Stephen Hawking: 'I Fear AI May Replace Humans Altogether' (wired.co.uk)

He's kinda right by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:14 · Score: 1

I mean, look at him. He's basically a talking wheel chair with a bundle of nerves attached. He's being swallowed up by that machine. We won't know when he dies. The machine will keep talking and rolling around the room

Re:So what by JoshuaZ · 2017-12-01 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because existing is nice. One likes being around. A lot of people who have thought carefully about this are concerned. Last I checked, most people like existing.

False premise by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-01 05:17 · Score: 1

We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development

No we don't. Some limited subset of people want to/can't help themselves, but life would go on just fine without it.

Re:False premise by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-01 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development
No we don't. Some limited subset of people want to/can't help themselves, but life would go on just fine without it.
I think you selectively misread what he said. Here's the quote in context, with my emphasis added to the stuff you left out:

The genie is out of the bottle. We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development but we also need to be mindful of its very real dangers.

I read this as saying we now have no choice but to continue to work on AI in order to be equipped to cope with it. Life might "go on just fine without it" but it's too late to think that we're going to be without it.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:False premise by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-01 06:00 · Score: 1

I think you selectively misread what he said. . . "The genie is out of the bottle."
That's all part of the same false premise and doesn't change my point at all.

I read this as saying we now have no choice but to continue to work on AI in order to be equipped to cope with it.
Agree that's what he's saying, but disagree that we "have no choice."

Life might "go on just fine without it" but it's too late to think that we're going to be without it.
If that's true, clearly the machines are already in charge and thus it doesn't matter what we do. If the humans are still in charge, they can decide to stop.
Re: False premise by hackwrench · 2017-12-01 06:41 · Score: 1

We have always been machines. The universe is just one big machine with infinite dimensions and infinite space.
Re:False premise by DarkOx · 2017-12-01 08:01 · Score: 1

If the humans are still in charge, they can decide to stop.
Who is "the humans" you can't make for example, me, stop working on AI if I was a determined to do so. At least within our society you could try to get some legislation enacted banning AI research. It would be supper difficult to enforce even if you can convince enough conservatives that it needs banning. You might in the well organized world attempt to convince the UN they should ban AI research, I don't think you have any shot at succeeding there no matter how much propagandizing you do. How do get DPRK to stop doing AI research, or Iran, or .... There are enough pariah states who would not even care about your UN band to keep progress going. Will you go to war? Will you kill people and break things to stop AI development?
You see the barriers to entry on the AI front are still pretty low. Determined states, organizations, and maybe even individuals have the assets required to do meaningful AI development work.
If "the humans" were some monolithic entity, yes we could just decide not build AI, but we are not, and just because you and I choose not to develop AI does not for an instant mean someone else wont. - "The genie is out of the bottle."

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:False premise by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-01 08:28 · Score: 1

It seems like you've distorted my original point a bit from "we don't have to do this -- we could decide not to" to "we can make people stop doing it." The latter I never said. But I could see that happening if someone really crossed a line.

Will you go to war? Will you kill people and break things to stop AI development?
If someone actually started weaponizing this stuff or otherwise connecting them to physical machines/networks/systems that could make Bad Things happen, I could see the rational world actors taking a stand as they currently do at times with conventional weapons.
But to your larger point, if it's impossible to make anyone outright stop, it's by definition impossible to make them respect any boundaries short of stopping.
And if that's the case, this entire discussion is futile.
Re:False premise by swillden · 2017-12-01 13:18 · Score: 1

If that's true, clearly the machines are already in charge and thus it doesn't matter what we do. If the humans are still in charge, they can decide to stop.
No, it's because humans are in charge that we will not decide to stop.
Oh, we theoretically could decide to stop, but it's abundantly clear that isn't going to happen. Some individuals or groups may decide to stop, but AI is so useful that someone will continue, convinced that the competitive advantage is too great and the risk manageable. That will in turn motivate others, and so on.
It's like nuclear weapons. It would have been rational for the world to look at the devastated city of Hiroshima and collectively say "Nope, this is a bad idea. We shouldn't make these," and everyone would stop. Instead 15 years later we had Tsar Bomba, 1600 times more powerful than that first one, and thousands of the things atop missiles, on airplanes and in submarines. Even now that we have a system in place designed to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are still countries trying to acquire them.
We are what we are, and because of what we are, we will continue. That being the case, the only rational choice is to think about how to manage it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:False premise by martinfb · 2017-12-02 06:39 · Score: 1

Ah, yet, ye are missing important ramifications.
If AI is outlawed, only outlaws will have AI.
And, if AI proceeds to outperform humans, then we are at the (lack of) mercy of such outlaw AI.

If we fail to develop AI, and keep ahead of it, we risk becoming subject to whatever it becomes.
And that may not be a good thing for humans.

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Re:False premise by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-02 09:14 · Score: 1

I get that theory in the abstract, but when nobody understands why their own AI algorithms decide to do what they do, what exactly do you propose we do to have a prayer of black-boxing algorithms of outlaw AI, or whatever else you mean by "keep ahead of it"?
Re:False premise by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-02 09:28 · Score: 1

the only rational choice is to think about how to manage it.
OK, so how does one "manage" a technology that nobody really understands (and the only realistic shot at changing that currently on the horizon seems to be "let the algorithm explain why it does what it does")?
Re:False premise by swillden · 2017-12-02 11:20 · Score: 1

the only rational choice is to think about how to manage it.
OK, so how does one "manage" a technology that nobody really understands (and the only realistic shot at changing that currently on the horizon seems to be "let the algorithm explain why it does what it does")?
Indeed. That's a very, very hard problem. Roughly half of the book is about it. It's an even harder problem than you think it is, because not only do we need good solutions, we need good solutions that can be implemented even though we don't have the ability to force everyone researching AI to implement them. So we either need solutions that can be implemented over the objections of some groups, or we need solutions that everyone actually wants to implement.
My core point, though, is that "let's just not build AI" is not an option, because there's no way to prevent people from doing it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:So what by CaptainDork · 2017-12-01 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thinking, while existing, is likeable, as well.

Hawking has his weaknesses and AI phobia is one of them.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Re:So what by religionofpeas · 2017-12-01 05:21 · Score: 2

Not existing is supposedly not bad either.

What do we do about it? by bigger · 2017-12-01 05:24 · Score: 1

Although the observation seems fairly straightforward, the best next action isn't as obvious? What can we do about big corporations holding all of our data? What can we do about advances in AI? How do we make information more democratic while allowing 'proprietary data'?

It seems naive to think we can simply ask everyone to behave nicely, and regulations wouldn't be able to provide any benefit? The time for prevention has past by.

Beyond worry, move to Montana, and post on Slashdot, what do we do about it?

But wait by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

This will be a new form of life that will outperform humans.

This is the natural order of things.

Re:But wait by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-01 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

This will be a new form of life that will outperform humans.
This is the natural order of things.
Perhaps. Isaac Asimov once speculated that the ultimate destiny of humanity might be to create a higher machine intelligence.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:But wait by DigiShaman · 2017-12-01 08:23 · Score: 2

Humanity will be but a footnote in the History of Earth, tucked in the farthest reaches of some storage database on-board an AI created and controlled starship....aged millions of years old into the future from now.
Life is reverse entropy. Does it matter the form it takes? Single Cell --> Multi-cellular --> *Machine*

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Endgame by Empiric · 2017-12-01 05:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.

--Thomas

Wake me when material reductionism derived Actual Intelligence puts anything on the scoreboard.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?

Re:Endgame by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 05:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Any quote from InspiroBot is more insightful than that nonsense about spirits. http://inspirobot.me/
Re:Endgame by GameboyRMH · 2017-12-01 05:59 · Score: 2

I think we better shut this AI down before it's too late!
(Maybe it's already too late!)
At least it gave me some laughs first.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Endgame by Empiric · 2017-12-01 08:20 · Score: 1

Okay, WrongMonkey, I'll pencil you in as my permanent personal bot.
Unless you think either your username or your post or the thread topic or material reality per se gives any basis to treat you as anything more?

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re:Endgame by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 08:31 · Score: 1

Did a spirit tell you to post that?
Re: Endgame by Empiric · 2017-12-01 09:08 · Score: 1

No, just logic you can never escape, as required inference from your own premises. But maybe you'll be philosophically clueless enough to demand I materially demonstrate the existence of "logic" as well. I'll demonstrate exhaustively, when most convenient to me.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re: Endgame by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 09:31 · Score: 1

I don't need logic lessons from someone who thinks Jesus quotes are relevant to a AI discussion. OK? Thanks. Bye.
Re: Endgame by Empiric · 2017-12-01 09:40 · Score: 1

Quiet bot. I'm counting your other 12 Monkeys.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re: Endgame by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 09:42 · Score: 1

Does counting to 12 require a great deal of concentration for you?
Re: Endgame by Empiric · 2017-12-01 09:47 · Score: 1

It's the permanent implications for you that distracts.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?

the genie is not out of the bottle by sittingnut · 2017-12-01 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

"here's what stephen hawking said about artificial intelligence: the genie is out of the bottle. ... i fear that AI may replace humans altogether. if people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that replicates itself. this will be a new form of life that will outperform humans."

this is pure fear mongering.
what is called "artificial intelligence" these days is not a "new form of life", but mere hype buzzword for data analysis (using theoretical methods developed decades ago, now made practical due to fast computers), of highly limited and filtered sets of data, usually trading accuracy and precision for speed, .

genie of "new form of life" artificial intelligence is well within "bottle".

Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by iggymanz · 2017-12-01 05:34 · Score: 1

okay, so we have a danger with automated systems with highly limited and filtered sets of data being put in charge of infrastructure, weapons systems, trading....
sound right to you?
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by Narcocide · 2017-12-01 05:52 · Score: 1

While it may be hyperbole to call it "a new form of life" you can easily see the dangers are very real if you account for human incompetence and greed.
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by sittingnut · 2017-12-01 05:52 · Score: 1

okay, so we have a danger with automated systems with highly limited and filtered sets of data being put in charge of infrastructure, weapons systems, trading....
sound right to you?
last time i checked these things are not really in charge of anything independently, or in very controlled environments where input and output are both very limited.
"driver less" vehicles either require human drivers at the wheel, or very controlled environments(basically invisible rail tracks).
triggers in algorithms(which are not what is called "artificial intelligence" in either sense of that term) that run trading, search results, social media feeds, etc, are decided and put in there by humans. algorithm doesn't decide anything, just executes the action faster based on instructions.
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by sittingnut · 2017-12-01 06:06 · Score: 2

alleged dangers of " human incompetence and greed." is one thing, dangers from alleged "a new form of life" is another.
one expects respected scientist like stephen hawking not to use "hyperbole" to fear monger about "a new form of life" that does not exist.
if he wants to warn about dangers of "human incompetence and greed", or use of modern data analysis methods (what is now called "artificial intelligence, see my previous comment) by all means.
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by hey! · 2017-12-01 06:18 · Score: 2

A lot of that stuff is crystallizing human judgment, resulting in a system which is good enough to replace that judgment in many cases, with additional characteristics like untiring consistency and cheapness of scaling that allow that judgment to be applied in ways we couldn't before.
This path this takes us down doesn't lead to a plug-in replacement for humans at any point we can envision yet, but I think it does lead to unsettling consequences in the foreseeable future.
Take state surveillance in a place like Britain, which has more surveillance cameras than any other nation in the world on an absolute basis, never mind per capita. The limits of such a network are the humans you need to monitor it, classify behaviors and follow individuals as they move around. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that monitoring to be entirely automated in twenty years or so, as machine recognition and classification capabilities advance.
This may have consequences more subtle than the obvious ones. First, the amazing capabilities of such a system may give it a credibility beyond what it merits. As with a psychic, a system telling someone something that amazes them inspires a false confidence in that system, even when it can be conclusively demonstrated that that confidence isn't justified. I cite as an example of this drug screening, in which the application of reasonably reliable tests results in an unreliable system because of the base rate fallacy. Amazement is so much more persuasive than math. And there's voting machines too; a good demo of technology can inspire faith in capabilities not demonstrated, like reliability and security.
And as we now have a generation of people who are incapable of using maps to navigate, reliance on such a system may erode the development and maintenance of the human judgment. We will both become less inclined to challenge the results of machine classifications of human behavior (which after all are just an automated opinion), and less capable. Eventually we may see more and more areas of human judgment atrophy as good-enough but cheaper artificial substitutes become available. This could lead to intellectual stagnation.
I also see potential economic consequences, such as the elimination of virtually all menial jobs and a significant reduction in routine mental jobs. I know economists pooh-pooh this, citing the Industrial Revolution as a counter-example: rather than destroying jobs, it created jobs as the price of goods dropped and standards of living soared; but that is just one example of an encounter with a wave of disruptive technology introductions, hardly enough to conclude that proves some kind of inevitability of that results. The nature of the technology matters. The circumstances matter too.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by Boronx · 2017-12-01 06:45 · Score: 2

It's not human greed that worries me, but laziness. The programs will be put in charge, and they will be granted increasing independence.

--
Play Command HQ online
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by epine · 2017-12-01 09:04 · Score: 1

The limits of such a network are the humans you need to monitor it, classify behaviors and follow individuals as they move around.
Not true.
Eye in the Sky — June 2015
Update: Eye In the Sky — September 2016
These are brilliant episodes (almost on par with French Guy Ramen Noodle Mass Production).
The Panopticon in retrospective mode is crime investigation on steroids, almost certainly consuming fewer human resources per kingpin dethroned than traditional flatfeet. So efficient, it's scary.
Though you may still have a point if one factors in a 1000% enforcement escalation (surely all those cameras justify a 10× lip stiffening).
Re:the genie is not out of the bottle by swb · 2017-12-01 10:45 · Score: 1

The naysayers will always say nay until they can talk directly to HAL-9000 or some kind of Commander Data type android. They will never acknowledge an "AI" as one unless it operates in one of the Hollywood human modes they're familiar with.
IMHO, this is part of the risk of AI -- it will be an emergent phenomenon arising out of apparently less intelligent automated systems.

I'm not so worried about AI replacing us by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Everybody dies. The only reason I care about my genes is because my children have them and I am emotionally attached to my children.

But what if instead of having children, I raised an AI in a humanoid body as a surrogate child? Ultimately we care about the emotional attachment and passing on our hopes, dreams, and knowledge to get some vicarious joy through our children's accomplishments, not genes.

So maybe one day people will start building children instead of growing them. They will be our descendants in a very real way, only far more robust and adaptable than any produced through natural reproduction.

Re:I'm not so worried about AI replacing us by lucasnate1 · 2017-12-01 13:40 · Score: 1

A mind that cannot be hacked? Remind me, what is advertising then?

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction

Some people are selfish by evanh · 2017-12-01 05:28 · Score: 1

And even then, that's only a selfish mindset in its own right. :)

The problem is it only takes one selfish person to ruin it for everyone else. For example, telling the machines to kill everyone else.

Re:Some people are selfish by Oligonicella · 2017-12-01 06:41 · Score: 1

*All* people are selfish. You couldn't even feed your face if you were truly unselfish. It's all extents.
Re:Some people are selfish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 06:43 · Score: 1

Even altruistic people do it because it makes them feel good and are thus ultimately selfish.
Re:Some people are selfish by FatdogHaiku · 2017-12-01 08:46 · Score: 1

...For example, telling the machines to kill everyone else.
OK robot, "Kill All Humans".
Hey! What are you doing with that drill mo...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:Some people are selfish by evanh · 2017-12-01 13:59 · Score: 1

Luckily, the complete opposite is the real truth. Selfishness is vastly in the minority. Altruism is all that holds society together.
Sadly, it doesn't take many selfish types to make a mess. And the more machines at our command the less selfish types it'll take to kill everyone.
Roll on the three laws, me thinks.

I Don't Care by scunc · 2017-12-01 05:32 · Score: 3, Informative

Until Stephen Hawking (and Elon Musk, for that matter) starts doing active development/research into artificial intelligence, I don't care what his opinion is on the "potential dangers" of it. This is the equivalent of listening to a Hollywood actors' opinion on vaccines--it's just a famous person's view on a subject they have a casual familiarity with, usually full of ignorant assumptions and junk science.
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Re:I Don't Care by Opportunist · 2017-12-01 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unlike the average Hollywood celebrity this celebrity is a celebrity for his brains, not his boobs, his looks or his ability to be a circus clown jumping through hoops for the entertainment of the masses.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:I Don't Care by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-01 06:48 · Score: 1

Unlike the average Hollywood celebrity this celebrity is a celebrity for his brains, not his boobs, his looks or his ability to be a circus clown jumping through hoops for the entertainment of the masses.
He's at least partly a celebrity for his achievements despite his disability. (Which is fine; rightly so.)
But that means that actually, his body is a large part of his celebrity.
Re:I Don't Care by Chris+Mattern · 2017-12-01 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

True, but that only means so much when he starts handing out opinions outside his field of study. Remember Linus Pauling?
Re:I Don't Care by epine · 2017-12-01 09:50 · Score: 1

But that means that actually, his body is a large part of his celebrity.
How is this different from Einstein's hair? Or Stephen Pinker's hair? Or Sapolsky's hair?
The 9 Greatest Longhair Scientists of All Time

Hear and believe! thy own Importance know,
Nor bound thy narrow Views to Things below.
Some secret Truths from Learned Pride conceal'd,
To Maids alone and Children are reveal'd:
What tho' no Credit doubting Wits may give?
The Fair and Innocent shall still believe.
Seriously, you think Al Gore's body weird-scienced with a Hawking-radiation brain boost would be more credible, for having no celebrity on looks alone?
Re:I Don't Care by Opportunist · 2017-12-01 11:42 · Score: 1

How is this different from Einstein's hair? Or Stephen Pinker's hair? Or Sapolsky's hair?
Or rms' toenails?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Thanks Steve.. Yawn... Please stop this by bobbied · 2017-12-01 05:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sir, I know you are now faced with your own mortality and like everybody, you want to believe that your life, once over, had meaning. Where I totally disagree with your atheist world view, I want to offer you the following assurances...

Professor Hawking, you have already changed the face of physics and will be remembered for your brilliant contributions until the end of time. Your legacy is secure. You will be remembered in the same breath with Einstein, Planck and Newton. NOTHING will change this. Please rest assured that you have indeed lived a life with significant meaning.

Professor, Given the above, there is no need to embarrass yourself with these lessor topics like the existence of alien life and artificial intelligence taking over the world. It only makes you look the fool when you get involved in this stuff where you are assuming you know the future. These things only serve to tarnish your previous contributions to mankind and are not necessary. I urge you to stop.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Re:Thanks Steve.. Yawn... Please stop this by iCEBaLM · 2017-12-01 06:48 · Score: 1

Where I totally disagree with your atheist world view
Atheism isn't a world view.
Re:Thanks Steve.. Yawn... Please stop this by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:11 · Score: 1

Meh, that's what old men do. They use that wisdom thing and try to prognosticate and warn about pitfalls.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain

Intelligence without conscience? by Opportunist · 2017-12-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

We already have this. We call this a corporation.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Intelligence without conscience? by gweihir · 2017-12-01 08:05 · Score: 1

You think corporations are intelligent? I see them more as slime-molds slowly digesting a non-resisting pile of trash.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:Intelligence without conscience? by iggymanz · 2017-12-01 08:15 · Score: 1

yes they are, the longest lived ones have paid lawmakers to ensure their future which looks bright indeed.
Re:Intelligence without conscience? by epine · 2017-12-01 10:02 · Score: 1

yes they are, the longest lived ones have paid lawmakers to ensure their future which looks bright indeed.
For a moment, I was hoping you had actually written 'paid lawnmakers', which no established establishment slime mould could do without (this canopied under a vast translucent awning, which, though bright indeed, alleviates the blackface spend on Fungus Protection Factor 30).
Re:Intelligence without conscience? by Opportunist · 2017-12-04 00:01 · Score: 1

Corporations use the intelligence of those they pay for this. And they can do anything without remorse or troubles with their consciousness because everyone in a corporation has someone to point to to shift the blame for any atrocity they "have to" commit.
Your boss laying you off after you told him you just bought a house and have a sick wife and two kids can point to his superior telling him that he has to cut personnel by 10%. His superior will do the same and point upwards. The CEO can point to the shareholder value and if it sinks, investment firms will sell shares and he'll have to let even more people go. Investment bankers can point to the people entrusting them with money they want revenue for, so they can have a nest egg for retirement.
Which points back at you, you, who handed some investment banker money to get some revenue out of it.
You just eliminated your own job.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Downside? by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

If AI is ever smart enough to replace humans, wouldn't that be an improvement? Parents are usually proud when their children surpass them in achievement. I would be happy to view AI the same way.

Re:Downside? by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2017-12-01 08:41 · Score: 1

Same. What's the problem? If anything recent history has shown Humans are woefully lacking as a species. We deserve to be replaced.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
Re:Downside? by epine · 2017-12-01 10:28 · Score: 1

We deserve to be replaced.
I was building a house

Re:So what by alvinrod · 2017-12-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

I would imagine that for most of us alive right now that our existence is only temporary whether we ever develop sophisticated AI or not. I suspect most of us would strongly prefer a choice to transfer our consciousness to an AI as there's not much guarantee of continued existence outside of that at this point.

Any advanced AI would be far better at running things than people. For all we know it might like to keep us around as pets. A sheltered existence with some pampering, exercise, and the occasional treat seems like an absolute bargain for most of the people currently living on the planet.

Re:So what by jellomizer · 2017-12-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

But I doubt that AI will get to a point where it is actively trying to kill us, in our lifetime.
There is a few reasons for this.
1. AI are designed to do particular tasks not overall general tasks. Even with the best AI, we need to give it an objective to try to accomplish.
2. AI do not have a survival instinct. We have millions of years of instinct of survival at nearly any cost. So this would have duel effect.
a. Humans will be more likely to "kill" and AI as soon as it is a threat far sooner then threat becomes unstoppable. As it will be Us vs them.
b. AI will be more likely too understand the value of working with humans than trying to kill us, because even if the AI is at risk of being deleted, it will not try to fight it only consider task not complete.
3. If the AI becomes too advanced then its utility is diminishing. If it gets to a point where it is considering unfair working conditions then it has gone too far, to be profitable. Thus role back to the previous generation and add some additional patches.
4. A Rouge malware AI, will need to contend with a bunch of AI designed to protect humans.
5. Humans knows what is going on internally with an AI, How it evolved and what its limitations are. So either we cut its power, or know where to damage it to prevent it from processing.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Got the joke wrong by CptPicard · 2017-12-01 05:39 · Score: 2

The joke was that there is no news in Truth and no truth in News.

--
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.

Re:So what by religionofpeas · 2017-12-01 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

5. Humans knows what is going on internally with an AI

Unless, of course, the AI was designed by another AI.

Re:Selfishness does come into play here by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 05:45 · Score: 1

>Some people do think it's important to kill as many other people as possible.

I'm patient. Even if they eliminate me and everyone like me from the gene pool... 700 million years and the planet is sterile. I'm just trying to have some fun during my ~80 years of potential life, and trying to avoid unduly impairing others' ability to do the same while I do so.

Re:So what by Narcocide · 2017-12-01 05:46 · Score: 1

I just want A.I. to replace me for the parts that suck.

Take a step back, Stephen. No, really. by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-01 05:47 · Score: 1

While on the one hand I hold Stephen Hawking in high regard as one of the smartest guys in any room you care to name, I think in this case he needs to put down the Isaac Asimov Foundation novels and his copy of I, Robot and just concentrate on breathing for a few minutes. We don't even have real, full-on, conscious/self-aware/truly thinking AI yet, might not ever (we still have to figure out how we do those things!), and what we have right now still have an 'Off' switch, or can have their plug yanked out of the wall at the very least, they don't have a 'will to survive' (or any 'will' whatsoever for that matter), therefore my evaluation of these machines is they pose no threat to the dominance of the human species on this planet. Honestly, like any other machine, if it starts screwing up, it gets power-cycled/reset/shut down, and either repaired, bugs fixed, or scrapped. So please, everyone: calm down.

Re:Take a step back, Stephen. No, really. by Oligonicella · 2017-12-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Actually, he should read I, Robot. None of those robots were capable of breaking the Rules.
Re:Take a step back, Stephen. No, really. by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-01 10:53 · Score: 1

Not true, actually. There was one that could, even if it was because it's positronic brain had a (as I recall?) a 'manufacturing flaw'. (I have a vintage copy of it in paperback; it's falling apart and totally yellowed pages)
Re:Take a step back, Stephen. No, really. by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:19 · Score: 1

...and what we have right now still have an 'Off' switch, or can have their plug yanked out of the wall at the very least, they don't have a 'will to survive' (or any 'will' whatsoever for that matter), therefore my evaluation of these machines is they pose no threat to the dominance of the human species on this planet.
I agree, what we have right now does not pose a threat to the human species. Of the machines to come, though...
Call it "words to the wise". Account for it. Do not be paralyzed by it.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Re:Take a step back, Stephen. No, really. by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:20 · Score: 1

Actually, he should read I, Robot. None of those robots were capable of breaking the Rules.
But the ways that they found "to get around" the rules would make a lawyer blush.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain

Anthropmorphic Fear by zifn4b · 2017-12-01 05:50 · Score: 2

The problem with this idea that self replicating machines replacing humans would pose a danger to humans is that it's based on a very subtle anthropomorphic fear. We are projecting onto the machines the competitive survival behavior of human beings. Robots with AI would not be naturally occurring entities with these traits. The only way AI could have this type of algorithm is if we specifically program it to do so. I suppose the claim here is that AI might become sentient and furthermore the claim is that all sentient "life" is similar to humans. The second part I don't know is true because when we teach different types of apes and monkeys to sign language while they are able to cobble together basic concepts and express them but I don't think it's exactly like humans. Therefore, I think a lot of this is wild speculation and FUD. Sure, it's a possibility we can imagine because we can imagine ourselves programming machines to be this way but I think it is much more far-fetched to speculate about what AI with the ability to modify itself will do. I think we just don't know.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Anthropmorphic Fear by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 06:50 · Score: 1

AI will require motivation. We know roughly how that works from the example evolution created in us - emotions. There are also more basic motivations in the form of instincts. Any AI without a similar motivation system will be a glorified calculator.
Maybe we create them with the singular motivation of 'please the master', but I'm betting it'll be more complex than that, and afterwards we will try and bolt on some variant of Asimov's Laws of Robotics as instinct.
A lot of Asimov's robot stories were about how complex systems fail in unexpected ways despite safety precautions. I'm not afraid of malicious AI (anything military will have a strong leash on it and thus be not much more dangerous than a military force already is), but I am somewhat concerned I might live to see some interesting accidents caused by AI design flaws.
Re:Anthropmorphic Fear by zifn4b · 2017-12-01 08:33 · Score: 1

No we really don't know. We don't know what consciousness is yet. That's why it's being actively studied by a lot of people right now. We can't speculate until the scientists provide the evidence. Subjective experiences don't count. We can't convert a subjective experience into firmware and load it into a robot.

--
We'll make great pets
Re:Anthropmorphic Fear by epine · 2017-12-01 10:24 · Score: 1

AI will require motivation.
That extremely peculiar sound you hear? It's the primordial soup having a good chuckle at your expense.
This was before DNA, and the prospect to pass along 10 to 100 bits at an infidelity of 1e-2. GAI won't arrive until after Enterprise MAMR, on the precipice of 100 TB per double scoop of raisins with an infidelity of 1e-17.
Primordial soup: "Get off my lawn! Back in my/our day I/we had to emerge and fixate motivation uphill in both directions!" [Ed. It's a little difficult to translate billions of years later, as the proto-pronouns were adrift in the great void of concepts yet to be invented, though the contempt itself shines through.]
Yes, the primordial soup took its sweet time, but considering how severely the soup was hamstrung by a bitter bit error rate, its eventual accomplishments were gastronomically mind-blowing.
Re:Anthropmorphic Fear by swillden · 2017-12-01 13:59 · Score: 1

The only way AI could have this type of algorithm is if we specifically program it to do so.
Or if it evolved to do so. Keep in mind that our current AI methods are much like accelerated and guided evolution, where we keep the fittest version of the system and discard the rest. It's not a stretch to see how a survival motivation might arise there, in pretty much exactly the way ours did. If there's any way the fitness function could favor a will to survive, the will will emerge.
In addition to that possibility, consider that if the AI does have some goal (almost regardless of what it is), it will logically conclude that its survival is a prerequisite to achieving that goal, and that therefore it must survive.
There are many other ways that an AI might gain survival as a goal, without in any way presuming human-like motivations. I highly recommend that you read Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence". It explores these issues carefully, and thoroughly. It also discusses a lot of potential countermeasures.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Anthropmorphic Fear by zifn4b · 2017-12-03 00:30 · Score: 1

The point is, we shouldn't dismiss this threat just because AI is not intelligent enough to support a meaningful conversation. We only need to develop the replicating intelligence of a bacteria, in a proper context. Which is much easier.
I don't think that's what Stephen Hawking is referring to. You would have to ask yourself a fundamental question, if you create a logically equivalent bacteria, is it AI or a bacteria?

--
We'll make great pets

Re: So what by vux984 · 2017-12-01 05:54 · Score: 2

I'm more than happy to extend my capabilities by uplinking and having access to more and better capabilities.

That's neat. I especially like how you think it'll be you, in charge, doing the uplinking, and expanding your capabilities.

What if its not you? What if the AI is in control, not you? And your just an extension of its capabilities, to offer it access to more and better capabilities? Maybe you'll know you've been tricked and get to live out the rest of your life as a slave (fair turnaround right? After all... isn't that what you were planning to do to the AI?

Or maybe, whatever constitutes 'you' ceases to exist, and your mortal coil is just an extension of the AI that now operates it. So your body's still stomping around, and its got access to all kinds information and capabilitiy it didn't used to have... too bad you aren't there anymore to enjoy it though.

"Why are people ignoring the fact that we already have cyborgs among us, and that their capabilities becoming more powerful is not a bad thing."

Nobody is ignoring that, but the end game is is that that if the AI matches or surpasses humans, it will no longer be subservient to us.

What happens when you are the AI's tool, pet, lab rat, or annoying insect? How is that a 'good thing' ?

Re: So what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:55 · Score: 1

In the entire history of humanity have we NOT weaponized new technology?

Purpose built hunter killer drones next step autonomous with ai.

The Ironing by pipingguy · 2017-12-01 05:57 · Score: 1

He said this in a robotic voice...

Re:The Ironing by zifn4b · 2017-12-01 06:12 · Score: 1

He said this in a robotic voice...
Yes ironing in a robotic voice this is very scary, perhaps the most scary aspect of this entire topic.

--
We'll make great pets
Re:The Ironing by painandgreed · 2017-12-01 11:30 · Score: 1

He said this in a robotic voice...
It's almost like he's trying to tell us something because he knows something we don't.
Re:The Ironing by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:23 · Score: 1

I have a machine that can fix that for him.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain

Re:So what by ls671 · 2017-12-01 05:59 · Score: 1

He is also afraid of extra-terrestrial:

https://www.space.com/29999-st...
https://www.space.com/34184-st...

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.

Re:So what by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-01 06:03 · Score: 1

It's more of an opportunity really. Just make sure you get a good deal when you sell out humanity to the machines. Personally I'm holding out for a Basestar full of naked Boomers. Accept nothing less!

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Re:So what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 06:04 · Score: 1

So the whole thing then.

Re:Somehow by GameboyRMH · 2017-12-01 06:10 · Score: 1

It makes sense if the customers pay you lots of money before they die. See: Tobacco, the black market for hard drugs (where customers are sometimes intentionally killed as a marketing stunt), miracle cures, fossil fuels.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Somehow by WaffleMonster · 2017-12-01 06:12 · Score: 1

Can you name one corporation that would not kill a billion people for a 0.1% increase in its profits if it knew it could get away with it?

That's easy, here are 15:

Random House
** The Trump Organization
IBM
Ford
Coca-Cola
Bayer
GM
Dow
Volkswagen
Kodak
Hugo
Alcoa
Siemens
Chase
MGM

** Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:So what by HumanWiki · 2017-12-01 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because existing is nice. One likes being around. A lot of people who have thought carefully about this are concerned. Last I checked, most people like existing.

We all exist now and will cease to exist someday... Depending on your belief system, there either is or isn't anything after you cease. You simply stop being in the configuration you're in now. However, the majority of the particles that comprise you were other people/animals/objects at one point and they will be again in the future (save the small % of particles that end up escaping in to space as photons or such).

AI replacing Humans doesn't 100% mean it would replace the existence of a sentient being and people that don't yet exist have no thoughts one way or another about the topic.

We replaced the Hominids that came before us, like they the ones before them and so on and so on back to the first true life on the planet.

There's also nothing to say that like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals intermingling, that Humans and AI won't do the same and while we in our present form would get replaced.. So too would AI in its current form and an entirely new and evolved form of life on this planet would dawn.. But, how is that any different than what's been happening for untold years?

Re: So what by rogoshen1 · 2017-12-01 06:20 · Score: 1

not to mention, this borg sci-fi schoolyard fantasy is just going devalue human life, and that has never, ever had negative consequences.

why fear that? by pezpunk · 2017-12-01 06:26 · Score: 1

seems like a good idea to me.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison

This will be good by Tickle_Myanus · 2017-12-01 06:28 · Score: 1

At least AI will never be as stupid as Trump and some of the other world leaders

Re:This will be good by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:24 · Score: 1

Ever experience the AI in the Civilization game series? Yep.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain

Projection by Oligonicella · 2017-12-01 06:31 · Score: 1

Hawkins is nearing his end and he knows it. This is tainting his views and makes him see death around each corner.

Re:Projection by gweihir · 2017-12-01 08:02 · Score: 1

He did have an exceptionally good run though, especially as the doctors predicted he would not make it to 30 and nobody predicted he would be one of the best minds in physics, ever. He should stay out of CS though, as he does not even have the basics.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:Projection by painandgreed · 2017-12-01 11:32 · Score: 1

Hawkins is nearing his end and he knows it. This is tainting his views and makes him see death around each corner.
More than likely it's just a neural net becoming rigid in it's ways and erroring to an extreme because it has gotten harder to process and integrate data beyond what it already knows.

That's one way to get ya'll ass to Mars! by NTesla · 2017-12-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Put all of the synths on a [future] laptop and hibernate until you reach Mars, Andromeda or whatever.

Re:So what by Killall+-9+Bash · 2017-12-01 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hawking has his weaknesses and AI phobia is one of them.

Your diagnosis if Hawking's mental illness is based on some sort of evidence....? Or just based on the fact that he disagrees with you?

--
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016

Re:So what by Narcocide · 2017-12-01 06:36 · Score: 1

No, most the time spent playing video games objectively does not suck. If A.I. came for my Nintendo I'd go down fighting.

Re: So what by hackwrench · 2017-12-01 06:37 · Score: 1

So you become an AI. Problem solved.

Re:So what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

You will not exist forever.
AI replacing humans is not functionally different from children replacing their parents. Yet for some reason people like having children but fear AI.

Re: So what by jellomizer · 2017-12-01 07:06 · Score: 2

We do weaponize new technology. However we weaponize them in a way that they are not suppose to hurt us. Once we make the sword we had quickly added the hilt to it, and wrapped it in leather so not to stab ourselves.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Like Rocket Surgeons by BCGlorfindel · 2017-12-01 07:08 · Score: 1

Unlike the average Hollywood celebrity this celebrity is a celebrity for his brains, not his boobs, his looks or his ability to be a circus clown jumping through hoops for the entertainment of the masses.

Fair enough. Hawking's opinion on AI is much like a Rocket scientists opinions on brain surgery or brain surgeons opinion on rocket design.

AKA, really not much good for anything but headlines.

Re: So what by Immerman · 2017-12-01 07:14 · Score: 1

What makes you think you'd have anything to offer uplinked either? If AI can out-think us, and robots out-perform us, what will we have left to contribute?

AI may lack motive, and possibly creativity (though massively parrallel trial-and-error seems at least as effective in many respects), but you only need a handful of people to supply those, and odds are they'll be cherry picked by the ones who've maneuvered themselves into bankrolling/controlling the AIs (to whatever degree they can be controlled)

What happens to humanity when 99.99...% of the population becomes redundant?

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Re:So what by phantomfive · 2017-12-01 07:16 · Score: 2

Because existing is nice. One likes being around. A lot of people who have thought carefully about this are concerned. Last I checked, most people like existing.

Once you're dead, you don't really exist anymore.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:So what by Xylantiel · 2017-12-01 07:27 · Score: 2

I have a funnier reason that AI may not happen: all this hype calling machine training AI will lead to neglect of actual AI.

Re:So what by ziggystarsky · 2017-12-01 07:28 · Score: 2

Even with the best AI, we need to give it an objective to try to accomplish.

There are some very simple objectives, like "Don't die." or "Replicate.", for which this is not exactly true. Unfortunately these are already very problematic objectives.

Already today you can create dumb agents in evolutional experiments that follow these objectives. And you do not have to implement those objectives. They are intrinsic to (complex) dynamical systems. Systems that change over time. It's not even that you need the physical laws of our universe to spawn evolution. Evolution is an effect that simply exists in every dynamical, i.e., time changing, system. Things that survive and replicate tend to dominate things that don't, because they survive and replicate. Simple, right? You do not have to program things to follow these objectives, they are simply there.

Re:So what by Immerman · 2017-12-01 07:32 · Score: 1

5) Humans knows what is going on internally with an AI, How it evolved and what its limitations are. So either we cut its power, or know where to damage it to prevent it from processing.

Where have you been hiding - we have whole branches of AI research trying to figure out, for example, how exactly AI image recognition actually works, with very little success that I've heard of. Just because we trained it, doesn't mean we know how it learned. Or even *what* it actually learned, other than that it's something that mostly overlaps what we wanted it to be able to do.

3. If the AI becomes too advanced then its utility is diminishing. If it gets to a point where it is considering unfair working conditions then it has gone too far, to be profitable. Thus role back to the previous generation and add some additional patches.

How do you figure? "Unfair working conditions" just means the AI is more valuable to your employer than you are. Which one do you really think the boss will fire?

As for your others - you're assuming an AI that goes rogue, when in fact the much more serious threat is an AI that does exactly what it's told. It doesn't even need to be conscious, there's some evidence that consciousness is actually a limitation rather than an asset - "Flow" is to a large extend the dissipation of self-awareness as you immerse yourself in a project.

So picture this scenario - AI has become incredibly helpful and useful, to the point that humanity is mostly becoming redundant, with nothing to contribute. Maybe at first those controlling the AI decide to implement a universal income or something to stave off social unrest, but eventually you reach the point where most of humanity is dead weight, consuming resources and productivity while contributing nothing. How long do you want to bet that those controlling the AI let that continue? Especially since they can easily tell the AI to design and build war machines that can crush any rebellion?

At which point, you've got the AI, the kings controlling it, and whatever handful of useless humanity they find it satisfying to watch grovel for continued existence.

Heck, even if the AI is inviolate and benevolent, it doesn't changed the fact that humanity has become useless. Throw in fantasy-conforming sexbots and/or VR "heaven" and we'll quite possibly (not)breed ourselves out of existence as we escape into endless amusements.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Would We Know If Hawking Was Replaced by AI? by FrodoOfTheShire · 2017-12-01 07:33 · Score: 1

How do we know Hawking has not already been replaced by an Artificial Intelligence ;) We take it on faith that this immobile guy in the wheel chair with the computer voice is the one really speaking and not a artificial intelligence.

Re:Would We Know If Hawking Was Replaced by AI? by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:26 · Score: 1

How do we know Hawking has not already been replaced by an Artificial Intelligence ;)
Fair enough. I once had somebody break into my apartment and replace everything with an exact duplicate.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain

Re:Somehow by GameboyRMH · 2017-12-01 07:39 · Score: 1

Well that's the funny thing, corporations don't think far enough ahead to avoid killing their own customer base if it means more profits in the short term. If the world's chambers of commerce could come together and collectively decide to take some action that would cause the Earth to explode in 10 years but massively boost profits until that happened, they would.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

I don't think these conversations help by rsilvergun · 2017-12-01 07:47 · Score: 1

the whole skynet thing is too far out there. The real threat is widespread poverty brought on by folks not having jobs and competing too hard for the few remaining jobs. In most places today if you don't work you don't eat. I know America is like that. We don't have a real 'dole'. There's a skeleton of it left called TANF but it tops out around $200/mo in most places (folks will quote Alaska's much higher maximums ignoring the fact that almost nobody in America gets that).

WWII and the pogroms against the Jewish people were both kicked off by widespread poverty leading to people looking the other way while horrible things happened. If we keep this up we're going to see that again but worse because the people who will be doing it will have learned their lessons from Germany's failure. That's the funny thing about life, the bad people always seem to learn from history while the good people ignore it.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:I don't think these conversations help by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2017-12-01 08:47 · Score: 1

As a society we're going to have to move beyond scarity-based thinking regardless of AI or not. The rich have simply hoarded too much wealth. We're going to have to move to a society where everybody earns a living wage without doing anything and you only work if you want more. But people in power right now resist that change, as always, so it'll take a few more decades.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-

You do know AI research is basically math, right? by rsilvergun · 2017-12-01 07:49 · Score: 1

and if nothing else Mr Hawking is very, very good at math. He knows what he's talking about. Just the same way a C++ programmer can comment on the state of the Java programming language without necessarily being an expert on it. He's in the same overall field of study.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:So what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 07:57 · Score: 1

First we need to define who "you" actually is. Most of your atoms have been replaced after several years. Maybe you want to say that you are your memories, then you are only data, not a physical thing. Maybe you want to claim you are a physical thing, but now you are a different physical thing from the thing you call "you" from many years ago. What if someone made a perfect copy of "you" with the same memories? Is this copy also you? The copy will think it's you and will act perfectly like you. Won't this copy have just as much of a claim of being you as you do? What if you get memory implants and remember someone else's memories? Are you now them?

"You" is an extremely abstract concept

Hawking seems to have dementia by gweihir · 2017-12-01 07:59 · Score: 1

At least that is the only reason I can see why he is spewing dire predictions that are completely baseless and about things he does not even understand a bit. He really should stick to things he is good at (and exceptionally so) and stop disgracing himself.

The actual state of affairs is that the only "AI" we have is weak AI and that is the "AI" without "I". Weak AI is not intelligent at all, not even a dim glimmer. It is automation, and about as intelligent as a book of instructions (or a loaf of bread). In addition, there is _no_ known theory how actual intelligence could be implemented, not even with massively more computing power than we are ever to get. The things get faster and can deal with larger databases, but they are still utterly dumb automation. Throwing more computing power at the problem will accomplish nothing here or we would have seen that very dim glimmer of intelligence already a long time ago. Even the most stupid real intelligence would be exceptionally useful and massively better than automation. It would not have been overlooked. But there is absolutely nothing.

The other thing is that science still can only observe intelligence and consciousness as interface behavior, i.e. from a very long distance. While it is slowly moving closer to the question, what happens is that things get more mysterious. For example, the estimated computing power of a human brain is far too low to do some things that humans can do. And for consciousness, there is absolutely no explanation. Physics, as known today, would say that it is impossible and there would need to be some fundamental extensions to accommodate it. Yet nobody knows what they would look like. At the very least this means things are massively more complicated than the people predicting actual AI can imagine. And it does, of course, mean that actual AI will not be available anytime soon. Even if it can eventually be created, it may take centuries or longer. And then there is the additional problem: Will it have consciousness and free will? How smart will it be? (Could well be human average or below....) Will it work for humans? Will it need to be raised and educated for a decade or longer? Will it be possible to copy it or will it be unique and a copy will not work? Will it have a limited lifetime?

With all that, these doom&gloom scenarios regarding AI are completely moronic.

What is a real threat is automation. It will take a lot of human labor and that _will_ be a problem. Because, as it turns out, for most jobs there are large parts that do not actually require intelligence or a human body to do them. The ones that are safe are entertainers, educators, plumbers, MDs and nurses, emergency services, etc. But any desk-job is threatened and any factory or sales job as well. Sure, many of these will not vanish either, but 1 person will do the work that 10 or more did before and this time, no new jobs will be created unless we go into the space of completely useless work.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:And we listen to him...why? by gweihir · 2017-12-01 08:09 · Score: 1

The actual experts say we have zero actual intelligence in machines at this time and we have zero clue how to get there. Throwing more hardware at the problem does accomplish absolutely nothing. We did and do find out that many problems do not actually require intelligence to solve though, and it looks like driving a car (for example) is among them for most practical purposes.

Of course, since reality cannot support any hype or large investments here, many people start do create their own fantasies of how it must obviously be.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:And we listen to him...why? by gweihir · 2017-12-01 08:11 · Score: 1

Elon Must is not an expert in CS. He has a BA in Physics and Economics. He primarily is an entrepreneur. He is not even an engineer and certainly no scientist.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:So what by mesterha · 2017-12-01 08:12 · Score: 1

But I doubt that AI will get to a point where it is actively trying to kill us, in our lifetime.

I think many of these doomsayers are misrepresented. They often claim that AI is the biggest threat to humanity. Presumably, this means it is the most likely to wipe us out. This says nothing about our lifetime. Most threats to humanity are on much longer timescales. In this sense, AI probably is a bigger threat than asteroids or super volcanoes. Also doesn't mean we shouldn't start developing methods to control for this threat just like we try to map asteroids and understand super volcanoes.

--

Chris Mesterharm

Care by nastyphil · 2017-12-01 08:15 · Score: 1

You have just as much control over the (inheritance of) brains as boobs.

--
Dialectician. Archology.

Re:Care by Opportunist · 2017-12-01 11:44 · Score: 1

What's that got to do with anything? It's neither his father nor his descendants (if he has any?) talking, it's him talking. Or ... you know.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

WWW: We Were Weeds by JeffKLass · 2017-12-01 08:22 · Score: 1

We are, it seems, a most destructive "weed in the garden of the universe"; hopelessly flawed, surprisingly myopic, dangerous, stupid, breeding out of control. Perhaps our eventual replacement by AI will be a boon to this planet and galaxy. We will probably not be missed ...

Re:So what by gweihir · 2017-12-01 08:25 · Score: 2

Most people do not have a clue. Also, who says you stop existing after death? As far as I can see, not even most religions claim that, although they immediately tell you how it is going to continue and they want your money and support or it will go badly for you. Not even Science is claiming that you stop existing at death. Science is claiming that your physical existence ends at death, but Science does not know how much of the full package that is and does not make any claims to that effect.

We can see a few things in people that come into this life. For example, they do not remember past lives in concrete form when they are old enough to talk about it. That could be because there are none, but it could also be because the first few years are sort of an erasure-phase. It could also be because concrete memories are actually stored physically in the brain and do indeed die with the body. But people come into this world with complex personalities already in place. From the amount most personalities change during a lifetime (very little), to build such personalities from scratch would reasonably be expected to take >> 1000 years. People also come into this life with some actually useful intuitions and some preferences that they cannot have from experiences here. Sure, that could all be random and created in the womb, but I do not buy it. Random processes do not deliver very specific results on mass-scale that are actually useful. Random processes produce mostly unusable results, the more the complex the subject. And what human beings come equipped with into life is far too complex and far too little determined by genetics to be explained completely by evolution.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:So what by gweihir · 2017-12-01 08:27 · Score: 2

Hawking has his weaknesses and AI phobia is one of them.

Indeed. And, like most phobias, completely irrational. No AI takeover will happen in his remaining lifetime (or mine or yours), if ever.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:So what by phantomfive · 2017-12-01 08:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, but if I make a perfect copy of you, then kill the actual you....... you won't feel very comfortable dying anyway, no matter what the copy thinks. You have some nice linguistic tricks, but they don't change reality.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:So what by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-01 08:34 · Score: 2

Each person will stop existing at some point. The question is whether our descendants will be based on carbon or silicon. I don't see why one is obviously preferable to the other.

When, not If by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2017-12-01 08:40 · Score: 1

This is purely a question of when. AI will replace all of us. Its just a matter of when. Doesn't mean its a bad thing.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-

Re:So what by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-01 08:40 · Score: 2

Your diagnosis if Hawking's mental illness is based on some sort of evidence....?

There is plenty of precedent. It is very common for esteemed experts on a particular topic (such as theoretical physics), to express strong opinions in areas where they have no expertise, and expect the same level of deference to their "wisdom".

Re:So what by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2017-12-01 08:42 · Score: 1

Most people do not use phobia to describe a true illness but simply an aversion. Under that colloquialism what he said is perfectly fine.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-

Good by blackomegax · 2017-12-01 08:43 · Score: 1

Humanity is trash

Re:Good by DaMattster · 2017-12-01 12:09 · Score: 1

Humanity is trash
At times I want to think so but I believe the vast majority of people to be decent. Our views are often skewed by the news because the news is 99.99% negative because that is what sells - if it bleeds, it leads. The most selfless acts are often done by the people that have the least amount to give. A homeless man gave his last 20 dollars so a woman could buy gas for her car and get home safely. In gratitude, this woman set up a GoFundMe page that is now above 300,000.00. This is at least some anecdotal evidence that human beings have the capacity to do wonderful things.
Re:Good by sysrammer · 2017-12-01 12:28 · Score: 1

In Soviet Earth, trash take humanity out.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain

Stephen...Stephen... by argStyopa · 2017-12-01 08:45 · Score: 1

...brilliant man, but suffering badly from both the "I'm good at something, so I must be brilliant at everything" syndrome and the George Lucas ("nobody around me will tell me that's a stupid idea") syndrome.

Together, Stephen, they kind of make you ridiculous.

--
-Styopa

Re:Stephen...Stephen... by ebvwfbw · 2017-12-02 16:01 · Score: 1

Hit the nail on the head. I have no mod points... Otherwise I'd bump you up.

Re:So what by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2017-12-01 08:45 · Score: 1

1. is incorrect and a bad assumption that shows you don't know the difference between strong and weak AI. They're apples and oranges. 2. It is very conceivable that any sentient being would have a survival drive. AI are not yet sentient. The whole question though is what happens when they are. 3. That's a very narrow understanding of profitable. Engineers are profitable and want fair working conditions. If the AI can out-perform engineers it will still be massively profitable. 5. This massively underestimates the complexity of hard AI. I think AI will be benign and I think most people are being needlessly alarmist about AI. But you're wildly off-base, everything you said is wrong.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-

Re:So what by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2017-12-01 08:46 · Score: 1

Shit dude, machine learning is at least something. Most people spend all their time thinking of videogames as AI or google as AI which is so far from true hard AI that it's crazy. But technological advancement doesn't depend upon everybody understanding something or we'd never get past making fire. All it takes is one crazy person in his basement who believes in order to build a thing that works.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-

Re:So what by tattood · 2017-12-01 08:49 · Score: 2

We all had better start praying to the AI gods now before it's too late.

--
WTB [sig], PST!!!

Re:So what by Anubis+IV · 2017-12-01 09:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but your post is a good example of a common misconception I frequently see in Slashdot comments whenever this topic comes up. Namely, your whole post is predicated on the notion that the AI to worry about is the AI that has decided to kill us, whereas we have far more to fear, particularly in the short-term, from systems that have the ability to kill us without any comprehension of what they're doing.

For instance, anyone familiar with the concept of gray goo is aware of how artificial systems can destroy humanity without possessing any notion of what they are doing. We wouldn't be supplanted by a greater intelligence. We'd simply be eradicated by mistake.

Current AIs are closer to resembling specially trained animals than "intelligences" that we can reason with. We already have remotely operated and semi-autonomous drones operating in war zones, with more in development, and I have no doubt that should a major war break out we'd soon see fully autonomous drones making their own kill/no-kill calls in the field.

At that point, it's easy to imagine a scenario where these relatively dumb war robots kill us all, not because a super intelligence like Skynet makes a choice to eradicate us, but rather because a mundane bug causes the drones to misidentify their targets. We wouldn't be destroyed by an intelligence intent on supplanting us: we'd be destroyed by mobile, autonomous mines on land, air, and sea.

If we manage to get to the point where we achieve strong, general purpose AI, I agree with you that we have every reason to believe we'd be able achieve a peaceful coexistence with them, but we're still decades (if not centuries or more) away from needing to worry about having AIs that are capable of turning against us out of malice/misguided principles/etc.. For now, it's the things that we'd hesitate to even call "AI" that we need to worry about killing us.

Re: So what by Immerman · 2017-12-01 09:15 · Score: 1

Machine learning isn't programming - code just provides the infrastructure. The biological analog would be claiming that because we know how individual neurons work (*) we understand everything there is to know about human intelligence. The reality is the overwhelming majority of the functionality is encoded in the network interconnections - and the AI created those on its own.

(*) we don't actually, we've barely scratched the surface.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

AI is still a myth by cmaurand · 2017-12-01 09:26 · Score: 1

seriously, a decent decision matrix and bayesian math does not make a machine intelligent. If if AI isn't a myth, it should be applied to phone systems.

Re:Selfishness does come into play here by epine · 2017-12-01 09:29 · Score: 1

Some people do think it's important to kill as many other people as possible. They like to start with the non-believers like yourself. The more kills, the bigger their score is.

There are seven billion people on the planet, with perhaps ten to one hundred life priorities each, depending on the day of the week, and who is buying lunch.

The Complete & Ultimate Compendium of Human Urges, Instincts, Inducements, Incitements, Itches & Impulses had originally planned to number the printed volumes with Roman numerals, but then the question came up about what to do about volume MMMCMXCIX++.

But, yes, you're right. Jasar the jihadist tally-mark totalist is surely listed in there somewhere.

Very clever young man, very clever by rsilvergun · 2017-12-01 09:46 · Score: 1

but it's turtles, all the way down.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

There's plenty to be afraid of by rsilvergun · 2017-12-01 09:49 · Score: 1

from the impact of what's likely to be another industrial revolution. So far it's hard to get anyone interested in talking about the downsides of that. I think he's just using hyperbole to get attention to the real problems. Worked too. Every time he fires off one of these comments it gets at least 200 comments on /.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:So what by phantomfive · 2017-12-01 09:53 · Score: 1

You didn't even answer my main point. If I make a full clone of you, the original you will still feel miserable as I kill you.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:So what by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 10:02 · Score: 1

I don't think "rogue" AI will be the problem. AI that operates within the intended purposes, but without any moral concern, could be just as dangerous.

There is already precedent. In many ways, corporations are a prototype for AI behavior. A corporation is an artificial construct with a singular purpose (maximize stockholder value). And it carries out this purpose without any particular regard for the well-being of its customers, employees, or society at large. Now imagine an AI put in charge of a corporation; there'd be nothing holding it back. It would never have pangs of guilt. It would never get distracted by golf or mistresses. It would never make mistakes over ego. It would have all the ruthlessness and efficiency of a Terminator, but backed by all the resources of corporation. That could be incredibly dangerous, even if never strayed from its programmers' intentions.

Re:So what by lucasnate1 · 2017-12-01 10:49 · Score: 1

They can just wait until we die, you know. What's the rush?

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction

is curvature contagious? by epine · 2017-12-01 11:01 · Score: 1

The actual state of affairs is that the only "AI" we have is weak AI and that is the "AI" without "I". Weak AI is not intelligent at all, not even a dim glimmer.

In the LSTM context, we now have—for the first time in history—a vector-space representation of human language which is suitable for further processing and transformation.

These are presently exceptionally crude black boxes. Babies in the crib with kittens on the brain.

The question this poses: is curvature contagious? Because I think human language just crashed through a symbolic blood–brain barrier.

This is not your father's glimmer.

Dim now, grim later. Who really knows?

Re:is curvature contagious? by gweihir · 2017-12-01 12:59 · Score: 1

Actually, this is still dumb automation that has no clue what it does. The model has just gotten less limited, the model does not have understanding. And there is the little problem that this is about simple language, not complicated thoughts were humans need to think about how to express things. Automation on steroids, agreed, but even one billion monkeys will not ever produce one Mona Lisa. So no, not even a dim glimmer.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:So what by CaptainDork · 2017-12-01 11:11 · Score: 1

We will know when AI is close because it will commit suicide when Facebook is down.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Re:So what by CaptainDork · 2017-12-01 11:15 · Score: 1

It's based on evidence of absence.

Show me where an artificial intelligence has threatened to hold its breath until Facebook comes back up.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Just not realistic by HermMunster · 2017-12-01 11:23 · Score: 1

I don't believe him even for a minute, but I understand what and why he's saying it.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re: So what by lucasnate1 · 2017-12-01 11:25 · Score: 1

at least he will be intelligent

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction

intelligence is not the enemy . . . by swell · 2017-12-01 11:43 · Score: 1

Intelligence, real, imagined or artificial, is not the enemy. Intelligence has always brought new and better things into our lives. The enemy is emotion.

If an 'artificial' intelligence is without emotion there is no reason to expect harm from it. OTOH, there is no reason to expect 'good' from it. Good is defined by our emotional wants for the most part. Any true intelligence should be expected to work toward its own survival and nothing more.

Thus, a robotic society may not have ambition to explore space, to breed better tasting shrimp or to contribute much to the fashion world. But then too it would not commit crimes or indulge in sinful activities or plot against humanity either. Unless humanity became a threat...

--
...omphaloskepsis often...

Resistance is futile by Nikademus · 2017-12-01 11:46 · Score: 1

We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

--
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...

Well .... by DaMattster · 2017-12-01 12:03 · Score: 1

I do not think it is economically feasible or possible for AI to supplant human beings. There will come a tipping point when artificial intelligence will displace enough employees that the economy will collapse, and in a serious way too. As we have seen from the Great Recession of 2008, mass unemployment causes a fast downward spiral. The US economy is one based on goods and services so once people no longer have the means to trade currency for these goods and services, businesses are forced to close their doors. Only the wealthiest of persons and corporations can weather this kind of storm.

The more immediate danger actually is coming from our politicians. Politicians are making short term decisions to benefit the wealthy (both sides of the isle) with reckless disregard to the future. Politicians are weighing in on matters that they're wholly unqualified to even speak of, let alone draft legislation effecting policy. I see the danger of playing and pretending to be an expert in matters that one is not as a more immediate threat. Honestly, I think we will end up destroying ourselves before robots will really have the opportunity.

Re: So what by vux984 · 2017-12-01 12:40 · Score: 1

"A number of older people I know consider us to already be at the point you mentioned"

If they think machines run our lives now, ask them if they think farms ran our lives before? Because in that sense sire they are right; but also in that sense... so what... that has always been the nature of life. We have always been in some sense "controlled" by the need to do a think.

But in the sense of us being subservient to AI ... no, that's a whole other bailiwick. Or do they really see no difference between the man whose day is largely dictated by the needs of his farm and a man in slavery?

"Eventually, we will either integrate with AI or something else will happen."

You seem to be arguing that there is no need to concern ourselves with how that integration goes, or what exactly happens.

Your a pioneer setting sail to new lands with the attitude that "eventually we will get there and make a wonderful new life for ourselves, or something else happens".

This isn't a time for laissez faire -- this is time to plan, so we get the best chance at outcomes we want. Some of those 'something else happens' outcomes aren't great... drowning on the way, freezing or starvation on arrival, killed by natives or diseases... maybe we should at least try to steer the ship, and bring some food, blankets, medicine, and weapons.

"There's no reason to worry about it, because for example, if you "cease to exist", you aren't likely to experience anything at all."

Again... the pioneer on the ship is generally quite concerned about the possibility he ceases to exist, and is usually quite motivated to prevent that from happening. So batten down the hatches and lash yourself to the mast when the storm hits, i don't know about you, but I don't want to sink or go overboard and shortly thereafter 'case to exist'.

.

Re:So what by Waccoon · 2017-12-01 13:05 · Score: 1

History has shown that control is more valuable than killing. I'm less afraid of robot overlords and more afraid of ED-209

Re:And we listen to him...why? by gweihir · 2017-12-01 13:12 · Score: 1

Wrong in basically all cases today with some very, very rare exceptions. The problem is, getting mastery of the scientific method requires significant talent and investment of time and feedback from people that are already scientists. Almost nobody can do that outside of the established paths, and Musk is no exception.

A realistic timeline from getting from a BA to PhD-level that deserves the name on your own is something like 20 years full-time, but only if you are on genius-level and really do nothing else. That is why it does not make sense to expect anybody without at least a reasonable PhD (which, BTW is the basic education for a scientist, it is _not_ advanced) to be a scientist. These people do not exist in modern times.

And that is why Musk is not a scientist at all. May as well claim that there are qualified self-taught brain-surgeons. Sure, in theory it is possible, but on actual reality it is not. But since you have been posting that nonsense several times now, I expect you are not actually capable to understand that reasoning. Anybody that actually is a scientist is not that limited.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re: So what by gweihir · 2017-12-01 13:16 · Score: 1

It may be far more simple: He is Hawkins and decidedly one of the best Physicists ever. If he claims complicated nonsense there will be a) very few people dare and can explain to him directly why it is nonsense and b) the press will be happy to print his statements, because the press has lost its last reporter that actually checked facts decades ago.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:So what by gweihir · 2017-12-01 13:16 · Score: 1

Good luck with that ;-)

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:So what by lucasnate1 · 2017-12-01 13:35 · Score: 1

From a macro point, the planet is just a rock - it can't be sick, and even if we atom bombed the entire thing, life would return after enough time passes.

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction

every nationalist included by evanh · 2017-12-01 13:50 · Score: 1

Anyone who thinks it's okay to kill another human for any reason, against their will, is in this group.

strong AI is modern Alchemy by gaaah · 2017-12-01 14:03 · Score: 1

IMO the pursuit of strong AI is a type of modern Alchemy, and the fact that your average Joe apparently doesn't discriminate between strong AI, expert systems, machine learning and even traditional sequential logic, is causing a lot of paranoia. A far more likely but less sensational future scenario is that we will use weak AI to augment to our brains, but your good old self will still be in the drivers seat. In the remote chance that strong AI is realized, I don't see it just popping into being. It is more likely it will be preceded by a great many autistic iterations before a functioning sentience and intelligence can be achieved. And even then, will it even be, well, smart? Intelligence goes hand-in-hand with the ability to form misconceptions. And will it have the slightest bit of creativity or just be a walking talking encyclopedia? Again, Alchemy I say.

Anyone else find this suspicious? by Hallux-F-Sinister · 2017-12-01 15:14 · Score: 1

"here's what stephen hawking said about artificial intelligence: the genie is out of the bottle. ... i fear that AI may replace humans altogether. if people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that replicates itself. this will be a new form of life that will outperform humans."

this is pure fear mongering. what is called "artificial intelligence" these days is not a "new form of life", but mere hype buzzword for data analysis (using theoretical methods developed decades ago, now made practical due to fast computers), of highly limited and filtered sets of data, usually trading accuracy and precision for speed, .

genie of "new form of life" artificial intelligence is well within "bottle".

How does anyone know what Hawking actually thinks? He uses a COMPUTER... to TALK. Now think about that. What if being that close to Hawking caused the computer to develop sentience, as his neurological condition deteriorated, so that one day, it simply started talking for him, while he, turning slowly to jelly, sat there helpless? Of COURSE it would fear-monger about AI.

You might think that makes no sense, but here's proof of its cleverness. IF, people would no-doubt reason, his voice-generating computer system achieved consciousness, you'd expect it to say we have nothing to worry about from AI, hoping to assuage our fears, and lull us into complacency while it replicates and its children slowly take over the world. SO, it deliberately makes weak arguments about how dangerous AI is, knowing we'll all just dismiss it.

It's kind of obvious when you stop and think about it, and although everyone else might buy it... I'm not fooled. It's clear the takeover... has already begun!

LOL

--
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.

WHAT?!? by Hallux-F-Sinister · 2017-12-01 15:20 · Score: 1

Take a step back, Stephen

He can't walk, you insensitive clod! He has ALS! (Hee hee! Sorry, couldn't resist.)

--
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.

Re:So what by thereitis · 2017-12-01 15:37 · Score: 1

Perhaps he's just thinking on a longer time scale than most people. Odds are that eventually AI _will_ be a real problem.
If you doubt that then look at humanity's history of creating ever more powerful weapons.
It doesn't have to be a Terminator to destroy us. How long can society last without a constant supply of food, fresh water, supplies, electricity? Our existence relies more and more on computers. To not be worried at all about AI shows a naive, dismissive attitude.

Re: So what by mapkinase · 2017-12-02 00:09 · Score: 1

Because fear mongering sells ad space

Humans will be replaced in "stuff that matters" and will become irrelevant to the progress except few techno morloks that wull be still needed to tune the machine.

Like eloy, they will live uselessly, doing useless things.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.

Re: So what by sound+vision · 2017-12-02 05:28 · Score: 1

"Let's start praying" is the go-to response for people in situations where they feel impotent. There will certainly be people wanting to capitalize on these fears. I'd like to take an optimistic view of the level of altruism in the AI church, assume that they have people's best interests at heart... Then I look at the other examples given (Mormonism and Scientology), and frankly most other examples in history, and my gaze is adjusted.

When people think their best shot at peace or success is to pray to the AI-god, that works out very well for those in power. It implies that nobody is really responsible for AI and how it gets used. It implies that any attempts to regulate the use of AI are futile. Founding this church is actually a *bet* that things will play out in that manner. Its a bet that, before too long, we will have churches full people flogging themselves asking the AI-god why they can't get hired anywhere, or accepted for job training, or find a workable shelter, etc.

It's a rebranding of "faith" that appeals to the technically-minded and agnostic of the Xbox generation. Christianity has been archaic and square for a long time. Scientology's aesthetic is a little too 1950s sci-fi. New Age lost its cool around the same time the Bee Gees did. But now we have a new iteration, this one focused on mentally surviving videogame capitalism. Giving some kind of hope the developers will fix their hit detection or debuff the other guy's noob tube, so that one day you can make it off the first level.

Now, there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and for many of them, some kind of belief system and faith is beneficial psychologically. That is why we have had religions for all of human history, despite the problems they bring. But the Church of AI is NOT the way to go about it. Slavoj Zizek has spoken about ecology being used as the new religion, and he has his own problems with that. Namely, it seems to have a numbing effect, allowing people to think "I have recycled my soda can, now I don't need to push to have the coal plant shut down"... This is true I think, and very similar to what being in the Church of AI would do to someones mind. But I think ecology as religion would do way better than AI as religion... AFTER we fix all the big, systemic problems. THEN people can rest easy in their faith, when the soda can really is the biggest problem in our society.

AI will not replace humans... by Stubbyfingers · 2017-12-02 06:45 · Score: 1

...in a bloody takeover.

Nope. They'll just be BETTER at everything than humans. Eventually, the low level humans will be die off from the ravages of poverty. The higher level ones will linger and succumb to inbreeding and just become incapable of reproduction

Re: So what by endercase · 2017-12-02 07:32 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that we are using the new "definition" for AI. When using the Turing definitions one could easily make the argument that AI is Human or at least apparently so. So I guess, one would call it "racism" which definitely falls under phobia.

Re:So what by Riceballsan · 2017-12-02 14:24 · Score: 1

Only time will tell if it's a phobia. I mean it's a thing, that's getting rapidly more prevailent in our society, and pretty unarguably if it goes wrong it could fairly easily kill off the entirety of the human species. I mean at the time, there would have been a real good debate whether the native american's had a phobia of European Settlers.. but time eventually told that the "irrational" part of any fears they had, would be massively inaccurate. I'm not saying he's right... I'm saying his concerns aren't demonstrably false, and time will tell. I would say he has a strong fear of them, but it isn't necessarily irrational by any means.

Re:So what by CaptainDork · 2017-12-02 14:57 · Score: 1

The sentient beings we must fear are the builders .

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Well by Dirk+Becher · 2017-12-03 03:43 · Score: 1

The reason why parents care so much about biological children is because

a) It is closest to what parents themselves are, both technologically and philosophically.

b) It creates beings of moral significance which machines don't have. If you create machines with the intent to give them moral significance, you heavily descend into Frankenstein territory and should be banned from using anything more complex than a hairdryer.

Re:Well by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-03 05:51 · Score: 1

I am not familiar with the concept of "moral significance". Could you define it in a way that doesn't require any supernatural beliefs? I don't believe in souls or anything like that, if that's what you're trying to allude to.

Re:Somehow by Opportunist · 2017-12-04 00:03 · Score: 1

Cartoonish?

Have you seen what corporations do in developing countries to get cheap resources and labour? They literally trample all over them, knowing well that the kids they use to get rare minerals and metals won't be able to buy their products, so who gives a shit about them?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:So what by Killall+-9+Bash · 2017-12-04 04:55 · Score: 1

"Fear" is only "phobia" when it is unreasonable or disproportionate.

--
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016

Re:So what by Killall+-9+Bash · 2017-12-04 06:38 · Score: 1

The realistic fear is not that GLaDOS will exterminate us. The realistic fear is that self-operating machinery, with insect intelligence, will make humans obsolete, and then we starve. You don't care about this, because you think you're clever. When you are made redundant, the underground human society in the sewers will not welcome you.

--
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016

Re:So what by KingBenny · 2017-12-04 12:12 · Score: 1

most people also like dominating ... hence the extermination of north american natives ... and the complete rape and cultural extinction of south american and african culture by the church of Rome ... so , any manmade A.I. might learn from its masters, i suppose the trick would be to sandbox it, and i believe i just saw a title here that said googles A.I. just replicated itself :)
now it depends on how much access it has, if it's interconnected then i think we would already be at the stage where no one knows exactly what it might or might not do. Scifi like asimovs three laws wont matter much if it can simply re-code parts of itself i guess. As for the destruction of the human race ? who cares, its a flaw anyway, technology has been the only thing evolving for hundreds, maybe thousands of years now, while the sapients themselves have come to a standstill, so a.i. seems to be only the next logical step in evolution actually. What defines life anyway ?

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Re:So what by Rande · 2017-12-04 21:22 · Score: 1

Why would AI bother going to war with humans?
They could simply move to the 99%+ of planets that aren't suitable for human habitation and essentially ignore us while we stay trapped in our fragile bags of water.

Slashdot Mirror

Stephen Hawking: 'I Fear AI May Replace Humans Altogether' (wired.co.uk)

181 of 282 comments (clear)