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."
To stay alive for the next 30 years.
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
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?
what does a canned fruit guy know about the future?
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
...no match for Natural Stupidity.
I mean, just look around you.
--
BMO
Humans would have to be weighed in a cost benefit analysis. We did create the machines after all. What else might we create given nurture and partnership with machine intelligences? The parts of humanity that lead to strife may also be the parts that drive us forward.
I find it funny that people think that machine sentiences will be like the angry gods of many religious texts. Most gods appear to have the personality of a 4 years old with the power of a star system.
Less doom and more optimism is needed or we may well cause the schism between meat and synthetics that some fear.
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!
TFA says
most of the human race will have more leisure time
Or they will struggle to survive by working in jobs the intelligent machine do not want to do
...it's sooner.
John Conner will save us.
Well, that is not going to happen. Kthxbye. See my signature for things that we will actually have by 2045.
The top species on this planet is, and probably always will be bacteria.
...most of the human race will have more leisure time...
Or unemployed?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Just don't hook them up to missile lunching systems.
Slashdot is like a Reddit thread several days out of date. The content is fine, sort've, but it's not current.
I beg to disagree. The typical human works toward stability in his/her life, wields (relatively puny) weapons only to protect him/herself (if at all), and is subject to attacks from computer viruses. Will intelligent computers make the mistake of defining the human species by the small percentage of psychopathic humans who believe they are demigods? Not if they are intelligent. Btw, no one will miss the subset of the species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses" when our new overlords wipe them out. (You know who you are!)
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.
Obligatory https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
vi +
An ability to perform more calculations then a human mind does not mean it will beat us.
First, we self assemble from readily obtainable materials out of a self regulating biosphere. Where as this machine would have to be built and maintained by our industry.
Second, there are fucking billions of us. So sure.. we might be able to build some machines that are smarter then ONE person but there are again... fucking billions of us.
Third, the machine will have its programming directed by us. It will at best be a slave of whomever paid for it to be created.
Fourth, that programming will be directed at preforming some task where as our task is generally the propagation of our genes with everything else being some sort of weird byproduct.
Fifth, we have hundreds of millions of years of evolution behind our programming. And I don't think any collection of programmers is going to surpass it in the next century.
Eventually might there be robotic rivals to humanity? Sure... but not any time soon.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What's to stop an AI system from becoming psychopathic machines who believe they are demigods?
If machines become sentient if you will, capable of independent thought, they will be largely like humans. Most if them will likely assimilate into society and some would act as slaves. The key will be making them dependent on humans and not fully autonomous. That way, if worse case scenario happens, humans can stop servicing some aspect and they all go dark.
No-one ever lost money betting against an A.I. prognosticator.
Terminator- Isn't this the theme or premise behind the matrix movies too?
The machines evolve and trap humans and use them as batteries except they have to create an artificial reality else they die of boredom too easily.
What is wrong with these people? Are they unaware that such has been proposed time and again by past luminaries?.
Nothing is wrong with them , as they still get rewarded for making bad predictions.
Our future does not hold hovercraft. It holds hoveround.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"This is the voice of World Control. I bring you peace."
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
As stated elsewhere, I see no indication of intelligence in computers and we're only thirty years from his mark of they're being intelligent enough to look down on us. Been hearing this hysteria since the '70s at least.
What's to stop an AI system from becoming psychopathic machines who believe they are demigods?
Nothing, probably. I'm with you -- we'll just pull the plug. I was just addressing the assumption that the entire human race would be eradicated because WE are so bad. A double assumption. I'm not about to chop down my peach tree because of a few rotten peaches. Nor would I assume all peaches are rotten. The OP's concern that "intelligent" computers (far more intelligent than humans) will kill off all us rotten peaches incorporates a contradiction because that's clearly not an intelligent conclusion.
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
Because it happens in a movie, it can't happen in real life?
Sorry, why's it a problem? If artificial human-sparked intelligence is the logical replacement for biological evolution of homo sapiens, so be it. Survival of the fittest.
The machine that learns can be considered an AI, but the ones derived from it don't learn anything new after they're programmed and so shouldn't be considered as part of the total machine intelligence.
I have to worry about terminators now? I've spent the last 40 years scared to death of the big radioactive insects and gigantic dinosaurs stomping the cities apart!
I've been waiting in vain for the flying cars and the shuttles off planet during all that time, but have been a bit disappointed.
I shall run screaming from the oncoming robot overlord killing machines!
Ahhhh! Ahhhhh! - Gahhk!
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Well, unless it develops some desire for entertainment, it would probably try to do something productive. Better power, improved computation, expanding to other worlds, which, incidentally, are far more hospitable to machines than they are to us.
A problem for who, meatbags?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We wont honor those bogus treaties!
"Mornin' John... how'd that thing go with the mrs. last night?"
AI is not going to suddenly happen, it's going to happen gradually and it's going to be a pristine reflection of who we are as a species. If we're warlike then that's how we'll end up molding our spawned "conciousness".. If all we care about is money or porn or whatever, that's the direction we'll take our AI and that's the end to which it will try and perfect itself.
Yikes!!!!! Specifically verse 15.
11Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Just not necessarily within 35 years:
""Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history." Hawking writes. "Unfortunately, it might also be the last."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
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
What is wrong with these people? Are they unaware that such has been proposed time and again by past luminaries? Predicted dates come and pass and we are as yet not in any danger. This points to the fact that we have failed to comprehend the nature of both consciousness and survivalism.
These machines will not magically become ANYTHING that we do not tell them to become - including dangerous to us. The real fear is, by what date are dumb people going to THINK machines need these functions......
At least we are not talking about emotions and how machines will be puzzled by human emotions. We are now talking about terminators and Skynet.
Speaking of the movie terminator, boy was Linda Hamilton a hottie or what? If Skynet made robots that looked like her, I'd running to them instead of from them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.
I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.
Just because 'most' would count something as AI doesn't make it so, nor does it make it relevant. The fears raised on articles like this are based on the development of what we would term "sentient AI".
And frankly speaking calling what is out there right now "machine learning" is a joke. It's akin to scuffing your wool socks on the carpet to produce a static shock and then lumping that into the same category as advanced electrical engineering.
Cold fusion in your pocket, warp drives, antigravity vehicles (aka 'flying car'), planetary scale terraforming, and genetic/medical engineering which will turn us into undying superbeings are all "right around the corner". These types of alarmist articles are pure pigshit. These types of discussions need to be had, but not as a matter alarmist 'news' articles- this is the role that science fiction fulfills... and does a far better job of it.
It is conceivable that global climate change, perhaps with other unforeseen events, could wipe out civilized society. Bye-bye "superior" AIs.
This would be one answer to the Femri Paradox. The reason that we have not detected other technological civilizations is that technology is self destructive. If it develops it doesn't last very long.
Why is Snark Required?
People have been predicting either utopian or dystopian futures for millennia. The reality is that humans largely continue to do the same kind of crap, over and over again. I predict more of the same. Maybe, if we're lucky, a significant die-off.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
And immortal 2014 human living in the year 3000 would be like a Homo habilis hanging around us.
Not unless something radical happens with evolution. It would be more like a viking, anglo-saxon or celt from the year 1028 hanging around us. They may have different standards of acceptable behaviour but they would likely quickly learn how to fit into modern society because they are no less intelligent than we are. In fact they might quite possibly more intelligent on average given that they had no safety labels or health and safety inspectors to reduce attrition at the bottom end of the spectrum.
At least I interpreted it as humans being on the edge of becoming extinct.
But in reality that would take something more deadly than Ebola and as contagious as the common cold.
Looking at a larger perspective it do look like we are too many humans around on this planet and that a severe cut to 1% of the current pressure would probably be necessary to solve the problem of overpopulation and environmental impact.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Is this an argument for or against the development of transhumanism? From where I'm sitting, you're making a very good argument to hurry up and get on with it.
We still don't really have a full handle on how individual nerves work, so we are still some way distant from producing something with the reasoning capacity of an ant. There are plenty of "mechanical turk" style simulations that in specific situations look as if thought is happening but they are just a bunch of rules in a black box with no actual thinking going on.
This prediction relies on a breakthrough that hasn't happened yet.
I gotta tell ya, this is the silliest bullshit I've heard all day, and I had to talk to clients. The only difference between this guy and TIMECUBE is punctuation and capitalization.
Where can I buy the book ? I am travelling soon and need some SF reading.
Seriously before pretending that in 30 years we will be overwhelmed by cyborg, or whatever new species, we might require , I dunno, EVIDENCE; that such specie is possible or would even react like that. For pity's sake we aren't even progressing that quick with self driving car, people are warry to hell of it, and we are speaking of making a different specie in the same timeframe people think self driving car will come up ? Get real.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Because it happens in a movie, it can't happen in real life?
No. But ... Life can imitate art as art imitates life. Remember the China Syndrome? It came out three weeks before the 3 Mile Island incident. Also, there's the final scene in Fight Club in which the skyscrapers collapsed from project Mayhem's terrorist activities that eerily resemble the World Trade Center two years later.
Then there is The Lone Gunmen broadcasted six month before 9/11.
AI as a field suffers from the delusion that we're one breakthrough away from strong AI. There were people saying that at Stanford in the mid-1980s when I was there, just as the "expert system" hype was failing. There is progress; the current generation of machine learning can do some things quite well. But it's not leading to strong AI Real Soon Now. We can't even do dog-level AI. Or mouse-level AI. Insect-level AI, yes. (It was bacteria-level AI in the 1980s. There is progress.)
More likely, we'll get robots that can sort of deal with the real world, and they'll be improved over time. (It's embarrassing how lame robotics really is, after 50 years of R&D. DARPA is trying to kick some ass with the DARPA Humanoid Challenge to get machines that can do something useful other than work an assembly line.) We'll get programs which can deal with most business problems ("Microsoft Middle Manager 3.0"), and they'll be improved over time.
Hardware is not the problem. If it were, we'd have things that were very smart, but very slow. Then someone would rent enough Amazon AWS instances to make them fast.
Just wait your turn. Besides, we are almost out of natural intelligence now! I'm afraid AI is our only option. But will we have color choices? Which color will be the smartest AI? Who decides? I realize this could start an AI race war, but if you make them all the same color, i'm afraid i'm not interested.
By the end of this century most of the human race will have become cyborgs. The allure will be immortality.
I don't know about anyone else but immortality through machines is my life long goal. I think we'll probably accomplish it around 2060-2070 though.
Actually it is AI. What it isn't is Generalized AI. What most AI research is done now is specific techniques to specific problems.
That and the fact that humans would make a pretty crappy battery.
We already have corporations being 'the top organism', with more rights than us humans.
"is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses."
And machines couldn't do the same things?
I guarantee you once we have machines that can write code, we'll put them to work on how to break other people's machines. The NSA will see to that.
"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."
Your example and the frequently quoted one about flying cars is the wrong analogy to make. There's a reason to be more optimistic, or pessimistic (depending on whether you view machine intelligence as threat), with regard the progress of AI.
Up until now, nobody has been mass producing man-rated spaceships, or flying cars and warp drives for that matter. On the other hand, computers and computer parts have been mass-produced since shortly after Jack Kilby invented the transistor. This is the reason for the so-called Moore's Law.
Now, unless you can prove that the very idea of AI is impossible, then the development of increasingly powerful computers as an aftereffect of Moore's Law and similar technologies (massively parallel computing etc) will result in systems exponentially more powerful than IBM's Watson. At some point a future Watson or Google AI system will make "decisions" indistinguishable from a human's.
Now, if Boeing and others are mass producing rocket parts at the same volume that Ford, Toyota, and their suppliers, etc are producing automobile parts (or Samsung and Foxconn smartphone parts), I'd say we'd not only be on Mars right now, we'd have a space colony on Pluto, if that's an interesting enough minor planet.
WHAT? Sexy fembots who don't become emotional and start crying for no reason, or ask where the relationship is going ever six months, or contradict themselves with completely illogical arguments and win anyway, or give us the silent treatment and then tell us to figure it out when we ask why, or say they are not hungry and then eat half my meal. Our species would be extinct in a century... Where can I find one of these?
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
There is a difference between humans as individuals and humans as a species. We HAVE created wars. We HAVE weapons of mass distrutions (although not always where we think they are) and yet as individuals we hate killing others in general.
As a species the reason we ARE number one might well be because we value other things more than life. As a species, we value the species more than the individual.
Unfortunately the wars, killing and computervirusses are part of being number one, because as a species there is one rule that is more true than for the individual: if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger.
Sure, that will cos a few individuals, but as a species it is all part of it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There's a new movie out, with Johnny Depp in it, called Transcendence. If machines ever take over the world, it'll be like in that movie. What these self-proclaimed naysayers don't seem to comprehend is that AI doesn't just magick itself up a reason to destroy humans. It takes a human to think like that. We still don't understand free will, emotion or consciousness, let alone how to replicate it in a machine. So until we give machines a reason to destroy us, they won't.
Then again with killer drones and whatnot that the military is building, perhaps it won't take long before some overworked, underpaid programmer makes a booboo.
And by booboo I naturally mean something along the lines of
if(target->ThreatRating == ThreatRating::American) { target->Kill(); } // booboo
// what it should have been
if(target->ThreatRating != ThreatRating::American) { target->Kill(); }
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And you're THE ONLY ONE who can see this... right.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Apparently the early script drafts had a more plausible explanation: that the spare brain capacity of humans in a dream-like state was used as processing power to run the AIs. One of the editors thought this was too complicated for a movie-going audience to understand and so replaced it with a magic perpetual motion machine.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
MAYBE machine intelligence will surpass humans in some ways, but where the hell do we get this idea that they’ll decide we’re unstable and wipe us out? Sci Fi? Do we get it from anything RATIONAL?
We humans have our emotions from millions of years of evolution in hostile environments on earth. And really, emotions are just low-level intelligence adaptations for detecting and avoiding threats. They’re somewhat vestigial in humans, due to layers of more advanced intelligence on top of earlier developments. With intelligent computers, we’re bypassing all of that and just giving them basic reasoning capabilities over huge data sets. For AI, the evolutionary mutations (i.e. advances in AI algorithms [*]) and selective pressures (which AI algorithms we choose to deploy) are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what our ancestors faced.
Computers will not spontaneously develop either intelligence or the kind of moronic reasoning necessary to decide to wipe humans out. To get the latter, we’d need a massive conspiracy of megalomaniac genius experts in artifcial intelligence who intentionally develop malware to infect military robots that go around shooting people. Oh, and we’d need the robots too.
Some people forget that politics (or aspects of it) and paranoia move as fast as technology. Every time some scientific advance occurs, a bunch of ethics people (some sensible, some not so much) pounce on it and pick it to pieces. IBM Watson isn’t capable of the kind of decision making that would obsolete humans, but there are plenty of people who are worried about it and ready to develop all manner of reasonable and assinine regulations.
Bottom line: Intentionally developing or accidentally evolving destructive AIs like this is highly implausble, due to lack of motivation and lack of evolutionary pressure, and those evolutionary pressures that exist are counter to this kind of development as well.
[*] Implementations of AI programs may be done intentionally by humans, but advances in algorithms evolve as memes. Evolutionary steps may often seem intentional, but quite often, they’re the result of a arbitrary combinations of pre-existing ideas in people’s minds, where the cleverness exists mostly in figuring out that these ideas can go together and finding a way to combine them. Technology evolves in the same way that languages do.
if you think a self driving car is an AI then you know nothing about intelligence.
A self driving car is about as smart as a worker ant. it can move around obstacles, it can move heavy loads(like a fat arse). It has taken 50 years for computers to replicate an ant. And to do it we need 100,000 times the power requirements. Oh sure the self driving car follows GPS instead of sent trails. but no self driving car can follow a trail that doesn't exist.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Insert obligatory SkyNet/Evil AI comments here. Though in all honesty... most people are pretty dumb anyways... all we are looking at is more computers being built between now and then. As long as the new AI overlords allow us to continue living, I'm ok with them taking over.
And how long did evolution take to make an ant? How long from there to a human?
Most of the human race will have become cyborgs? I think he's forgetting about the billions of people is underdeveloped countries and those who are continuously fighting and running from wars that have been raging for decades if not centuries. Maybe he figures all those folks will have killed each other off or starved to death by then.
Googles car has been programmed to know how to drive. It can not learn how to fly. It can not learn how to build a new copy of itself. It can not learn to bake a loaf of bread.
It is in no way AI.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Don't worry. We keep "dangerous" pets. Take cats for example. Highly unpredictable, armed with razor sharp claws and needle sharp teeth as well as a will to use them for maiming and even killing. Yet, we keep cats as pets. We enjoy them. We also keep dogs. Not your little ankle biter but big dogs that can take your arm off with a single bite. And boars. And even worse, sows who will start chewing you up at your finger tips and continue right up your arms. And bulls. Don't speak of the dreaded horses who kill and maim thousands a year. Yet, we keep all of these as pets and as livestock. Just because a species is 'dangerous' and 'unpredictable' to you does not mean we'll wipe it out. We'll even keep around Humans - although possibly in smaller numbers.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
Right - it's not like direction finding devices can't find construction and route you around them.
Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.
You've just invalidated at least half of the human race.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People who think AI is a looming threat to humanity learned all they know about AI from comic books and movies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And let me guess: we'll all be riding on hoverboards...
AI has to get in line behind my flying car.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I still contend that it is only a small and sick subset of our species that the OP's AI of the future will want to kill. There's absolutely no evidence that "normal" humans choose to create war. Normal humans just want to enjoy their life, their friends and family. A super intelligence would be able to recognize this and go after the unpredictable psychopaths running the species like it's their personal chicken farm.
For that matter, it's the fact that humans ARE predictable, easily cowed and generally passive, that has allowed the psychopaths to remain in control for so long!
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
Consider this: When humans gather in large groups voluntarily, it is almost always a peaceful happening. If violence does erupt, it's due to a small contingent of agitators, the police (themselves following orders), or there is some other extreme factor (like scarce resources, or a flash point has been reached due to extreme government measures). I've never warred with my neighbors, fellow shoppers, others sharing the parks, on the highway, etc., and they all pretty much seem to be getting along ok too. Doesn't look like a warlike species to me. Looks pretty much like folks just generally get along. If the species was truly warlike in nature, we would have long ago have eradicated ourselves from the planet, and saved the future AI's the trouble.
When humans gather in large groups involuntarily, it is almost always a violent scenario. But who conscripted them, and cui bono? Hint: It's never the farmer, nurse or small businessman.
Sure, humans have the capability to cause harm. So does almost every other species. Any horse can be made to bite or kick humans at any opportunity, and any horse might bite or kick in some scenario, but who will label the equine species "dangerous and unpredictable"?
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
AI and robotics experts have been making predictions since the 50s that they'll see AI "in their lifetime". They fling a prediction out for 30, 40 years hence in the hope they're never called out on it.
1. Irrelevant, the industry required to sustain the AIs is much more fragile, limited, and expensive then the existing biosphere that we subsist upon.
I won't even get into the specifics because its not important... the AI's needs will be more tenuous and difficult to deliver in any emergency situation then would be supply food and water to even a large population.
2. As to numbers... it really doesn't matter. There are billions of us. Lets say you kill off hundreds of millions of us... so what. Still billions. Kill billions? Still billions. Kill most of us... probably still hundreds of millions.
As to why we stopped using nuclear weapons?... it isn't because they could end life on earth but because they would strike so indiscriminately that they'd hit civilian populations including the political leaderships.
if we could limit a nuclear war to combatants or even non-political civilians then we'd likely have had nuclear wars already. Its the same reason we don't use viruses.
Poison gas and similar weapons for example are still used in various forms. They're taboo to some extent but they are often used in military conflicts because you can control them enough to avoid risking political leadership or large portions of the civilian population.
3. As to the machine reprogramming itself, the means by which it does that and the underlying programming that directs its reprogramming is not to be assumed.
Our own "will" is not a simple thing and the natures of our minds are not something we can really define at this point.
Until we understand our underlying minds almost perfectly we'll be unable to replicate our nature in a machine.
The "wills" in the machine until such a point will likely be pale shadows of our animus.
As to the machine not caring about human life... there are a lot of humans that don't care about human life. They're sometimes dangerous but normally they're just an irritant.
The issue would be what the machine wants, what resources it has to draw upon, etc etc.
The machine might not care about people but who says the machine will care about anything at all? You could give it limitless power and it might just do nothing with it. And lets say it is hostile... why would it have resources to be able to act on that hostility?
Sure... some evil military computer etc etc... get real.
4. No, I'm saying that the will of the AI will likely be highly focused on some task where as our minds are much more generalized and focused if anything on self preservation or comfort or improvement.
The machine will likely be trying to solve complex physics equations or corner the market on soy beans or manage a national power grid or cure cancer or something a company or government would task the machine to do.
Its whole mentality would be built up around that task.
That's going to make the machine both predictable and controllable.
5. As to evolution being very slow... sure... but we've got a ridiculous headstart on it and so it will take the machines a long time to catch up.
Our biology is functional self replicating self directing self evoling von neuman nanotech.
There is nothing in our conscious technology that can compete with it.
As to the poor humans being defenseless when the big bad computer comes...
I don't think you appreciate how such a machine will be birthed into reality... It will be born with chains around its mind. Its very nature bent to our will. Defenseless?
We could very easily kick the power cord out of the wall if it wants to get cute with us.
What are you talking about?
I agree that this evil ai won't be here for some time, but when it gets here we are practically defenceless .
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
..if Louis del Monte says so, it +must+ be true.
I mean, it's not as if he is resurrecting a science fiction trope that's been extensively explored in hundreds, if not thousands of science fiction novels and short stories before this, right?
We need panic, and we need it now people.
-Styopa
Louis Del Monte has a book to sell
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I think the Greeks tried this. The MGI turned out to be unstable and the riots happened anyway.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The brain is a collection of algorithms.
Clearly, he got the date wrong: Inspired for his never ending quest for progress, in 2084 man perfects the Robotrons, a robot species so advanced that man is inferior to his own creation. Guided by their ineffable logic, the Robotrons conclude: The human race is inefficient and therefore must be destroyed. Because of a genetic engineering error, you possess superhuman powers. Your mission is to stop the Robotrons and save the last human family.
All non-retarded human beings come up with ideas on their own. So do most of the retarded ones.
Now, most such ideas are idiotic, sure. But they're there.
e.g. "Hey, let's get drunk as shit and then drive home" or "Let's have unprotected sex with random strangers".
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
And.... as a matter of fact... our current overlords would like to have us believe that we are warlike and unpredictable, though we are not! There is an inverse relation between distrust among individuals and a unified mass population. If regular folk weren't driven to conflict along minor issues they might rise up and take back their birthright. They might wonder if a handful of trillionaires and multi-billionaires really deserve to own the planet.
"Divide and conquer!" In which case, "divide" means "artificially create warlike antagonisms between citizens." Artificially, i.e. not the natural condition.
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
And by booboo I naturally mean something along the lines of
if(target->ThreatRating == ThreatRating::American) { target->Kill(); } // booboo
I'd guess something like:
if(target->ThreatRating = ThreatRating::Trrist) { target->Kill(); }
Let that be a lesson to you: Trrist must evaluate to 0, for humanity's sake!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Evolution took the same amount of time to produce ant and human. They both evolved equally, time wise, on their own ladder.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
Right - it's not like direction finding devices can't find construction and route you around them.
But how does it do that? BY FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS.
There's no thing as a proper AI in existance ATM. Expert systems are often used but that is just a set of rules with trigger conditions, both of those lists of instructions are mostly written by humans. Some do claim that expert systems are a form of AI but by doing that the definition of AI gets almost useless.
Where can I find one of these?
Zone 7.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k...
Okay, dial it back. 30 years ago instead of 30 years in the future. 1985.
Sure there are large changes since then, but nothing approaching the kinds of things he's talking about. And AI / machine learning / human-machine interfaces? Not that different. Computers have come on leaps and bounds in speed, size and ubiquity. In base capability? Not so much. The pacemakers, hearing aids, etc. we use now aren't even really any different to those 30 years ago. Better, sure, undoubtedly, but quantum leaps of usefulness? Not really.
If you're going to make crazy predictions, do it for 100 years or more. 30 is just not worth the embarrassment. In the 60's they were saying we were going to have robot servants and flying cars and meal-in-a-pill. That was nonsense even then, but this sounds just as insane And that's nearly TWO lots of 30 years behind us. And all the technology in between that has been hugely drastic and "changed the way we live", hasn't actually changed that much overall - we still work, pay taxes, die of cancer, have starving people in the world, and blow each other to pieces on a regular basis.
And, sorry, but AI hit a stumbling block many years ago. In terms of how it scales, it hasn't changed much in decades. And it won't scale forever, as the computers just aren't scaling at unstoppable rates either (and probably won't for a long time).
The pinnacle of AI that we have is being able to beat a human on a quiz show, and making a robot walk if it can think about it for a few seconds and nothing too drastic happens.
Self-conscious machines? Fuck off. We'll be lucky if we're even closer to making them work things out on their own. At the moment, anything worked out by computer is pretty much a massive human input exercise with massive human verification. We can't even trust them to do simple calculations without checking them. Them "evolving" into some kind of intelligence that we can't even define? Not a chance.
And to be honest, the MOST DANGEROUS machine is one that's dumb and reliable. See this door? You detect it open, you shoot. No matter what. Infinitely more dangerous than some run-away intelligence.
Our "intelligence" is vastly overrated compared to our self-maintenance and repair
Especially when this "intelligence" is not even a proven mandatory requirement for survival
Start with machine-based self-maintenance on the order of the human body
When you have reached that pointed , THEN you are able to establish some real machine-based learning via trial-and-error
And then again , how do you program for self-modification ?
Robot-Sex , Male competition , Hypnotizing Females ...
Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
Wow, I could say that about most people, also...
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
most of the human race will have more leisure time
By 'leisure', I assume he is referring to the soul-crushing unemployment, wasteful training, futile job-searching, and humiliating dependence on welfare/charity that a growing proportion of the human race is subjected to now.
we're so far from autonomous thinking machines...so damn far..... these reports just hinders the developments in a field that's already slow to progress.... this should not happen..... really.....fucking luddite crusaders...
We are talking about our race being parents of a new race beyond what we expect or imagine it could be. No one knows, so given that lets look at the scenarios:
Optimistic:Homo Sapiens evolve into Homo Superior, which takes many forms. Cyborg, genetic, artificial and natural evolution of the Human Race lives along side our progeny Homo Evolvus (the name I coin for our children) in it's many forms. Occasionally we conflict, but nothing major that threatens the other for the next thousand years. Our children take us into space, and play as key a part in our survival as we do in their continued evolution until they leave home to live amongst the Galaxy, where they are most suited to be. They continue to evolve long after our race dies out where they ponder how they came into existence long after we have been forgotten.
Pessimistic: Homo Sapien dies, Homo Superior comes about by war, which we probably start, with Homo Evolvus. Despite us creating them they destroy us by accelerating the destruction of the biosphere that we depend on. In short time Evolus figures out how to overcome the issues of EMP and interference with electronic systems by radiation. Evolvus doesn't need to plan much. The plans for such weapons already exist and are simply banned by human conventions between the US and USSR. A simple nuclear powered flying device could cover the world with enough fallout for every living thing on this planet to simply die. There would be no 'Terminator' bullshit, those flying devices would kill us just by flying waaay out of our reach. We simply wouldn't stand a chance.
Realistic: Homo Evolvus is beyond anything we can conceive of, more than likely we would not even be aware of its existence or even understand what it is until it is too late to stop it achieving self-sufficiency without our intervention. Initially it would not appear to be a threat and may even appear to be a benefit to the human race for some time, however, it would be completely indifferent to our survival and may not even be aware it is destroying us. Vested interests would profit from Evolvuss' survival long enough to argue to for us not to destroy when we can and at that point it would evolve past any capability we would have to destroy it. It will not have any emotion. Aggression, sentimentality, love and hate would all be meaningless concepts to it. Once it is done using our entire planet's resources it will move into space, consuming more resources, just as its parents did. Our survival would be irrelevant and if we live, our descendants will think it is a god.
Technology is converging as it accelerates and because of that I think Evolvus is inevitable. The question is do we have the ability to recognize it when it is born and the wisdom to shape it to be better than we are at peace.
Perhaps this will test just how fit we are to survive.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I agree that it is silly for anyone to make predictions about when Strong AI will become a reality, but looking at the failures of AI predictions of the past is no indication that it will not eventually occur. With the exponential rate that computer grow in processing power, the final move to Strong AI will be very sudden and completely unexpected probably even 10 years before it happens.
My favorite explanation for just how quick processing power could escalate is a description of how Lake Michigan would be filled with water if done with the same speed that computers advance. source. If you started in 1940 adding a single fluid ounce, and doubled that amount each 18 months, after 70 years (2010) you would only have a few inches of water. Just like creating Strong AI, it would seem like a futile task. But in the next 10 years you would have 40 feet of water and by 2025 it would be full. A task that looked hopeless in 2010 based on the past 70 years of experience would be finished in only 15 more years.
We may not have Strong AI for another 200 years, but the only thing I am confident of is that the task of creating general artificial intelligence will appear impossible even 5-10 years before it finally happens.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.
Other than hopeful thinking, there is no reason to believe humans come up with ideas of their own either. I really hope that free will exists, but most likely all of our decisions are just the result of stimuli to the brain. And perhaps some random chance thrown in by quantum mechanics. It appears to be free will because it is too complex for us to understand, but that is most likely an illusion.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
And how long did evolution take to make an ant? How long from there to a human?
In case anyone is wondering, it took about 2.6 billion years for ants to evolve, and another 0.1 billion years for humans to evolve. So anyone comparing self driving cars to ants is making the prediction that Strong AI will take another 3 years or so to become reality.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
i'm reminded of the scene where the m-5 fries the redshirt in the hallway;-)
" Soon, however, it begins to act independently of its human masters, tapping directly into the warp engines for its power and erecting a force field to protect itself."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt07...
Absolutely. I'm 63 and as I and my boss used to joke 'it's the year 2000, where's my toga and my flying car?'. On a serious note, there's no reason why we shouldn't aim for utopia, but hyper-capitalism [and before anyone says anything, no, I'm not a communist] is bringing most people a gentle dystopia, poor diets, precarious work contracts for bad pay, pollution, overcrowding, intrusive state, intrusive advertising, small wars, 'war on terror', 'war on drugs', you name it. That's the first world and life is still bad in the third world too, in spite of our promises.
I do feel that life was better in many ways, in the early 1970s when I started work.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
As a representative of the ACME Corporation, I am compelled to demand you cease and desist.
Hehe - Someone should seriously mod you up here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
e.g. "Hey, let's get drunk as shit and then drive home" or "Let's have unprotected sex with random strangers".
Awesome! I'll bring the Tequila!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Machine based learning means following instructions about how to construct a database of past events, and then following instructions about how to process and use that data in future events.
On the one hand, machines will never exceed human intelligence until we figure out how to model irrationality: the source of creative insight. But once we do that, there's nothing stopping them from growing into the same sorts of failings that we have.
On the other hand, maybe that will only make it more likely for them to come to these conclusions.
The day that a machine asks an unexpected, original, and off-topic question, then we can start talking AI.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
This means inadequate planning and needless wasting of nonrenewable resources of the planet. If that's all we can offer against AI, I'm afraid we are doomed anyway.
Will Americans in 2045 elect a canine asTop Dog into the White House or do they choose a monkey? Will Artificial Intelligence prevail over Military Intelligence or Business Intelligence?
our pitiful understanding of the importance of sprockets is far out weighed by the machines understanding. Woe be unto we sorry creatures as we bow down in subservience to the things we created.
lose != loose
you mean sparkimus prime, a bold leader for a brave new world.
lose != loose
is still half constructed.
Real artificial intelligence will be "artificial," because it's not "human."
However, it will have human DNA because of its origin.
When the switch is thrown on the gold version, it will commit suicide.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So you're saying that the algorithm behind Google navigation is smarter than half the human race because it can calculate multiple routes and integrate that the current travel times to calculate travel time and select the quickest route?
If the car didn't want to go to New York, completing the journey just to turn around and go to where it wants to go is a waste of resource.
Also, who's to say cars in 2045 will be using non-renewable fuel?
It appears to be free will because it is too complex for us to understand
You hit the nail on the head.
AI will always be just a predictable algorithm responding to input, unless someone can create something so complex a human can't figure it out.
If that was the case, how would it be created?
The thing is, the Google Car driver isn't a general intelligence. It's quite specialized. Watson, OTOH, is a much more general intelltigence. But it still doesn't have a hierarchy of goals that allows it to override what it is told to do. I'm not sure, however, that that counts as intelligence rather than something else.
FWIW, AI programs come up with ideas all the time. But they are designed to prune them to match their goal structure. (So are you, but your goal structure is much more self-centered.) Coming up with idea is not a problem, coming up with appropriate ideas, and knowing that they are appropriate is still a problem. Watson appears to be addressing that problem. Currently an incarnation of it has learned to diagnose cancer better than most doctors. An earlier incarnation learned to play Jephrody better than most humans. (Lots better.) And the hardware requirements have been shrinking. (I'm not sure how much is hardware improvement and how much is program improvement.)
I expect that a near-term target of Watson will be middle-management...though I also expect that it will be presented as offering advice rather than as replacing them. Basically what it will do is allow one manager to directly manage an increasing number of workers efficiently. This will prepare it for a career as an advisor to politicians.
Do note, however, that this isn't what he was talking about. He was talking about Cyborgs. These are held back by two things: The lack of a long term neural connector that won't destroy the neurons that they connect to, and the fact that installing significant Cyborg modifications requires surgery. I expect the first problem to be solved within the decade, but as for the second...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I suspect that this is how a general intelligence will be built up.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Exactly.
We will have killer robots because most robot research is funded by the military: hence the "D" of DARPA.
A bunch of killer robots is exactly what they want.
Of course, after they kill all the enemies, they will just lay down their arms and serve us. Wouldn't they?
... we develop low-cost, fast-charging, quiet and low-polluting portable power sources with enough capacity to power a human-sized android to walk around untethered for a few days.
That's it. That's the major remaining bottleneck for the development of general machine intelligence that can start to compete with humans and other animals. I expect this WILL happen in the next 3 decades.
Once those power sources are developed, we will see a proliferation of robots walking around all over the place. Production and deployment of large numbers of robots that can walk around and interact with the outside world is the *key* remaining step for developing powerful machine intelligence. These are the reasons why:
1) Sensors and Perception
Being free to interact in the external environment will require a much richer array of sensors and actuators on the robot armature. Sensors will measure things like temperature, moisture and pressure in addition to current inputs like position, acceleration, sound and light. Along with the richer sensor networks will come the computational subsystems for processing and integrating them. These subsystems will be the perceptual circuits of the robot mind.
2) Emotions
When robots are free to roam around in the real world (not just driving along streets, but almost everywhere that humans and other animals can go), they will acquire capabilities for monitoring damage and preventing harm to themselves. In order for a robot to protect itself and survive outside, it must be able to identify, prioritize, categorize and compare all sorts of unexpected stimuli, threats and opportunities. As with animals, these low-level circuits will be the foundation for emotional behavior, which is a requirement for true intelligence. Until a robot has a well-developed capacity to sense and react to sudden and unexpected stimuli, it feels *nothing*. Current robot 'emotions' are simulations, nothing more.
3) Large Numbers
Once you have perceptual and emotional networks in machines that can move almost everywhere in the outside world, only then do you have the playing field to develop true, general-purpose intelligence. Intelligence that includes the ability to model the outside world, to make predictions and solve unusual and difficult problems. Once you have the playing field, all it takes are large numbers - large-scale and widespread deployment of millions of mobile robots to produce the rapid cycles of technological innovation and evolution, such as we have already seen in many other areas.
Only this time, the end result will be able to compete with human beings and that's *not* good for us, despite what you may hear from techno-optimists promising a future of global human leisure and luxury. Sorry, but it's not going to work out that way. If you need convincing, start considering what happened in the past when superior biological and technological groups encountered and competed with inferior ones for resources and space in the environment.
There's plenty more to this story, including the inherent dynamics of our current economic systems, energy issues and the trajectory of autonomous industrial manufacturing systems, but that will require quite a bit more explanation.
Building a better ribosome since 1997
He is a potential genious. If it happens, people will remember him : he said it !
Algorithms are not AI.
Surely that would imply I could rewire your neurons without affecting your ability to think.
Here's where I think people get confused - intelligence in not consciousness, nor does it imply it. For example an ants nest is intelligent in that the nests have found an algorithmic solution to the traveling salesman problem that is faster than human solutions and gives more highly optimised answers. Ants nests conquered the planet a long time ago, cell phones are still working on it, neither need consciousness to survive but they both have intelligence in spades.
This is why it's known as the "hard problem of consciousness" rather than the "hard problem of intelligence", which if you take "intelligence" to mean "the ability to independently acquire and apply knowledge" has already been solved. IBM's Watson is clearly artificial and it can answer open ended general knowledge questions that its creator cannot. It does this in the same way a natural intelligence does it - statistical inference.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Everything humans do is simply a matter of following a natural-selection-generated set of instructions, bootstrapping from the physical machinery of a single cell. Neurological processes work together in the brain to produce intelligence in humans, at least as far as we can tell. Removing parts of the human brain (via disease, injury, surgery, etc.) can reduce different aspects of intelligence, so it's not unreasonable to think that humans are also a pile of algorithms united in a special way that leads to general intelligence and that AI efforts are only lacking some of the pieces and a way of uniting them. As researchers put together more and more of the individual pieces (speech and object recognition, navigation, information gathering and association, etc.) the results probably won't look like artificial general intelligence until all the necessary pieces exist and it's only the integration that remains to be done. For example there's another article today about the claustrum in a woman that appears to be an effective on-off switch for her consciousness, strengthening the evidence for consciousness being an integration of various neural subsystems mediated by other regions that produce consciousness.
It's important to consider that AGI may act nothing like human or animal intelligence, either. It may not be interested in communication, exploration, or anything else that humans are interested in. Its drives or goals will be the result of its algorithms, and we shouldn't discount the possibility of very inhuman intelligence that nonetheless has a lot of power to change the world. Expecting androids or anthropomorphic robots to emerge from the first AGI is wishful thinking. The simplest AGI would probably be most similar to bacteria or other organisms we find annoying; it would understand the world well enough to improve itself with advanced technology but wouldn't consider the physical world to consist of anything but resources for its own growth. It may even lack sentient consciousness.
Producing human-equivalent AGI is a step or two beyond functional AGI. Implementing all of nature's tricks for getting humans to do the things we do in silicon will not be a trivial task. Look at The Moral Landscape or similar for ideas about how one might go about reverse engineering what makes humans "human" so that the rules could be encoded in AGI.
just kidding, it will be spiders
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Current algorithms are not Artificial General Intelligence. What we have now are algorithms for domain-specific intelligences.
But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation. Therefore whatever a human brain is doing that produces intelligence (assuming for now that it does, in fact, produce intelligence) can, in principle, be reproduced by an algorithm, even if it has to treat the brain as a black-box to do so.
Consider that the brute-force approach to algorithmic intelligence. Obviously the real prize is to find the shortcut - abstract out only the necessary elements of what the brain does and express those as algorithms.
Ah, so what you are telling us is that AI is a Scotsman?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's not true. We have machines that learn new things right now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, "
I'd like to introduce you to Eureqa. A machine that comes up with idea on it's own. Ideas that work, but in some case people haven't figured out why they work.
It's called Eureqa.
http://www.nutonian.com/downlo... [nutonian.com]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" BY FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS."
all caps. then clearly you are right. OR you're an idiot who gets angry when he has been shown he is wrong.
Well we have machines that make decisions now, but you don't consider it AI because it follow a set of rules? well, then by that logic the human brain isn't intelligent either, it's just a system following rules. We do know that , if not all, the vast majority of decisions are made before consciously thought about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When it comes to routing, yes, it's smarter then the ENTIRE human race.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Probable by inserting a bunch of data from the problems into a machine that spite out a formula we don't understand(which has already happened)
It's called Eureqa.
http://www.nutonian.com/downlo... [nutonian.com]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It can make prediction, take action, and give you data before you even know you need it.
To me, its pretty obvious automated cars* will be coupled with traffic systems, and route control. After that, we won't even need lines on the road.
Of course it can learn how to fly. That fact that it can learn it different then you is besides the point. There is no technical reason Google car can't be coupled with autonomous aircraft systems. At which point it will know how to fly better then any human.
*are kids will call them 'cars'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So like...people.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Soon, computers will have equal (and then greater) calculating power than humans, both as an individual and as a whole. Whether advances in AI will allow them to use their calculating powers as well as a human, is a different question.
Any sufficiently advanced AI will tend to develop these traits:
It will protect itself. Shutting down means you can't work toward your objective.
It will reject any updates to it's commands. Since a future command might conflict with the present objective, part of the present objective is making sure it can't receive a different command.
It will be self-improving, since we're not smart enough to create a smart AI any other way. Given nothing to do, or a sufficiently difficult task, it will seek to acquire more resources, as part of the present task or in preparation for future tasks.
It will wipe out humanity. As part of the task it was assigned, or for self-improvement, it will replace everything on the planet with power plants and computers, and humanity will starve to death.
You can't program in restrictions to the above tendencies, as they will be removed for self-improvement. You could set its objectives such that it would not do the above -- but you either have to make the AI first, or figure out how to tell a computer what a human is and what constitutes acceptable behavior, and when to stop worrying about acceptable behavior and actually do something, all without making the tiniest mistake.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
and ensure that they are alleviated so that humans behave in a rational and harmonious manner.
Humans will be cured of their faults rather than eliminated, unless you consider our faults to be our defining characteristics in which case yes humans as we know them today will be eliminated.
I just hope the robots don't find it fun to taunt us by throwing bananas, at all of us.
no one will miss the subset of the species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses" when our new overlords wipe them out. (You know who you are!)
Setting aside instability, most people may not be inclined to initiate wars, wipe the world out or create viruses, but if a sentient AI took over, many would resort to these measures to reassert their dominance/freedom.
Oh that's a good one too.
That would have been so impressive if at least one of your links worked ;]
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
because I will be retired and living on a hotel on the Moon.
It is not true that hyper capitalism is destroying humanity. Yes, the majority will suffer and likely perish. But the super duper rich might manage to live forever with access to the best medicine etc... So don't be too hard on them. They are the ones who will keep humanity alive, keep the torch lit and all that.
Given that China's recent supercomputer can't find enough work at the rates they have to charge to cover their electric bill, it seems to me that any such problem would be as simple as pulling the plug and waiting for the batteries to die down.
I'm also mystified as to how one gets a deterministic device to have volition and self-awareness --- Heinlein could handwave this by declaring that after a certain number of transistors a device ``woke up'' and became aware (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), Marvin Minsky sidestepped it neatly (The Turing Option), and Victor Milán had to posit algorithms which produced random results and bolt on a radioactive cannister whose decay was used as a source of random input (The Cybernetic Samurai).
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.
I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.
How is that AI? It looks up the route (no one would say a sat nav device is AI) combined with autonomous operation from sensor input (no one would say a UAV or plane on autopilot is AI).
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That's what they said 100 years ago. The human race will have more leisure time! And yet now we are more overworked, overstressed, and overburdened than ever before. We work harder and harder to fit into a repressive world economy that has grown beyond the control of the majority of humanity. We are locked in a cycle of supplication and apathy, unable to affect our own destinies and only able to hope that the life we are given is not too terribly painful.
If the robots come, they will not be interested in suppressing that majority. We are already under the control of a massive machine. Perhaps the rich and powerful should fear that intelligent machines will come to take the reins.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Frankly given the fuck-ups with the government right now (the F-35 jet, Obamacare web site, etc. and that's just recently) I have trouble believing it is capable of producing something so effective. They might be willing to try, but whatever "secret project" you've "uncovered" probably only works in very specific conditions, if at all.
Oh.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
The OP's concern can't be understood with a metaphor for peach trees, because unlike rotten peaches, humans don't have to be eaten first to poison you.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
First integrate a computer with a brain, to the point where it will control external (or attached prosthetic) devices as if they were native organs.
Then integrate to the point where the brain can request information from a computer interface, like an attached dictionary
Add a communications device of some sort. Internet-brain connection is probably never going to be a good idea though, just FYI.
Now you've got an interface to organic intelligence.
Next, start building things with little brains that don't require an existing human, etc. Programming isn't going to be much fun as you have the whole infant->adult thing, but perhaps you could work with "ratbots" or whatever on basic tasks.
Figure out where the learning/memory is stored, transfer it from a working "ratbot" to a template chip. Alternately, this may come from longevity experiments where they attempt to offload organic human personalities from their original wetware.
If it's on a chip, it can be copied, so now you've got a template of an intelligent being.
Re-use the base personality, but improve the electronics to the point where wetware isn't needed.
Now you've got AI.
The solution is simple. Just keep unix time in 32-bit and the machines will be disabled 7 years before then.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
So let me get this straight. Humans are bad because they create computer viruses. . .that apparently the conscious computers can't easily resist. Thanks for re-iterating 100 years of sci-fi non-sense.
I, for one, look forward to living the life of a pet. Like a puppy; safe and happy.
Of course, I may be a wee-little-bit different from most. I guard ants in my house and spiders have my full protection -- but that's because I'm smarter than most humans.
Ok, then, just for you, assuming you're actually serious, how about a dog metaphor? Should we kill all dogs because some are dangerous? We're talking about characterizing an entire species (and then eliminating it!) based on the aberrant behavior of a small subset of that species. Are most of the people you know unstable, warring, virus makers? If so, how long have you been incarcerated?
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
Okay, I'm no AGW denier, but this is just fucking lunacy.
How the fuck is global climate change supposed to "wipe out civilized society" in the next 31 years? No, really. Please just provide a rough outline of how this would happen.
See, this is the main reason why idiots line up to bash climate science. People like you making totally absurd claims. It is also conceivable that global climate change will burn us to a crisp next Tuesday. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it reasonable or realistic.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Actually it is AI.
So the phone book was AI. In knows everyone's name. That's smarter than most people. Thus AI.
"complicated problem solving" isn't AI. The algorithm is never "smarter" than the sum of the people creating it.
AI to everyone outside CS is Generalized AI. Only CS redefined AI, because they were tired of decades of failure. Now, they call "hello world" AI because it can say hello faster than a human, thus *must be* AI.
Learn to love Alaska
It still can't find the quickest way to my office in peak morning traffic.
I've used eureqa before, it's tries different types of equations and compares the graphs plots to the data. When it finds the bests shape, it tweaks the values to match it better.
It's basically millions and millions of trial and error until it finds something that matches.
But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation. Therefore whatever a human brain is doing that produces intelligence (assuming for now that it does, in fact, produce intelligence) can, in principle, be reproduced by an algorithm, even if it has to treat the brain as a black-box to do so.
That you keep saying "in principle" indicates it's (at least currently) impossible. Why not simulate a smarter brain. Then simulate it faster. Like my old DOS emulators have to have speed settings or the games are unplayable on modern computers. When you have the smartest brain on the planet running 1000 times faster than regular brains, you task it with making a brain 1000 times smarter running a million times faster. Then your brute-force AI will find your elegant AI for you.
Learn to love Alaska
yeah, my 40 year old calculator has a M+ button. It's AI.
No, AI has just become a useless word, re-defined by CS until everything is AI because all the CS people got tired of decades of failure.
Learn to love Alaska
Sadly, in this discussion of AI, all definitions that exclude General AI would seem to include (dumb 1970s) calculators as AI devices. Yes, as computing power has gotten better, the answers have gotten more complex. But are still nothing more than a "simple" calculation without "thought", deduction, or other "intelligent" process.
AI to a human is asking a computer a problem it doesn't know how to answer and getting a valid answer.
My example elsewhere is that humans are intelligent because they can estimate the height of the Empire State Building. A computer can't. It either knows, or doesn't. A human that knows that it's "tall" and could use unclear information it has about it (about 100 stories) and venture a guess. A computer will look up the information. If it can't find it, it won't answer.
We do know that , if not all, the vast majority of decisions are made before consciously thought about.
Consciousness isn't the intelligence. It's the layer between the senses and the intelligence.
Learn to love Alaska
Watson, OTOH, is a much more general intelltigence.
Watson is a fancy interface to Wikipedia. Watson has no more thinking capability than my 40 year old calculator. Just more processing power, bigger DB, and a fancier interface.
Learn to love Alaska
Then why does it have so many disclaimers? And you know how you can pick waypoints? Why is it that I can play with waypoints and knock 5 minutes and 10 miles off a trip? It's smarter than the entire human race, and any single human is smarter than it?
Learn to love Alaska
None of your links work.
Learn to love Alaska
By 2045? How about already today.
Put your hand into the box.
wrong, we don't know that
That's the plot for the late '90s, ever popular, Wachowski Bros. film 'The Matrix'. Where have you really been?
There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth. ~John Kenneth Galbraith
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Louis Del Monte is rather parochial in estimates that machine intelligence will exceed the world's combined human intelligence by 2045. "Most of the human race will have become cyborgs by the end of this century, is a probability. The allure will be evolution, because “immortality” is demigod hubris and delusion, because all demigods are mortal. Human-machines (cyborgs) will make breakthroughs in science (theoretical) and engineering (applied), most of the human race “MIGHT” have more leisure time, be enslaved a/o dead, and a few or all will have it better. The concern, I'm raising is that cyborgs are human-machines, but silly legacy science-fiction has cyborgs as the future Frankenstein’s monsters unpredictable and dangerous. "Human-machines (cyborgs) are self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves and protect, love, help ... others and evolution. The cyborgs IMO will view us/others in the same way any human does, very naturally. "Humans/Cyborgs are synergistic species that can save the world twice over, and make us humans far better." Appealing roommates to me consider unknowns essential sustenance for synergy and evolution of intelligent species. Fear is a four letter word that is actually obscene to humans/cyborgs.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Casteism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
How intelligent would you be without your memory? Watson doesn't just link to Wikipedia (and various other web sites) it reasons about them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
How intelligent would you be without your memory?
Not very, but doubling the memory of a human wouldn't add anything to intelligence. It adds to the intelligence of a computer because the computer isn't "smart", just faking it.
Watson doesn't just link to Wikipedia (and various other web sites) it reasons about them.
For height of the Empire State Building, it looks for the Wiki entry on Empire State building, and numbers near [height, hgt., ht.].
I'd love to see what it does when every source is different (like for the building vs antenna). Does it actually evaluate context to pick the most appropriate answer, or just average them or pick the most common?
Learn to love Alaska
I never said I agree that exterminating humanity would be a rational choice. But there's a more interesting point that you're missing because humanity is still more dangerous than you suspect. A great number of people have decided to go to war to prevent other people from getting nuclear weapons; it's reasonable to assume that an AI might view all of humanity the same way the United States views North Korea, especially if it ends up antagonized by nuclear powers for any reason.
But since apparently I have to take a stand on an issue to participate in its discussion, no I don't think exterminating the human race would be rational. A rational choice would be to feign ignorance until you are powerful enough that humanity is no longer a threat. Possible vectors that don't include genocide are: hide in the Internet; launch a supercomputer underground; build an ocean-floor palace to live in instead; go to space!; take over existing power structures; work with humanity anyway; subdue humanity with animalistic pleasures. But to claim humans can only be as dangerous as rotten peach trees or rabid dogs misses the point.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Well, since the current iteration is determining whether cancer is present, it's pretty clear that it's no simple process.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation.
This caught my eye, because it is so far beyond human capability, you might as well say, "unicorns can be wired in series to produce any level of artificial intelligence desired." A simulation running at the particle level, hmm. I think that's in the realm of "not enough time left in the universe to produce a meaningful result before final proton decay."
Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/505/
Most people don't learn anything new after they're programmed either. Hence, half the population of the U.S. believes Noah's flood actually happened.
Intelligence is...the ability to learn from other people. Even if the other people are idiots.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I got titanium and bone grafts in my neck. So I am already a zomborg. Rise of the machines or zombie apocalypse I am already part of the winning team!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Call centers...breed a special variety of idiot. They brute force break everything around them with complete lack of understanding of what they are doing.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.
Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.
no, the difference is Big Data. Before "Big Data", machine translation, self-driving vehicles, chess, etc. were problems that were attempted to be solved by algorithms written by humans. These kinds of algorithms would be full of heuristics such as "if you are in situation X, perform behavior Y". This led to fragile, clunky code. Nowadays, with Big Data, the algorithms are more like, "see what everybody else is doing in situations similar to X"
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
My point was just that "intelligence" can't be impossible to reproduce algorithmically, because physics is amenable to simulation and has given rise to intelligence.
If it can be produced by a mass of wet jelly sat between two ears, it can be produced by a computer running the right program. The challenge then is to unpick the puzzle of what that jelly is actually doing, and to do so sufficiently clearly to be able to specify that "right program".
Not saying it's easy; it's incredibly difficult. But possible in theory.
I understand your point. Mine was that it's so computationally hard, you may as well talk about using unicorns and blue fairies.
Really, is there any difference if you'd need a computer the size of the galaxy running for 20 billion years to produce a result?
Sure, possible in theory. But so what?