-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Ok, this is going to sound nuts: but if you actually read the Unabomber Manifesto, he has a lot of good points. If we ever do achieve human level AI, that will be the exact point where the human race becomes obsolete and is either wiped out Terminator-style or subtly managed to irrelevance.
Thats only assuming that AI will be able to surpass humans. And that AI will take the form we think it will. Who knows, maybe AI can only be achieved incredibly complicated means, thus can’t be mass-produced. Or AI will be equal, but not greater than humans.
I once heard that Intellegence isn’t possible with out emotion. Maybe Thats how AI will develop.
i’d like to think that any sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence would just shrug its shoulders and move to mars, leaving humans in the dust.
Those are all good points, Geko. It is assuming that AI will be able to surpass humans, but that is a reasonable assumption. Computers have been surpassing humans at specific tasks for the last few decades, it’s reasonable to assume that a general purpose AI would surpass human thinking for any task.
If your really interested in this stuff, at least read Bill Joy’s famous article Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us
BTW an AI with emotion is actually a more terrifying scenario. I would rather be in the Terminator Movies than in “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”.
Unibomber had a nice little manifesto, but bombing innocent, though misguided, model minority scientists and professors makes us just as bad at T-1000.
Actually, that got me thinking. Despite what psychologists might tell you when they’re giving your overly-playful, energetic children expensive medication, the human mind is an amazingly complex machine. It takes in all kinds of input, and gives wildly different results. Take human language, for example. The common theory amongst linguists is that there are actually only a handful of variables and rules (principles and parameters and linguists say), but if you put simple input into the complex machine that is the brain, and we get billions of quite different languages throughout history. I’ve studied the variations on this theory extensively and the evidence is quite compelling.
.
My point is this: If a computer was to become genuinely intelligent, it would have a completely different way of thinking than us. We assume that the computers would be either benevolent or malevolent (or a mix of both), but those concepts aren’t even close to being consistent across cultures, despite the fact that our brains are all basically the same. And we speculate endlessly about their motivations, emotions, etc. Why would something with a completely different brain think in a way we could even understand, if we can’t always easily understand each other?
.
My theory is that if computers became intelligent, we wouldn’t be able to communicate with them or understand their motivations, wants or desires, and vice-versa. We’d coexist in completely disconnected worlds.
Also, computers would think so fast that we wouldn’t even have time to read one of its “thoughts” before its 10,000 times past that. We would be so insignificant, and inefficient.
Having a powerful AI that’s indifferent towards humankind is almost as bad as having a powerful AI that’s malevolent. It might, for instance, destroy all oxygen producing plants in order to reduce the rate of decay of its chips and just not care about how that will affect humans.
Ahhhhhhh, BUT, self-preservation is a characteristic encoded into our DNA. There’s nothing saying that Johnny 5 will have the same instincts as us. Seeing as Johnny would be the result of our tinkering, and not a billion-year struggle for our survival, it might not see the point of continued survival, might not be afraid of death, and just let itself wither away as time goes by.
I’m currently reading through the Dune Butlerian Jihad novels (just not as good as daddy’s, of course).
.
These books go through a lot of the stuff you guys are talking about on the other end of the equation, when the AI are in control.
.
What it comes down to is this: Machines will only do what its programmer allows it to do. If it can learn emotion, it can, if it can’t, it can’t. If it can learn conquest, it will, if it can’t it can’t.
.
The mistake made in the Dune universe was that the AI were programmed with a bit of its programmers mind for conquest, for controlling things. When the AI was given a chance to start controlling more and more, it decided it wanted it all.
.
Even after all that, though, the AI had been programmed in the beginning not to be able to harm its creators, and supposedly, not to be able to change its core programing. So again: If AI ever destroy or enslave man, it is because of man.
Yeah, that’s why we’re so worried about how intelligent we make our AI. We have to make it as intelligent as we can to simplify our lives, but we won’t know where the cutoff is until we make it TOO smrt.
Caio, you are right that my example requires that the AI is motivated by self-preservation. It’s are reasonably assumption since most other goals are predicated on continued existence, but I’ll grant that it might not always be the case. My point is still that an apathetic AI can still be dangerous.
RSIxidor, beyond what the programmers intended, you also have to consider any unindented consequences. For example, suppose google makes an AI and give it the tasks of “answer all questions that people ask you”. A sufficiently advanced AI might decide that the best way to achieve that goal is to make sure no one asks any questions. Asimov and Clark wrote a lot of stories about situations like that (and were much better writers than Herbert’s corpse fucking son).
With genetic algorithms, emergent behavior and cascading development, the situation would get far beyond the control of the initial programmers very quickly.
I like pie.
The Singularity IS pie
is this what we are talking about?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
oh man, I love Singularity fiction. It’s awesome.
What are some good Singularity fiction books?
@asdf
“Fire Upon the Deep” by Vernor Vinge
“Singularity Sky” by Charles Stross
“Blood Music” by Greg Bear
All of the “Culture” books by Ian M Banks, “Consider Phlebas” is the first one, but they don’t have to be read in any order.
thanks reboot