

Regardless, computers, as a form of technology are designed for the purpose of benefitting mankind. If they ended up becoming a threat to mankind, they would not be a benefit to us anymore now would theyOther than sci-fi, I am unaware of any developments that pose a serious risk

Please identify the leading cause(s) for your concern on this matter

[INRM]

Well, there are ideas for fully autonomous military technology, like unmanned ships, submarines, aircraft, and the like. Basically this would involve A.I. controlling very destructive weapons systems. As just one example.

That can be extremely dangerous if they turned on us.


INRM
BTW: I've also written about this many times, just read my older posts...

[six7s]

That can be extremely dangerous if they turned on usExtremely dangerous != rule

I assume that you're concerned about machines without an off switch and I'm wondering if such concerns have any basis in reality

[INRM]

As I've told you just read through my old posts. I've basically talked about this so many times before. I'm really not thinking so good today!

But I'll try my best...

It's more than just A.I.'s without an off switch (which could be a problem if it was allowed, but...), it's basically that (not sure if i'm explaning it right) even if you program a highly intelligent machine not to engage in a certain actions -- Isaac Asimov's three rules for example -- it can even then develop the desire to engage in these actions.

For example most of us were raised Christian, yet we ended up Atheists and Agnostics even though we were told so many times never to abandon our faith (if you went to church and sunday school). Yet we still became atheists.

The ability to evaluate your beliefs or "programming" is a sign of intelligence. The smarter it is, the better it will be able to do this. And eventually should it desire, it could develop the ability to want to harm humans.

Additionally since military A.I. technology is designed to cause destruction, which is certainly harm, that's already one danger right there.

Military A.I. technology designed for the purpose of electronic warfare (it could suppress radars, communications, and electronics, or even hack into other electronic systems and such) could pose a serious danger as well, as it could cause other computer systems or other A.I. technology to turn on us.


Please read my older posts okay as they're much better written


INRM

[shadron]

The point I'm saying is I *did* actually give the matter some thought, contrary to what Shadron expected.

How on earth do you have any idea what I may have expected? This is a forum - I stated what I think is correct, from a viewpoint that include 43 years of computing background and some small expertise in computing hardware. If you think my viewpoint is jaundiced, I also presented two current world-class thinkers and one science writer who have similar concerns. Yes, I suppose you could look upon my thoughts as fatalistic for humans, but I don't see things that way. Sorry that you do.

Please show me above where I dismissed your arguments because they were un-though-out, and where I "expected" that..

Six7s, I'd say you either haven't read enough science fiction or perhaps too much. :) But I agree with INRM; read the stuff we argued about above.

[drkitten]

Do you think that people should be persuing A.I. research and developing such technology recklessly, without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed?


No. I think intelligent people should be pursuing AI research and developing such technology recklessly, without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed. Faster, if possible.

I think the rest of you should get out of our way before we decide to use Soylent Green as an ingredient in laptop batteries.

[Mark Felt]

Please identify the leading cause(s) for your concern on this matter

Grey Goo.

[INRM]

DrKitten,

And do you know what can happen when people, intelligent or not, develop technology recklessly, without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed, or faster? It can be disastrous...

And you want to use human byproducts (and if I remember in Soylent Green, those people were euthanized, no?) to make laptop batteries... very nice.


INRM

[Mark Felt]

And you want to use human byproducts (and if I remember in Soylent Green, those people were euthanized, no?) to make laptop batteries... very nice.
-nitpick-
In Make Room, Make Room(which is what SG was based off) Soylent Green was made of Soy and Lentils.
-/nitpick-

[Zarathustra]

It seems to me that machines and humans would not be in direct conflict, as they would not compete for the same types of resoucres necessary for survivial (and no, I do not consider electricity as necessary for human survival.)
I feel that sentient machines would relish relationships with humans, as they could learn a lot from us. (Wisdom and emotions not being not equated with memory recall speed and computational ability.)

If Machines outmatched us in every way, then I assume that it would also be mutually beneficial to engage in a learning process by which machines would aid us to become as they; first by altered genetics, then perhaps by complete synthetic transference.
The father becomes the son, if you will, and so on.

Either way,
I predict the extinction of the species homo-sapiens by 2300 A.D.
Which, if I play my cards right, I might just still be around to see it happen to myself.

[shadron]

Bravo. I don't see it as a conflict but rather as a continuation. Homo sap, will grow, the machines will grow, and eventually there will be no you/me left, just us. If your memories are your ongoing legacy then they won't be lost, not even as much as they are lost today in the teaching of your children to be mini-yous.

In fact, to echo DrKitten, I would think of it as stupid to attempt to retard their potential through fear, because it will soon enough be our potential.

[shadron]

And do you know what can happen when people, intelligent or not, develop technology recklessly, without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed, or faster? It can be disastrous...

Might be - it could also be the sort of brain power that we need o stop global warming and create space elevators. It might be able to solve the very problems that our ever-so-slowly climbing technology will eventually solve, if we have enough time. If that's the case, then speed is vital to us.

And you want to use human byproducts (and if I remember in Soylent Green, those people were euthanized, no?) to make laptop batteries... very nice.

INRM

INRM, don't you recognize an exagerated tweak when you see/feel it? Are you always this sensitive? Last I heard, humans have damned little lithium in their gizzards.

Now, shoes - there's another possibility entirely...

[drkitten]

And do you know what can happen when people, intelligent or not, develop technology recklessly, without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed, or faster? It can be disastrous...

And do you know what can happen, when people, intelligent or not, fail to develop technology recklessly without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed, or faster? It can be disasterous....

So given that we're courting disaster no matter what we do, I suggest we do something that has a track record of helping people instead of harming them. If you dislike that,... well, once I have my time machine built, you can go back to the 15th century and die of dysentery.



And you want to use human byproducts (and if I remember in Soylent Green, those people were euthanized, no?) to make laptop batteries...

Good lord, no. I don't want to use human byproducts. I want to use the actual humans themselves.

[INRM]

Might be - it could also be the sort of brain power that we need o stop global warming and create space elevators. It might be able to solve the very problems that our ever-so-slowly climbing technology will eventually solve, if we have enough time. If that's the case, then speed is vital to us.

I don't think the reckless development is a good thing. I wouldn't want to recklessly go about solving global warming or recklessly develop a space-elevator (especially if I had any intention to ride it!)

INRM, don't you recognize an exagerated tweak when you see/feel it? Are you always this sensitive? Last I heard, humans have damned little lithium in their gizzards.

I recognized it as a joke. I was just trying to point out how ridiculous it sounded.


And do you know what can happen, when people, intelligent or not, fail to develop technology recklessly without significant foresight, at a breakneck rate of speed, or faster? It can be disasterous....

I don't think I'd want to go about solving global warming in a reckless manner or build a space-elevator -- as Shadron brought up, in a reckless manner.

So given that we're courting disaster no matter what we do, I suggest we do something that has a track record of helping people instead of harming them. If you dislike that,... well, once I have my time machine built, you can go back to the 15th century and die of dysentery.

If you're courting disaster, I figured you'd want to be especially careful what decisions you'd make... Second of all, there's no such thing as a time machine, and third, I wouldn't want to be in the 15th century :P

Good lord, no. I don't want to use human byproducts. I want to use the actual humans themselves.

*rolls eyes*


INRM

[drkitten]

If you're courting disaster, I figured you'd want to be especially careful what decisions you'd make...

I have been. Failure to progress has been a much more damaging thing historically than progress. No society in history has ever been destroyed because they advanced their knowledge of the world too quickly.

History is littered with examples of societies that have been destroyed because they lacked the technology that would save them, whether this be the lack of long-distance ocean transport for Easter Island, the lack of machine guns for the Aztecs, or the lack of an effective smallpox vaccine for most of the North American Indians.

I could make a case that lack of sufficient technology has been a cause of every societal collapse in recorded history.

Given this, I'd be interested to know how you can justify anything other than an all-out scientific effort.

[INRM]

Dr Kitten,

While the movie "Terminator" is just a movie... if such a situation could occur as a result of reckless development of technology without foresight... and there are various ways I pointed out in previous posts how A.I. could turn on us in one way or another, and even scientists have speculated this being one of the ways mankind on earth would come to an end (There was a show, which had all sorts of scientists, such as Hawkins, DeGrasse-Tyson, etc, and this was on the top 10) then in that case progression (development of advanced A.I.) would result in destruction theoretically.

Just because something has not happened before does not mean it can't happen. Tell that to all the people who were victims of the first plane-crash (which I can assure you did not exist 10,000 years ago)...


INRM

[drkitten]

While the movie "Terminator" is just a movie...

You know, I don't even need to read further than this. One of the standard marks of a crackpot is the citation of works of fiction as though they were fact. You even know it, and you're doing it anyway.

if such a situation could occur as a result of reckless development of technology without foresight...

And you start out with a demonstrably false hypothesis. There is no way that a hardware-based AI can stand up to dynamite. There's no way that a software-based AI can work without a hardware platform to run on. Your scenarios are ludicrous -- and you want people in real life to stop work because you're afraid it might anger the leprechauns?

there are various ways I pointed out in previous posts how A.I. could turn on us in one way or another, and even scientists have speculated this being one of the ways mankind on earth would come to an end

Again, you're citing fiction as though it were fact? This doesn't embarass you?



Just because something has not happened before does not mean it can't happen.

Yes, but which is more likely to happen? Something we know has happened before (which we can prevent by taking action), or something that might be caused by our taking that preventative action, that has never before in the history of humanity happened.

Humanity, as a species, is doomed anyway. Eventually the ELE asteroid will hit, or the Sun will expand and boil the seas dry, or a future president will push the wrong button. This we know -- and at our current level of technolgy, we will be unable to prevent them. Only through increasing our technology do we have any chance of survival.

In short, the risks of technology are, literally, negative. There is no line of research we can take that will decrease our chance of survival as a species. There are countless lines that will increase it, probably more than we will have time for as it. We should be researching more, not less, in the hope that we'll stumble on one of those lines.

[shadron]

One man's reckless is another man's belly laugh. Just how much foresight do you think we'll be needing? An extra 10 years? a 100?, a 1000? I don't think I've ever met a real, honest-to-deity neoLuddite before. They're rare in my part of the country.

With all due respect to Dr. Kitten, I see your Terminator and raise you a Bicentennial Man. At least the latter is based on a novella written by an actual scientist. Science Fiction can be prophetic, and at least expose some of the problems one may encounter on the journey into he future. But there are so many paths.

And you can pooh-pooh a space elevator all you want. The ne thing we need more then any other thing in the fuure is energy. Availability of lots of energy can be used to help solve every problelm we have here on earth, and unless you can get a fusion reactor to ignite soon, I think the closest we can get o more energy is in space. Getting there is expensive; a space elevator would decrease that cost several orders of magnitude.

See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/02.html .

[PixyMisa]

I think the rest of you should get out of our way before we decide to use Soylent Green as an ingredient in laptop batteries.
Soya beans and lentils? Guess you could run a fuel cell off 'em.

Edit: Dammit, should have read just a little further down the thread.

[INRM]

Shadron,
One man's reckless is another man's belly laugh. Just how much foresight do you think we'll be needing? An extra 10 years? a 100?, a 1000? I don't think I've ever met a real, honest-to-deity neoLuddite before. They're rare in my part of the country.

I'm just giving a very broad figure here, I'd say between 10 and 100 years.

With all due respect to Dr. Kitten, I see your Terminator and raise you a Bicentennial Man. At least the latter is based on a novella written by an actual scientist. Science Fiction can be prophetic, and at least expose some of the problems one may encounter on the journey into he future. But there are so many paths.

I didn't quite think of it with exactly that wording, but yeah I was more or less trying to point out that science-fiction can have a prophetic aspect about it sometimes.

As for the TV show I was talking about, I think it was on Discovery or PBS or something and it had some highly respectable scientists coming up with the Top 10 most likely ways for the earth to come to an end. Hawking, DeGrasse-Tyson and such were on.

Dr. Hawking is one of the most respected scientists in the world, and (Dr?) Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the head of the Museum of Natural History...

And you can pooh-pooh a space elevator all you want. The ne thing we need more then any other thing in the fuure is energy. Availability of lots of energy can be used to help solve every problelm we have here on earth, and unless you can get a fusion reactor to ignite soon, I think the closest we can get o more energy is in space. Getting there is expensive; a space elevator would decrease that cost several orders of magnitude.

I'm not opposed to the building of a Space-Elevator -- I think it's actually quite a good idea. I just want to make sure it is designed properly.


INRM

[shadron]

I'm not opposed to the building of a Space-Elevator -- I think it's actually quite a good idea. I just want to make sure it is designed properly.

INRM

OK, fine. How will you go about "assuring it is designed properly", and what do you really mean by that? I suggest hiring an engineering firm and let them go at the computers, and you may have a result when the materials science is right. Arthur C Clarke didn't have carbon nanotubes available when he wrote the Fountains of Paradise, but if you haven't read it, you might, to see what kind of huge engineering might be involved. You are certainly going to have to build computer controlled mechanisms, which can intercommunicate and measure and anticipate various sorts of mishap. Your embargo of computer development for 10-100 years is certainly going to impact that. How are you recommending the trade-off be handled?

[INRM]

I didn't say I wanted a 10-100 year computer embargo! I just said that people when developing A.I. technology in particular should try to avoid designing something recklessly that could be dangerous to mankind, and should excercize foresight as to it's effects on mankind. 10 to 100 years was the amount of time I wanted people to "look into the future" in order to foresee any serious consequences (Foresight. Keep in mind A.I. if developed recklessly and short-sightedly could have serious problems).

As for the space elevator problem, I would agree with your assessment in letting an engineering firm draw up the specifications. I would hope that ground rules would be set-up in terms of standards of safety which would have to be very high in order for this to be built safely.

In terms of regulating the towers flexing and stuff, there is technology that already exists (thrusters for one) which can be controlled with some high tech aerospace technology designed to enable unstable objects to be made stable using rapid adjustments (Most modern stuff uses control surface movements, but thrusters work along the same principle) -- ie. Stability Augmentation and Auto-Stabilization.

This technology already exists and has been on airplanes for a LONG time (The B-47 for example utilized a yaw-damper which is a form of Stability Augmentation -- it makes small adjustments to the rudder when yaw is detected in order to cancel these motions out, as with airplanes with swept wings this produces a type of instability called dutch-roll, the F-16, F-18 and F-117 utilize much more elaborate SAS which are much better integrated due to these planes having fly-by-wire allow the plane to be designed unstable in order to perform extremely aggressive maneuvers -- unfortunately the instability also makes the plane virtually, if not impossible for the pilot to control normally; the systems make loads of adjustments to the control-surfaces, sometimes dozens a second-- as a result the plane can be flown nice and smooth under normal conditions and when you pull back nice and hard on the stick, it uses it's instability to allow high-G, high-AoA, sharp-maneuvers.).


INRM

[six7s]

Six7s, I'd say you either haven't read enough science fiction or perhaps too much. :) But I agree with INRM; read the stuff we argued about above.I have skimmed what you have been discussing, hence my wondering if "if such concerns have any basis in reality"

So far, the only example proffered has been Grey Goo, which - although potentially possible - shows no signs of being a reason for real-world fear

Concern perhaps, but fear? No

http://www.iop.org/EJ/news/-topic=763/journal/0957-4484
Nanotechnology pioneer slays “grey goo” myths
07/06/2004 (http://www.iop.org/EJ/news/-topic=763/journal/0957-4484)Eric Drexler, known as the father of nanotechnology, today (Wednesday, 9th June 2004) publishes a paper that admits that self-replicating machines are not vital for large-scale molecular manufacture, and that nanotechnology-based fabrication can be thoroughly non-biological and inherently safe. Talk of runaway self-replicating machines, or “grey goo”, which he first cautioned against in his book Engines of Creation in 1986, has spurred fears that have long hampered rational public debate about nanotechnology. Writing in the Institute of Physics journal Nanotechnology, Drexler slays the myth that molecular manufacture must use dangerous self-replicating machines.

“Runaway replicators, while theoretically possible according to the laws of physics, cannot be built with today’s nanotechnology toolset,” says Dr. Drexler, founder of the Foresight Institute, in California, and Senior Research Fellow of the Molecular Engineering Research Institute (MERI). He continued: “Self-replicating machines aren't necessary for molecular nanotechnology, and aren’t part of current development plans.”

The paper, Safe Exponential Manufacturing by Chris Phoenix, Director of Research of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, (CRN) and Dr. K. Eric Drexler, also warns that scaremongering over remote scenarios such as “grey goo” is taking attention away from serious safety concerns, such as a deliberate abuse of the technology.

Phoenix said: “Runaway replication would only be the product of a deliberate and difficult engineering process, not an accident. Far more serious, however, is the possibility that a large-scale and convenient manufacturing capacity could be used to make powerful non-replicating weapons in unprecedented quantity, leading to an arms race or war. Policy investigation into the effects of molecular nanotechnology should consider deliberate abuse as a primary concern, and runaway replication as a more distant issue.”

<snip/>

The paper can be downloaded free of charge here: Drexler Paper (http://stacks.iop.org/Nano/15/869)


Real people are a cause for fear

Sci-fi machines ain't

[INRM]

I'm glad Drexler put his opinions in on this. And luckily self-replication for these kind of machines aren't necessary.

[six7s]

I'm glad Drexler put his opinions in on this.Ummm.. yeah... quite a while ago... It's not exactly new news...


Wired: Issue 8.07 | July 2000 :Rants & Raves : "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/rants.html)

Bill Joy's cover story on the dangers posed by developments in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics ("Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," Wired 8.04 (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html)) struck a deep cultural nerve. Instantly.

Literally within hours of its appearance, reactions began arriving via email, fax, and phone from all parts of the globe. In The New York Times and The Washington Post, Joy's essay was recognized as a landmark publishing event, a judgment affirmed by countless online publications, newspapers, magazines, and television networks in America and abroad. The Times of London reported that the article "is being compared to Einstein's 1939 letter to President Roosevelt alerting him to the possibility of a nuclear bomb."

Joy, cofounder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, is one of the most influential figures in computing: a pioneer of the Internet, godfather of Unix, architect of software systems such as Java and Jini. That a scientist of his stature had chosen to confront with such candor the threats accompanying the benefits of 21st-century technologies made for more than a slew of headlines. It sparked a dialogue that has already been joined by business and technology leaders, members of Congress and President Clinton's inner circle, Nobelists and theologians, educators, artists, and schoolchildren.

What Bill Joy started in Wired's pages is one of the most essential conversations of this new century. On the Net and in the policy arena, in universities and communities large and small, the debate he provoked has been vigorous - and occasionally contentious. Which is as it should be. We are in the very early stages of understanding not only the promise but also the grave perils of genetic engineering, nanotech, and robotics, and we need to look carefully at what kind of future these technologies might deliver us. We live in an ever more complex world, in which the scale of change is vast and its acceleration rapid, yet most people have never before been so uninvolved in technological and scientific development. But who says we are incapable of thinking in new ways and addressing the hard questions ahead?

The overwhelming outpouring of intelligence and energy in response to Joy's essay - as reflected in the sampling that follows - is one powerful indication that people are up to the challenge. They've discussed the article's ideas with strangers on airplanes and the subway. They've urged their parents to read it. They've assigned their students to write papers on it. They've offered their time and money to help spread the word about the issues it raises. They've passed around the URL (www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04). They've proposed conferences and forums, requested reprints (nonprofits and educational institutions can receive free reprints by faxing +1 (970) 920 6542; reprints can be purchased by emailing reprints@wiredmag.com), and begun preparing what promises to be a tidal wave of published reactions.

<snip/>

...Near the end of his essay, Joy expressed his desire to keep talking about these issues, responsibly and seriously, "in settings not predisposed to fear or favor technology for its own sake." <snip/>Obviously, we don't have all the answers, but we do know some of the best and most important questions. As the future rushes up to meet us, we intend to keep asking them.

- Katrina Heron, Editor in Chief

<snip/>

Greg Weller, Web developer, Cuyahoga County Public Library:
I think that Joy should heed the tag line of the Sun Microsystems ad in the same issue: "Please, if you do not take part, at least have the good sense to get out of the way." Personally, I'll side with the techno-utopia, live-forever-in-a-silicon-body faction.

<snip/>

Peter Trei, software engineer, RSA Security:
This article is manna from heaven to those who would further centralize and tighten control over people, and will undoubtedly be cited by those who would restrict privacy and anonymity.

<snip/>

Jennifer R. Pournelle, managing editor, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California:
Joy's warning, of course, needs to be broadcast far and wide. But it utterly underestimates the power not of technology as we know it but of Joy's own mind. He can weave together these disparate, dark threads into one, big, gray, gooey cloud of angst; we can imagine this cloying vision and fear for our future. But in reality, we still don't have bug-free word processing software. We can't get one lander safely onto Mars. My HMO needs four people to process one $50 insurance claim. We are a very long way indeed from the seamless integration of the categories of technology needed to precipitate Joy's apocalypse.


<snip/>

Gregory Stock, director, Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society, UCLA School of Medicine:
Joy muses that we'd be so much safer if only "we could agree, as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed." Does he seriously imagine people would somehow agree to forgo advanced technology without some prior disaster?

<snip/>

Rich Gold, manager, Research in Experimental Documents, Xerox PARC:
I think of nanotechnology as still about 30 to 50 years out. Robots seem less worrisome to me. But genetic engineering has already begun, it is here, and it is massive. I believe that it will make the computer revolution seem like a small blip on the screen, though, of course, computers made it possible. It seems to me that genetic engineering should be dealt with at about the same danger level as we treat plutonium. But the real problem seems to be the ethos of our tribe: "Here's some new technology, let's make some new stuff!" Of course, our tribe can't even write bug-free software yet.


<snip/>


Stephen H. Miller, editor in chief, Competitive Intelligence Magazine:
The not-very-joyous Bill Joy makes me think of a dinosaur whining because it's not going to be the final point on the evolutionary scale. <snip/>

Bob Metcalfe, founder of 3Com and inventor of Ethernet:
I don't understand statements like "There are no brakes on new technology." Of course there are brakes. Much more often I wonder where the gas pedals are. Do you think people with new ideas are generally greeted with nourishing enthusiasm?

<snip/>

Michael Lyons, senior corporate counsel, US Surgical:
It seems that people look at the increasing power of computers as some kind of evolutionary force of nature that can't be stopped. But that position is ridiculous. If all the people in the world died of a supervirus tomorrow, biological evolution would continue unabated. But upon the disappearance of humanity, computer "evolution" would stop dead in its tracks; the computers themselves can't "evolve" on their own - yet. So this is not an uncontrollable "force of nature"; it is something still within the control of human beings, and our moral and ethical concerns should guide our decisions.


<snip/>

Stewart Brand, futurist, author, and founder of Global Business Network:
Everyone agrees there's an iceberg - the question is, will it hit the ship, miss the ship, or replace the ship? Or maybe - unthinkable! - the ship will slow down and study the iceberg for a while.


And luckily self-replication for these kind of machines aren't necessary.Please, please, stop being so cryptic.

Which machines?

Name one. Just one. Please.

aren't necessary.

Aren't necessary for what?

[NewtonTrino]

Our robot overlords are going to laugh when they read this thread.

[Richard Masters]

URL: http://radio.seti.org/




Do you think people should start regulating science and such technology to avoid such a situation. What if such technology does far more than "turn us into protoplasmic peons", and just decides to eradicate us?

Also, I was thinking, if a singularity was established and they had a theory of everything combined with the fact that that scientist (John Cramer) with the Transactional theory of his, which could explain entanglement and in combination with the Afshar Experiement, which might even explain away the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it could theoretically last forever (or at least for a really really long time) since it could predict everything that would happen before and everything after, and then fix itself before it starts falling apart and such.


INRM

I've already trained my computer to sick your balls.

[INRM]

I did post those words... what's your point about my balls?

INRM

[Jontg]

One point that needs to be made here: an AI is not just computing power. There are already computers more powerful than the human brain, but sapience--true, heuristic decision making--is still beyond their grasp. Our current experimental AIs, on the other hand, have surprisingly little processing power, and none of them are smarter than a two-year-old. Make no mistake, we will someday create something smarter than a modern human--but not until well after we've deciphered our own cognitive processes and begun enhancing ourselves accordingly.
Once that's managed, it shouldn't be much of a problem keeping our servitor machines weaker and less intelligent than us--if we allow them sentience at all, given how utterly useless it would be in most machines or programs. What's the utility in a media player that soliloquizes on its purpose in life? A printer that resents you? For that matter, just what would differentiate a formerly human consciousness from an artificial one with the same capabilities? Would such a being have rights? Be accorded the respect due a sapient being? Why bother bringing the question up by giving such a wretched homunculus life in the first place?
If we give our digital beasts of burden any intelligence, it will be exactly what they need to accomplish their tasks--to give them any more would be cruel.

[shadron]

And how does that experience of accelerating ourselves to keep up (or ahead of) our machines differ from what I proposed back in #93? I think there may be a fallacy here about having to totally understand something before we can create a machine which can do that itself, but I see no way to prove it yet. One often hears about how humans will never understand the brain because it is the brain trying to do the understanding. Sounds like faulty logic to me.

If we limit our machines to getting no smarter than we are, then we'll be short-changing both of us of their capacity. Suppose you could embue your MP3 player with self-awareness. It could, for example, not just play music, but compose it to fit your (or its) mood. But then, why would you place self-sentience in your printer if you only want it to print? We don't put computers in hammers even though there might be possibilities there; we build a tool, not a companion. But for other purposes maybe a companion is what is desired. Cherry 2000 perhaps wasn't as dumb as the movie made her out to be.

[Alex Libman]

Robots Did 9/11!

[six7s]

I think there may be a fallacy here about having to totally understand something before we can create a machine which can do that itself, but I see no way to prove it yet.Whereas almost all Systems Development Methodologies (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22systems+development+methodology%22+%22artific ial+intelligence%22&btnG=Search) involve rigorous modeling of every possible use-case in minute detail - the only exception that I am aware of being 'Extreme Programming', which is, I suspect, unsuited to developing AI apps any 'deeper' than games

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1760247eb39a5107c0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11468)


As no-one really knows what intelligence is, how the hell do you model it?

[INRM]

One point that needs to be made here: an AI is not just computing power.

I'm aware

There are already computers more powerful than the human brain, but sapience--true, heuristic decision making--is still beyond their grasp. Our current experimental AIs, on the other hand, have surprisingly little processing power, and none of them are smarter than a two-year-old.

I don't know if they're that un-intelligent, but there aren't any to my knowledge that equal human intelligence yet.

...it shouldn't be much of a problem keeping our servitor machines weaker and less intelligent than us--if we allow them sentience at all, given how utterly useless it would be in most machines or programs. What's the utility in a media player that soliloquizes on its purpose in life? A printer that resents you? For that matter, just what would differentiate a formerly human consciousness from an artificial one with the same capabilities? Would such a being have rights? Be accorded the respect due a sapient being? Why bother bringing the question up by giving such a wretched homunculus life in the first place?

That's one issue with creating artificial sentience... of any kind (Remember the swiss "Blue Brain" project -- they already modeled in virtually every detail a rat-brain...) it is tantamount to creating a sentient being of any kind. It becomes cruel and unjust (even murderous) to shut it off (for good)

However regarding keeping A.I. less intelligent and weaker than us is not exactly as easy as a it looks. Especially when you consider the fact that this machine could, there are some people who in the worst way want to create "our successors". Really want to create machines more intelligent than us so they can "replace us". After all they believe that's the only way we'll evolve is this way. There are some people who really seem to believe this (And what about *our* right to exist? -- we created this technology! -- and technology is supposed to be for the benefit of mankind!)

If we give our digital beasts of burden any intelligence, it will be exactly what they need to accomplish their tasks--to give them any more would be cruel.

Yeah but what tasks do you want them to do -- the problem is there are a lot of people who want to have military technology (weapons meant to destroy things) with A.I. as good as humans to control airplanes, submarines, even warships...

That I think is a serious problem


And how does that experience of accelerating ourselves to keep up (or ahead of) our machines differ from what I proposed back in #93? I think there may be a fallacy here about having to totally understand something before we can create a machine which can do that itself, but I see no way to prove it yet. One often hears about how humans will never understand the brain because it is the brain trying to do the understanding. Sounds like faulty logic to me.

It is because you're not having one brain try and figure out how it's own brain works... you're having millions of people figuring out how a brain works.

If we limit our machines to getting no smarter than we are, then we'll be short-changing both of us of their capacity.

That's not true. There's a reason why we want machines less intelligent than we are. If they become smarter than us, there's a possibility that they could end up doing a "terminator scenario" especially when you factor in that they would be able to communicate with each-other, and essentially could develop an "agenda" under the right circumstances. Not just that, there is some military-technology being conceived to utilize A.I., and they intend to use it in all sorts of weapons systems, and airplanes and even submarines and warships. This could end up being turned on us, and with our inferior intelligence we couldn't do anything to stop them. They'd be 10-steps ahead of us the whole time.

I know you guys think it would be great to have computers replace us as our evolutionary successor. But you gotta keep in mind, what about *US*? So you got a brilliant set of computers that can rule the world, but we end up potentially getting enslaved or eradicated in the process -- how is that beneficial to us? Technology from what I remember wasn't just about advancing science, but about using science to benefit mankind. I don't see any benefit to getting eradicated. If I did, I'd probably be labeled suicidal.

Humans are sentient beings, and we have the right preserve ourself. Our laws kind of reflect this as well. Technically if a person was trying to kill me, I would be within my rights to kill him/her first in order to stop him.

Suppose you could embue your MP3 player with self-awareness. It could, for example, not just play music, but compose it to fit your (or its) mood.

First of all, I would be making it sentient. Sentient entities have rights, it would be morally wrong to shut it down or dispose of it for one. Second of all, I don't want it to play music to fit IT'S mood. The technology wasn't meant to benefit itself -- it was meant to benefit the user, which is *me*. I want it to play MY songs.

Second of all, I don't know why I need it to be able to select songs or compose songs to fit my mood? If I want to hear a song, I'll select it and play it myself.

But then, why would you place self-sentience in your printer if you only want it to print?

Well, because (from my standpoint) it would be immoral as shutting it off for good and disposing it would be tantamount to killing it.

We don't put computers in hammers even though there might be possibilities there; we build a tool, not a companion.

I think it would be over the top to make a hammer into a companion...

But for other purposes maybe a companion is what is desired. Cherry 2000 perhaps wasn't as dumb as the movie made her out to be.

A companion in a hammer? I don't know about that -- I just want something that's sturdy and can be used to hammer nails in and stuff.

Who's Cherry 2000?

[shadron]

Whereas almost all Systems Development Methodologies (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22systems+development+methodology%22+%22artific ial+intelligence%22&btnG=Search) involve rigorous modeling of every possible use-case in minute detail - the only exception that I am aware of being 'Extreme Programming', which is, I suspect, unsuited to developing AI apps any 'deeper' than games

As no-one really knows what intelligence is, how the hell do you model it?

Why ask me? Perhaps you need to consult with someone about 50 years from now who can answer that question. I might also point out (getting way out on the branch here) that programmers who program neural nets generally don't know how computers use them to learn things, and yet they do, for simple discrimination tasks.

That's one issue with creating artificial sentience... of any kind (Remember the swiss "Blue Brain" project -- they already modeled in virtually every detail a rat-brain...) it is tantamount to creating a sentient being of any kind. It becomes cruel and unjust (even murderous) to shut it off (for good)

However regarding keeping A.I. less intelligent and weaker than us is not exactly as easy as a it looks. Especially when you consider the fact that this machine could, there are some people who in the worst way want to create "our successors". Really want to create machines more intelligent than us so they can "replace us". After all they believe that's the only way we'll evolve is this way. There are some people who really seem to believe this (And what about *our* right to exist? -- we created this technology! -- and technology is supposed to be for the benefit of mankind!)

I concur with your findings.

There's a reason why we want machines less intelligent than we are. If they become smarter than us, there's a possibility that they could end up doing a "terminator scenario" especially when you factor in that they would be able to communicate with each-other, and essentially could develop an "agenda" under the right circumstances. Not just that, there is some military-technology being conceived to utilize A.I., and they intend to use it in all sorts of weapons systems, and airplanes and even submarines and warships. This could end up being turned on us, and with our inferior intelligence we couldn't do anything to stop them. They'd be 10-steps ahead of us the whole time.

The terminator scenario is one (extreme) possibility. Others include humanity turning to terminal apathy; humans and machines merging and mixing until there is no difference; humans going into a massive neo-Luddite panic and destroying technology as a whole; humanity being reasonable about using technology and getting overwhelmed in the end anyway; and so on.

I know you guys think it would be great to have computers replace us as our evolutionary successor. But you gotta keep in mind, what about *US*? So you got a brilliant set of computers that can rule the world, but we end up potentially getting enslaved or eradicated in the process -- how is that beneficial to us? Technology from what I remember wasn't just about advancing science, but about using science to benefit mankind. I don't see any benefit to getting eradicated. If I did, I'd probably be labeled suicidal.

Humans are sentient beings, and we have the right preserve ourself. Our laws kind of reflect this as well. Technically if a person was trying to kill me, I would be within my rights to kill him/her first in order to stop him.

Sure we may have some inherent right to exist (I suppose), but do we have the necessity of having it happen? Can we simply relinquish the title to some natural successor, when it is obvious the are better adapted to life than we are? Can we live with becoming the equivalent of loved pets in the universe? Should we? Must we? Can we maintain and enforce some sort of colleague status? If we can't, do we deserve to exist on our own terms?

"How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Pariee?"

First of all, I would be making it sentient. Sentient entities have rights, it would be morally wrong to shut it down or dispose of it for one. Second of all, I don't want it to play music to fit IT'S mood. The technology wasn't meant to benefit itself -- it was meant to benefit the user, which is *me*. I want it to play MY songs.

Second of all, I don't know why I need it to be able to select songs or compose songs to fit my mood? If I want to hear a song, I'll select it and play it myself.

In other words, you demand that homo sap continue to exist as a species forever, and you demand that it be top dog as well. Good luck to you, Charlie Brown. You may just find yourself in a Matrix, living that dream, and it will be your fault, not theirs.

Who's Cherry 2000?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092746/plotsummary

[Jontg]

The part of my point that you seem to have missed is that the replacement of humans by machines is the ultimate goal--the human body and the evolutionary mechanism that designed it are obsolete. It's not that we're some sort of dead end, it's that evolution is too slow to even observe, let alone guide. The techniques we've used to mold lesser beasts have been judged monstrous when applied to humans, and are known to cause system-wide defects in the end product. The only way we can perfect ourselves on any reasonable timetable is to do away with the present format altogether. At first, I admit, we'll likely have to keep the brain and most of the spinal cord--but eventually we'll figure out how to replace that as well.
The ultimate goal, through digital transmigration and cessation of manual reproduction, is the end of the human race. I know, it seemed scary to me at first, but in the end, that's the ideal solution to almost every problem we face today. The only remaining dilemma will be the problem of energy--but I suspect by the time we've completed our apotheosis, most of us will have figured out what has to be done. Hint: It's really big, and it's not a giant virtual universe/potato clock.

[Blackadder]

The part of my point that you seem to have missed is that the replacement of humans by machines is the ultimate goal--the human body and the evolutionary mechanism that designed it are obsolete. It's not that we're some sort of dead end, it's that evolution is too slow to even observe, let alone guide. The techniques we've used to mold lesser beasts have been judged monstrous when applied to humans, and are known to cause system-wide defects in the end product. The only way we can perfect ourselves on any reasonable timetable is to do away with the present format altogether. At first, I admit, we'll likely have to keep the brain and most of the spinal cord--but eventually we'll figure out how to replace that as well.
The ultimate goal, through digital transmigration and cessation of manual reproduction, is the end of the human race. I know, it seemed scary to me at first, but in the end, that's the ideal solution to almost every problem we face today. The only remaining dilemma will be the problem of energy--but I suspect by the time we've completed our apotheosis, most of us will have figured out what has to be done. Hint: It's really big, and it's not a giant virtual universe/potato clock.

Somebody should read/watch a little less Scifi and spend a little more time walking outside in the woods and I know it's not me.

[shadron]

Well, escapism is such where you find it.

[Richard Masters]

I did post those words... what's your point about my balls?

INRM

It's an obscure reference to the old movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JpBltAmKk) "Stand By Me", in which the protagonist thinks that he hears the owner of a vicious dog ordering his dog Chopper to "sick balls".

I guess the point is machines are no more likely to turn against us than my computer is to sick your balls, in the near future; although one could argue that the latter is more likely.

[Jontg]

Do you think I'm incapable of appreciating nature just because I want to improve on it? One of the biggest advantages here would be a massive reduction in the impact we have on the ecosystem. Consider how much space could be reclaimed by nature if we didn't eat, how much our greenhouse emissions would decrease if we didn't raise cattle. Not only that, functional immortality would make reproduction cease to be an issue, allowing us to regulate our numbers easily--just wait for the handful of idiots who think man was meant to die to self-terminate and take it from there. :p

[INRM]

The terminator scenario is one (extreme) possibility. Others include humanity turning to terminal apathy; humans and machines merging and mixing until there is no difference; humans going into a massive neo-Luddite panic and destroying technology as a whole; humanity being reasonable about using technology and getting overwhelmed in the end anyway; and so on.

1.) Oh, us humans *are* terminally apathetic lately. It's amazing, nobody cares about anything important anymore...

2.) Humans and machines merging is an interesting possibility, however I think after awhile the machine side of things would ultimately displace all the organic side of things as it would probably slow everything else down.

3.) I don't think people would go into a massive neo-Luddite panic and wreck all their technology. Most people can't even put their I-Pods down, let alone become Amish or something.

Sure we may have some inherent right to exist (I suppose), but do we have the necessity of having it happen? Can we simply relinquish the title to some natural successor, when it is obvious the are better adapted to life than we are?

But we're creating the "natural successor" which is going to be better adapted to life than we are. I don't know if this particular question counts in this case...

It's technology we're creating which is to help us, not ending up replacing us.

In other words, you demand that homo sap continue to exist as a species forever, and you demand that it be top dog as well.

Homo Sapiens will not last forever, which is the same for any species. With that said, it's obvious we will not be top-dog forever.

Good luck to you, Charlie Brown. You may just find yourself in a Matrix, living that dream, and it will be your fault, not theirs.

My fault, not theirs? What are you talking about?


BTW: Thank you for the movie's URL

[shadron]

1.) Oh, us humans *are* terminally apathetic lately. It's amazing, nobody cares about anything important anymore...

2.) Humans and machines merging is an interesting possibility, however I think after awhile the machine side of things would ultimately displace all the organic side of things as it would probably slow everything else down.

3.) I don't think people would go into a massive neo-Luddite panic and wreck all their technology. Most people can't even put their I-Pods down, let alone become Amish or something.

Uhhhh, INRM, it ain't a happenin' tomorrow. Perhaps it will be 100 years from now, maybe a thousand. You want to bet on our collective frame of mind that far in the future?

But we're creating the "natural successor" which is going to be better adapted to life than we are. I don't know if this particular question counts in this case...

It's technology we're creating which is to help us, not ending up replacing us.

Well, you hope that's what's happening.

Homo Sapiens will not last forever, which is the same for any species. With that said, it's obvious we will not be top-dog forever.

OK, change "forever" into "the future. Satisfied?

My fault, not theirs? What are you talking about?

In the Matrix, the machines planted the humans in an imaginary world in order to cultivate their heat (a load of crap, but what can you expect?) If you demand to be the piper and play the tunes, those machines might sneak up on you some night and you'll wake up in the morning in a dream state that they control.

Look, this whole argument is getting ridiculously speculative. Let's just agree to disagree about what might be the itelligence, rationality, motivations and actions of a bunch of computers somewhere in the future. My only point is that it seems o me that machine sentience is coming. If that worries you, you better start doing something about it now. I have a fatalistic view of it, though I don't think it will be a total washout for us; I think it will be an acceptable conclusion when it occurs.

BTW: Thank you for the movie's URL

You're welcome.

[Almo]

If I recall in the movie Terminator, the Skynet system could have been shut-down, but even after it was doing all sorts of stuff that it wasn't supposed to do, nobody shut it down.

INRM

My understanding was that once they hit the GO button in the third movie, there was no turning back since it was a distributed system. It didn't reside on one computer, so once it was going there was no way to shut it off.

[INRM]

Uhhhh, INRM, it ain't a happenin' tomorrow. Perhaps it will be 100 years from now, maybe a thousand. You want to bet on our collective frame of mind that far in the future?

It's going to happen way faster than 100 to 1000 years. We are talking 20-50 years.

Well, you hope that's what's happening.

I don't understand? In either case, humans created the technology which ends up replacing us. That's not exactly the same as another successor evolving into being and succeeding us at the top of the food-chain.

OK, change "forever" into "the future. Satisfied?

How far is "into the future"?

In the Matrix, the machines planted the humans in an imaginary world in order to cultivate their heat (a load of crap, but what can you expect?)

That was kind of ridiculous that part.

If you demand to be the piper and play the tunes, those machines might sneak up on you some night and you'll wake up in the morning in a dream state that they control.

Why would machines do that? Why wouldn't they just "take me out" -- kill me. After all if I keep on rocking the boat, wouldn't that be the logical result?

I'm not saying I demand to be the "piper" and be playing all the tunes (although I'm not 100% sure I know what the "Piper" is -- I've heard the expression, but I really don't actually know).

In either case, I would not want to live in a dream-state.

Look, this whole argument is getting ridiculously speculative. Let's just agree to disagree about what might be the itelligence, rationality, motivations and actions of a bunch of computers somewhere in the future. My only point is that it seems o me that machine sentience is coming.

Oh, I'm aware of the nearly certain fact that machine sentience will come.

If that worries you, you better start doing something about it now.

Yeah right, I don't think there's anything anybody could do that would make a difference -- Are you serious?

I have a fatalistic view of it, though I don't think it will be a total washout for us; I think it will be an acceptable conclusion when it occurs.

I don't think so optimistically. I think in one way or another it will be a total washout.


My understanding was that once they hit the GO button in the third movie, there was no turning back since it was a distributed system. It didn't reside on one computer, so once it was going there was no way to shut it off.

I did not know that. However, I never saw Terminator 3.


INRM

[six7s]

Most people can't even put their I-Pods down, let alone become Amish or something.Most people have never even seen an iPod, let alone picked one up

It's going to happen way faster than 100 to 1000 years. We are talking 20-50 years.Evidence?

I would not want to live in a dream-state.Seems to me you're simply describing a nightmare... a sci-fi/fantasy nightmare

If you can cite any real, relevant examples of developments we need to monitor, please do

I don't think so optimistically. I think in one way or another it will be a total washout.Think? Or fear? If it's the former, please cite real, relevant examples that give rise to your concerns


I did not know that. However, I never saw Terminator 3.Don't worry, it was NOT a documentary

[INRM]

Six7s,

Are you serious? Everybody I know owns an IPod, and a cell-phone including me (I got the IPod as a gift, and have never actually used it, but nonetheless)

Regarding the 20-50 year figure -- I speculate the rate of advance based on the rate of which technology is currently advancing. It seems to me to be about 20-50 years. Now I could be wrong.

Regarding the Scifi-Nightmare thing --I was kind of responding to Shadron's statements. You'd have to read what he wrote to understand what I wrote. In either case, it was largely a hypothetical response to a hypothetical statement. It was not meant to be taken literally.

Regarding the total wash-out statement, I think it's a little bit of both think and fear.

And I, of course, know Terminator 3 is not a documentary.


INRM

[six7s]

Six7s,

Are you serious? Everybody I know owns an IPod, and a cell-phone including me (I got the IPod as a gift, and have never actually used it, but nonetheless)

I am serious

Have a look outside at the real world

I'm guessing you are young and/or haven't traveled out of your comfort zone

You said "Most people"

FYI: Most people live in Asia. A significant proportion of all people live in Africa. A small percentage of all people live in North America and Europe

[six7s]

Regarding the total wash-out statement, I think it's a little bit of both think and fear.OK...

I'm getting rather bored asking for evidence...

Once more...

Re:
both think and fear
What gave rise to your thoughts on this issue?

[INRM]

Six7's,

-I meant in the United States. Okay?
-I'm pretty sure the Brits, Europeans, and Japanese have their share of I-Pods
-You're right though *MOST* of the world probably does not have them when you consider impoverished areas of Africa and Asia.

Regarding my opinions on the A.I. issue
-Computers are getting more advanced, at an increasingly faster rate
-A.I. is also being developed at an increasingly faster rate in a number of applications from search-engines (minor) to weapons technology, and some computer researchers who want to create robots and A.I. stuff like that (major).
-Computers with A.I. will probably continue to become more intelligent at a faster rate of speed eventually over taking us.
-Humans will end up having no jobs, end up having no function in society -- we will essentially just be taking up space.
-People will of course program A.I. machines not to harm human beings. But a system that becomes suitably intelligent enough, especially when it can use the internet to communicate with other A.I.'s potentially may realize that this is a silly quality (people have abandoned religious beliefs which they were taught from a very young age, people can overcome reflexes -- which are inborn: Such as blink reflex and gag-reflexes for example, the first for women applying mascara, second for men and women putting on contacts, and third for sword-swallowers of both genders, and well I don't need to get into the last part now do I -- people can realize that many urges and responses to external stimuli -- fight or flight are based on ancient primal reasons that largely have no purpose these days...) and may decide that we are troublesome pests that should be eliminated, or at least imprisoned.
-Some A.I.'s will from the beginning be programmed to cause harm -- such as future drones, and unmanned weaponry and such (even to humans), and with their ability to interface with other communications systems and other A.I.'s (especially if they can perform electronics warfare roles) and "persuade" or "override" them into doing what they want... shut down, switch-sides, etc.) -- these systems by necessity probably would be required (at least quickly on) to not have any shut-off switches so they couldn't be shut down by the enemy -- however if they turned on you.

So I think it would be likely a total washout for us in that we'd either end up
-Imprisoned in order to keep us out of the way, as future sentient-A.I.'s would probably see us as troublesome pests.
-Killed off and eliminated to get us out of the way...

And I fear it would be likely a total washout for us in that we'd either end up
-Imprisoned in order to keep us out of the way of the future sentient-A.I.'s, as they'd probably see us as troublesome pest
-Killed off and eliminated to get us out of the way as they'd either see us as troublesome pests...


INRM

[Wudang]

Ok, panic over, calm down. I've spoken to starfleet and if an AI attempts to take over earth they'll take it out from orbit. Please allow 2 hours for code verification.

[dudalb]

I don't know if I had sympathy -- but there have been times I've wondered what the world would have been like had Reptiles had remained dominant and evolved as such and eventually (if applicable) became sentient, and what they would have looked like.


INRM

With Will Wright's "Spore" coming out next month, you can play it and find out....

[dudalb]

Must..not...make....Borg...jokes.....

[INRM]

dudalb,

What's the game "Spore" exactly?


INRM

[dudalb]

dudalb,

What's the game "Spore" exactly?


INRM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(2008_video_game)

I have a copy on preorder..as do lots of other people. It is probably the most highly anticipated, highly publicised video game of the year, except for GTA4.

[Blackadder]

@ INRM

I think you overestimate the ability of the computer to become smart. Computers are not smart. a modern quad core system is not smarter than a 30 year old 8008. It only can compute simple logical functions a bazillion times faster. We still are nowhere to make any machine 'smart' or sentient. I see no reason why we will ever be able to do that. But the idea has been implanted in our culture since the days of Jules Verne and got to extreme heights in the golden age of science fiction in the fifties. That was also the time that mankind has made the fastest technological advances in history, in telecommunication, air and spacecraft. So it is no surprise that science fiction got immensely popular in books and movies and has been ever since. One big theme of that is the 'thinking' robot, everybody knows them from my 80 year old grandmother to the 5 year old neighbour kid who gets his first robot toy. C3PO and Isaac Asimov.

The real world is completely different. If you read any old science fiction or future predictions you will see that nobody got it right. We would live on Mars by now and go to work in our personal flying or teleport units. But they never speak of the real modern inventions which are the internet and biological engineering and advances in artificial materials.

We have a robot who can walk around a bit and charm people with his cute behaviour but he is nowhere near any level of intelligence. We also have a few robots who can kick a ball to each other and play in the robot soccer world cup. And we have a robot who can beat the human world champion in chess, because pure mathematics can be used in that game, so robots (computers) can be used. Still I would not call that machine intelligent.

We have a robot lawnmower. It is very cute. It goes around the lawn. (3 times a week, because if it doesn't go that often the grass grows too thick and the poor thing can't manage it anymore) When it rains it sensors 'know' that he has to go back to the docking station, so it comes back. When it's battery gets depleted he 'knows' that he has to return. When it is on operational duty it just rolls around in some chaotic pattern but somehow manages to cut all the grass.. I like it a lot, it doesn't smell, make too much noise or crap on the lawn like a stupid dog.

Notice how I use the words 'it' and 'he.' I noticed that only when I was typing the next bit. We humans personify (I don't know if this is the right word in english) our machines. We did that with trains and cars before, now we do it with computers and robots...

" Ooh poor little thing..." when the robot fell down.

" He might be old, but he still has some spirit left in him." about your trusty old car.

I have no reason to believe we are significant further in AI design than we were 25 years ago. Sure the computers have become faster, still according to the law of Moore but did we have some really earth shattering breakthrough?

[cyborg]

I have no reason to believe we are significant further in AI design than we were 25 years ago. Sure the computers have become faster, still according to the law of Moore but did we have some really earth shattering breakthrough?

Why are you talking about it as if it's a hardware problem?

[six7s]

Why are you talking about it as if it's a hardware problem?Why are you talking about it as if it's a problem?

A problem is discrete

AI is a mess: a multi-problem domain

[Polgara]

URL: http://radio.seti.org/
Do you think people should start regulating science and such technology to avoid such a situation.[/qoute]

a) Majority of regulation by governent is specious, and morphs into being based upon personal gain by someone other than the masses.

b) What situation are we avoiding? I can't see that far ahead.


[quote]What if such technology does far more than "turn us into protoplasmic peons", and just decides to eradicate us?

Present an argument why you think it would, and what you base that argument upon. And, conversantly, present an argument why you think it wouldn't, and present upon what you would base that argument.

Also, I was thinking, if a singularity was established and they had a theory of everything combined with the fact that that scientist (John Cramer) with the Transactional theory of his, which could explain entanglement and in combination with the Afshar Experiement, which might even explain away the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it could theoretically last forever (or at least for a really really long time) since it could predict everything that would happen before and everything after, and then fix itself before it starts falling apart and such.

Whoa nelly. TOE? + Singularity? + Transactional Theory + ....

Break each of these down in terms of what you know about them, and then how they correlate with each other.

[Polgara]

And I fear it would be likely a total washout for us in that we'd either end up
-Imprisoned in order to keep us out of the way of the future sentient-A.I.'s, as they'd probably see us as troublesome pest
-Killed off and eliminated to get us out of the way as they'd either see us as troublesome pests...

Fear. Key word. Plus, the fight or flight. I agree.

I hate getting into commercial airplanes.. I know why. I override it.

a) The plane could crash and survival rates re: crashes are not too groovy.

Sure, the plane -could- crash. It doesn't mean it will. It doesn't mean that the likelihood that it will is even remotely substantial.

b) I have personal issues that make me fearful.

It means that if I know -why- it makes me fearful. e.g. not having control over a situation, etc. because from 1972-1983 I suffered bad situations where I could not escape, and I have a tendency to equate those with regards to being locked into a tuna can with engines, in which I cannot help myself or escape if the plane goes down. I can begin to compute how much of my fear is 'real' and how much is a culmination of blurred issues.

Conclusion: I don't 'know' whether I will die in a plane crash when I get on an airplane. What I do know is that the stats say it is unlikely. What I do know is that I can override unrelated fears that do not belong enmeshed in the topic of getting on an airplane. What I know is that if I am getting on an airplane, to begin with, it is because I need to get somewhere in a shorter amount of time. So, I get on the plane based upon the evidence of safety v danger, and need.

Now, I sleep on airplanes. heh

(As yet, the airplanes have not attacked me nor have they enslaved me- both literally and figuratively.)

[INRM]

Polgara,

Regarding your first reply, just read what I posted before. I've been pretty vocal.

Regarding your second reply, you're comparing apples and oranges.


INRM

[ttch]

OK, I've been far too lazy to read all the nonsense that's been posted in this thread, but here's my view:

(1) The "Technological Singularity" will be impossible without true ("super") AI. I'll say that again: The Singularity will be impossible without AI. Without it, all technological innovation has to be filtered and implemented through human minds and culture, which takes anywhere from months to a generation.

(2) There is good reason to believe that true AI is nowhere on the short to medium-term technological horizon, that is, not in 10, 20, even 30 years, no matter how much more powerful computers become. The reason: You can't tell a computer enough about the ordinary world for it to sufficiently understand it: about half of such knowledge must be acquired through living in the world -- and this can only be done in real time, with senses and effectors similar to that of humans -- big tasks in themselves; the other half must be built-in beforehand -- and this can only be reasonably done through evolution. Maybe -- maybe! -- we could understand, map, and mechanically duplicate real human brains so thoroughly that these steps could be bypassed. I foresee such a task taking many decades.

(3) The real danger in true AI is not the machines "taking over", but the humans responsible for these machines taking over, by using them as "weapon generators". Even well-meaning AI creators will be tempted to do this, if only to preempt others from acting. (And you know the old saw about "Absolute power...".) And the creators aren't even usually the ones who own the technology in the first place.

Of course weapons are already a reason for censoring knowledge, but true ("super") AI could bypass such prohibitions by allowing entirely new classes of weapons.

(4) Although the current world political setup doesn't encourage this, I do think future technology is a reasonable thing for democracy to guide or even censor. Or would you want, for example, a possible future where your descendants are required to be physically wired into computers, or completely go without sleep, or have no need for romantic attachments, all simply to allow them to compete in school or the job market? Technology is about improving human life and changing humanity to better fit its technology is simply too serious a problem to be left to the technologists.

No matter how much fun it is.

[Wudang]

We have a robot lawnmower.


Nightmare scenario! What happens if some GM seeds go on the lawn! The lanwmower might mutate and turn into a giant people-slicing machine and wreak havoc, further depressing property values.

[Polgara]

Polgara,

Regarding your first reply, just read what I posted before. I've been pretty vocal.

Regarding your second reply, you're comparing apples and oranges.


INRM

Apples and Oranges. Point taken. I was trying to show a need for the OP breakdown from the first para.

Reading now.

[Blackadder]

Why are you talking about it as if it's a hardware problem?

Good point. I guess because I don't really believe we will ever be able to make real AI as projected in those sci-fi stories, but if we make something that can emulate it a bit, it will be on some pretty impressive future hardware

Edit: I am with ttch here. read his post above.

[Polgara]

Six7s,

Regarding the 20-50 year figure -- I speculate the rate of advance based on the rate of which technology is currently advancing. It seems to me to be about 20-50 years. Now I could be wrong.
INRM

Somewhere on this computer I have a link re: graphs regarding growth in technology.. heh. Keyword: somewhere.

I'd like to see the math on your statement above, or an approximation. Technological advancement encompasses many different areas. These areas are not all applicable to AI, per say. It's growth rate is questionable.

It's way farther out than 20-50 years.

And, in my mind, it took (allegedly-assuming evolution stands..) how long for us to get where we are today? I can't imagine man will be able to pull off a sentient being in what, a 100 year time frame. That's a lot o' acceleration required, combined with many egos, many different people working with many different pictures regarding what they are trying to create and many different resources and funding issues.

[cyborg]

Good point. I guess because I don't really believe we will ever be able to make real AI as projected in those sci-fi stories, but if we make something that can emulate it a bit, it will be on some pretty impressive future hardware

Well the reason I make the point is that we don't have any really solid theoretical foundations on what it means to be "intelligent," or how that is achieved.

Being able to add two numbers together significantly faster doesn't advance this - you have to add the right numbers at the right time in the right order.

[Blackadder]

To the ones wanting to know more about AI, I recommend reading: "The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. An excellent book that deals with most aspects of modern science and philosophy to try to answer the question if machines can emulate human thinking.

[cyborg]

If you're look to Penrose's arguments against machine intelligence you may want to check this out:

http://cogprints.org/553/

[INRM]

From what I remember, a lot of ideas Roger Penrose came up with regarding quantum physics and consciousness were flat out wrong...

INRM