Slashdot Mirror


By 2045 'The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans,' and That Could Be a Problem

schwit1 (797399) writes Louis Del Monte estimates that machine intelligence will exceed the world's combined human intelligence by 2045. ... "By the end of this century most of the human race will have become cyborgs. The allure will be immortality. Machines will make breakthroughs in medical technology, most of the human race will have more leisure time, and we'll think we've never had it better. The concern I'm raising is that the machines will view us as an unpredictable and dangerous species." Machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves. They "might view us the same way we view harmful insects." Humans are a species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses." Hardly an appealing roommate."

12 of 564 comments (clear)

  1. Well by Jorl17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That escalated quickly. I highly doubt that in a matter of thirty years we'll have "conscious machines" viewing us as a thread. Are these guys for real? Do they know anything about AI?

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  2. Warp Drive by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the 1960s after the moon landings, people would have expected we would be well past Mars by now. Probably Jupiter, Saturn or other stars.

    The moon landings happened 45 years ago!!

    I see no evidence of any programming that "learns" or is the slightest bit adaptive.

    And immortality wouldn't help --- evolution is powered by the failures dying off.

    And although slightly off the topic, what good would immortality be when advances in genetics will make humans better.

    And immortal 2014 human living in the year 3000 would be like a Homo habilis hanging around us. Would be genetically obsolete.

    This article is --- well --- shortsighted, bordering on the naive.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Warp Drive by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then you have never looked at a ten line C program to implement a PID control loop for a servo motor.

      I don't think that would count as learning. That ten-line program will always do exactly what it was programmed to do, neither more nor less. An adaptive program (in the sense the previous poster was attempting to describe) would be one that is able to figure out on its own how to do things that its programmers had not anticipated in advance.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. AI is always "right around the corner". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I first got into computing in the 1960s. AI was a big thing back then. Well, it had been a big thing in the 1950s, too, but it still need "just a little bit more work" in the 1960s when I started my graduate studies. There was this programming language called LISP. Everybody was really gung ho about it. It was going to make developing AI software so much easier. Great things were on the horizon. Soon enough it was the 1970s. Then the 1980s. Then the 1990s. I retired from industry. Then it was the 2000s. Now it's the 2010s. And AI is still, pardon my French, pretty fucking non-existent. I'll be dead long before AI could ever become a reality. My children will be dead long before AI becomes a reality. My grandchildren will likely be dead before AI becomes a reality. My greatgrandchildren may just live to see the day when the computing field accepts that AI just isn't going to happen!

    1. Re: AI is always "right around the corner". by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The machine has no fucking clue about what it is translating. Not the media, not the content, not even what to and from which languages it is translating (other than a variable somewhere, which is not "knowing". None whatsoever. Until it does, it has nothing to do with AI in the sense of TAFA. (The alarmist fucking article)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:AI is always "right around the corner". by msclrhd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The chess programs had the rules of chess programmed into them, and the move to play was calculated by rating different moves in the search space using an algorithm that was programmed by the developers of the AI system. This means that it is only specialised to chess.

      To be the AI in movies like The Terminator, the program will need to be able to learn the rules and strategies of chess itself, and adapt its algorithm over time. To simplify the problem of recognising the elements on the board (machine vision), you could represent the board as an 8x8 array of Unicode characters.

      Teaching the rules is difficult because you need a way of communicating those rules, which means that the program will need to understand language and the meaning behind the language (or enough meaning to understand rules to a particular game). Also, chess has a lot of rules that can be complex (en passant, castling, etc.) so it would be better to start with a simple game like tic tac toe or connect 4.

      The real threat is not in a generic AI that deems humans as a threat, but a specially tasked program or AI that miscalculates: allowing machines to control drones or military aircraft to perform air strikes, or similar things. There, if a machine gets things wrong it can cause untold destruction. Think SkyNet/The Terminator, but here the machines do not know what they are doing (they don't have independent thought or understanding like humans and animals), they just classify humans (or buildings) as a threat -- that is, this can be via a decision tree like in the chess games and the best "move" is to attack any building.

  4. Re:Now thats incentive by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To stay alive for the next 30 years.

    How about "the same old story for the last 100 years"?

  5. Re:AI is always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.

  6. Re: Now thats incentive by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yea. Their first step is flying cars.

    There are way too many uncertainties of what will be technologically possible by 2045 to be worrying about that right now. I'd wait until we actually had some idea of how to make a machine intelligence, and work the kinks out in a closed environment enough that it might actually be given control of something rather than the role of Ask Jeeves.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  7. What we don't know... by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your cell phone is less capable of learning than a jellyfish. Although your cell phone can sometimes simulate very simple learning under extremely rigid frameworks for learning.

    a human competitive AI in 30 years? seems unlikely given the almost zero progress on the subject in the last 30 years. But maybe we'll hit some point where it all cascades very quickly. Like if we could do a dog level intelligence it is not a far leap to do human level and super human level. But we have trouble with cockroach levels of intelligence, or even defining what intelligence is or how to measure it.

    AI research for the last several decades have taught us how little we know about the fundamental nature of ourselves.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  8. Re:AI is always by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.

    Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.

  9. Re:Now thats incentive by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Louis Del Monte estimates that...

    Who?

    The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades.

    I hope that's a in-joke. Like construction that's forever two weeks from done and jam two days a week (yesterday and tomorrow), three decades has been the estimate for "true" AI since the 1970's. Every year, it's just three more decades away.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.