Lets hand everything over to machines. I'm sure they'll be very good overlords, perfectly accepting of humans with all their flaws.
I mean, what could go wrong?
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few." - Bishop George Berkeley
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Hong Wu wrote:Watch the Google-DARPA robotics challenge where no one can make a robot that can both climb up stairs and turn a gasket
Hong Wu wrote:before you presume that robots are going to take every job.
Victoribus Spolia wrote::lol:
Were you referring to me here? I never claimed this if you were; otherwise, AI takeover would likely enslave any survivors of a nuclear holocaust to do menial tasks (Like in the Terminator).
I for one don't see why the warnings against AI aren't taken seriously and why the declining of human character in the "Technological Age" is not ringing any bells of alarm.
I also don't understand why more right-wing traditionalists and advocates of personal freedom (ancaps, etc)., are not more concerned about the real conflict between traditional lives of self-sufficiency and dependency on tech.
It just amazes me really. No one wants to call into questions conveniences, the sacred cow of the west.
Hong Wu wrote:Watch the Google-DARPA robotics challenge where no one can make a robot that can both climb up stairs and turn a gasket before you presume that robots are going to take every job.
Rancid wrote:This is the flaw in your thinking.
The robot take over isn't going to happen by physical robots. It will happen on the net. Most AIs are deployed on the internet, they do not have a physical form. They will not need a physical form to kill us either. They will easily hi-jack all of the systems we used. For example, power plans, driver less car networks, water plants, etc. etc. No need for them to physically attack us.
Hong Wu wrote:I haven't kept up to date on the Google-DARPA challenge, but if the robots can't climb stairs or turn gaskets, I am skeptical that they will ever have true intelligence because I don't view intelligence as consisting of just database comparisons. I believe that intelligence has other elements or at least physical elements that existing technologies have not been able to reproduce.
Rancid wrote:Do you understand how AI actually works? Judging from what you're saying, I think you don't. In addition, do you understand what life is? I'm guessing you don't either. If you understand AI, and you understand how biology/life/evolution works, you start to realize that AI can really can give rise to intelligent, sentient beings. The way AI works, is very very much the same as the way biology/evolution/life works.
There's a very good reason there's a general fear of AI from scientists and engineers (people that understand how this AI and life stuff works). It's not made up.
If you cared, I could give a short explanation of how AI works, and how crazily similar it is to life/biology/evolution. So similar that it's obvious AI could destroy us. Once again, it doesn't need a physical form either. That said, it's also only a matter of time before physical robots will catch up on the mechanical side of this. That said, we should be more scared of AIs on the net, than in physical robotic form.
Hong Wu wrote:They say this when they talk about self-developing "neural networks" and so-on but the processing speeds of cutting edge robots like Boston Dynamics "dogs" appear to be on par with the nervous system of a cockroach, so I get the impression that there's a long way to go. I would be interested in reading your analysis though.
Hong Wu wrote: for liberals it seems to be shorter than it is for conservatives. So they only care about AI and climate change up to X time in the future, the rest of the time it's a justification for acting out against other people.
Hong Wu wrote:Also, laziness. They aren't interested in self sufficiency because they take no pride in self sufficiency. A lot of them appear to secretly wish that robots would take over, is another conversation I've had. They hope to be treated like pampered dogs by some kind of super robot. Of course, the cosmological implications of some of these views can be pretty fascinating but over all it's detestable.
Hong Wu wrote:As some people smarter than me have pointed out though (and this is relevant to your idea of AIs existing solely online) a theoretical intelligence that is not human would probably have no reason to desire the same things that humans want, so it's unclear if/why a conflict would arise....
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How am i wrong about this?
Rancid wrote:Like in biology, it all depends on how these AIs evolve over time as they build and train themselves. They could evolve to something docile, or something aggressive. It's kind of dependent on what criteria is chosen for them to use as a basis for further evolution/training. Just like we can't entirely predict what biological evolution will yield a million years from now, we won't be able to track how AIs evolve themselves.
Hong Wu wrote:Regarding a direct threat, consider that if AI only exists on the internet (as Rancid as suggested), this means they would physically need human beings to do long term maintenance for them (at a minimum) so that issue somewhat resolves itself.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Not so fast.
I agree with @Rancid, on this (no offense), If AI controlled computer systems through the internet it could easily take over automated manufacturing to create its own "bots" that would do general maintenance. This is besides the argument I already made that they would likely enslave some humans for menial work after bringing us down to manageable numbers.
Hong Wu wrote:I've GTG for awhile
I think we are at that time. I think we are lookin[…]
1. That is why you don't understand a real Americ[…]
You put elite in scare quotes like there's not a[…]
And here's this weekend's round-up of polls . A[…]