Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man
Strudelkugel writes "The NY Times has an article about a conference during which the potential dangers of machine intelligence were discussed. 'Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society's workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone. Their concern is that further advances could create profound social disruptions and even have dangerous consequences.' The money quote: 'Something new has taken place in the past five to eight years,' Dr. Horvitz said. 'Technologists are replacing religion, and their ideas are resonating in some ways with the same idea of the Rapture.'"
Bill Joy wrote an essay about this very subject back in April 2000......and he's a much better writer.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
In case you want to indicate that there were something wrong with the used grammar: There isn't. There's one group they are talking about. This group consists of several computer scientists, but the "is" refers to the group, not the scientists.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Strong AI hasn't really progressed since it was introduced (they're still arguing over what intelligence is, much less how to create it!), but weak AI has made some pretty good strides. For instance, I work on software that can read medical images and render a diagnosis in lieu of a second radiologist (this is called computer-assisted diagnosis). 15 years ago, this would not have been possible.
Dunno - I think I'd prefer Paula Abdul as an overlord to a Dalek. Ditzy and scatter-brained, but at least with some compassion.
Daleks aren't robots, they're mutants! Please hand in your geek card and go rewatch Dr. Who.
historically, well-to-do states self-limit the birth rate because of economic selfishness. Look at Japan or Scandinavia... They have just 1-2 children (from 2 adults) so that's negative growth. They live a long time, and the children are highly schooled, and well cared for... unlike in India where you have to have 4-5 kids just to make sure a few live to be productive adults so they can take care of you. Also, the strong social programs (medical care, pensions, etc) reduce the need to have kids as economic "insurance", so they're actually a liability in terms of costs to feed, clothe, school, free time, social calender, etc. Rich people have fewer children because it distracts from making money and doing what they want!
Even in the US, the birth rate from non-immigrant citizens is already negative. Growth comes mostly from all the students and workers we import that still have the old views of children for economic reasons.
See Manna for one sci-fi view of what happens when robots take over all of the jobs. It is supposed to be realistic, but I think it, like a lot of near future sci-fi, overestimates the speed of technological progress.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Daleks aren't robots, they're mutants! Please hand in your geek card and go rewatch Dr. Who.
Every life form is a mutated form of the thing it descended from. Daleks are cyborgs. They consist of a genetically engineered organic part with a robotic shell around it.