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.'"
I find it perfectly believable that a machine may be able to outsmart KDawson.... or at least be a better editor.
What happens if a computer decides that the Jews weren't gassed to death in their millions, purely by looking at the scientific facts? Would the computer be sent to prison for six years for questioning the 'holycause'?
What happens if a computer decides that white people who want to live around their own people, and be free of the constant accusations of 'racism' that we get every day from the 'enrichers' in our countries, should be allowed to do so? Would the computer be sacked from its job, and put in prison for 'thought crimes'?
In other words - the truth is the truth, no matter who says it. Those who try to remove your freedom of speech are clearly in the wrong, and are tyrants.
In a place like America this would be considered "communism".
And thus evil. Letting people starve on the other hand, would be considered noble.
First of all, your assumption that it is stupid people who do simple labour - rather than the socially marginalized - is absurd, offensive and not worthy of deeper critical examination, except by way of devastating the thought.
Actually it was the grandfather post that suggested that, not the parent.
I do agree that this is "mostly" true though. At least in the west, America and Europe, where intelligent people will be able to get jobs that put them at the very least in the middle class. If they're intelligent *and* good at dealing with people they will certainly become part of the upper middle class.
In most authoritarian governments (I've visited 2) the reverse is true. Whether it's a muslim government or an outright dictatorship doesn't make a difference. In such a society, the intelligent get punished. I've yet to visit a socialist state, but I have little doubt it is the same there (excuse me, "communist" state of course, which is a completely different beast, or at least that's what CNN keeps repeating)
That's how slow genocide has been perpetrated against the native populations of United States, Australia and Southern Africa.
Wow, you must truly hate muslims. After all, the only countries in africa where the native populations are extinct are the northern-african muslim states. The same goes for muslim states in other parts of the world, like Turkey, Iraq, or even Iran. (mostly, except perhaps the extreme northwest) Or even further.
It wasn't slow genocide that muslims committed against the natives there either. It was slavery. America may always be blamed for engaging in slavery for a short period, but muslims engage in it for 1400 years straight now (and, of course, they haven't stopped, you see a certain paedophilic prophet engaged in slavery, including kidnapping and enslaving people, including for sex. It is a part of their religion). For every slave that came to america, muslim governments have killed over 50 slaves.
One question no-one publishes about in China is, for example, the "repressed" muslims of Xinjang. How, exactly, did those muslims get there ? Unfortunately the answer is centuries-long massive-scale genocide on the Han Chinese. That doesn't excuse China's actions, though what are they supposed to do ?
I'm all in favor of putting populations back where they are native.
Of course doing so would make Saudi Arabia a Christian state, with a sizeable Jewish minority, administered from what we call today Turkey, by the people we call "Greeks" today. About 40% of all muslims would have to be crammed into a single city state in the middle of nowhere. A place that has neither oil, nor drinkable water (a single tiny well).
Let's do that !
Sorry if I don't believe your heart is bleeding for "native populations". Unless of course you are a racist and consider natives worthy depending on how much you hate the people living there now.
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."
Oh, I didn't understand, when I read your original post, that you were specifically opposed to starving the "stupid people".