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.'"

Comments

Smarter than a slashdot editor?

[Evildonald]

I find it perfectly believable that a machine may be able to outsmart KDawson.... or at least be a better editor.

Re:I thought this was the whole point?

[init100]

In a place like America this would be considered "communism".

And thus evil. Letting people starve on the other hand, would be considered noble.

Re:I thought this was the whole point?

[nine-times]

As for looking for their own food, if you suddenly had that many people looking for a new way of making it (without currency), I'm sure it would still be amazingly brutal.

Not necessarily. People can be brutal, but they also tend to find ways of allaying the brutality. My point was that if you put everyone in a position of having no food (or wealth) but also having no job and no one particularly oppressing us-- well, that's sort of where we started out. We came up with governments and economies in the first place, and if we had to, we could again.

And really? Has the internet reduced us all to the point where we need to make attacks on each other in the first exchange between two individuals?

It's not really meant as an attack. I guess I could have been friendlier, so sorry if you were offended. It's just that if you start out by suggesting that the world is filled with stupid people and we should consider starving all of them, then I don't think you can be too offended if someone says, "You don't know what you're talking about."

Re:I thought this was the whole point?

[nine-times]

Oh, I didn't understand, when I read your original post, that you were specifically opposed to starving the "stupid people".