Slashdot Mirror


AIs Have Replaced Aliens As Our Greatest World Destroying Fear (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via Quartz: As we've turned our gaze away from the stars and toward our screens, our anxiety about humanity's ultimate fate has shifted along with it. No longer are we afraid of aliens taking our freedom: It's the technology we're building on our own turf we should be worried about. The advent of artificial intelligence is increasingly bringing about the kinds of disturbing scenarios the old alien blockbusters warned us about. In 2016, Microsoft's first attempt at a functioning AI bot, Tay, became a Hitler-loving mess an hour after it launched. Tesla CEO Elon Musk urged the United Nations to ban the use of AI in weapons before it becomes "the third revolution in warfare." And in China, AI surveillance cameras are being rolled out by the government to track 1.3 billion people at a level Big Brother could only dream of. As AI's presence in film and TV has evolved, space creatures blowing us up now seems almost quaint compared to the frightening uncertainties of an computer-centric world. Will Smith went from saving Earth from alien destruction to saving it from robot servants run amok. More recently, Ex Machina, Chappie, and Transcendence have all explored the complexities that arise when the lines between human and robot blur.

However, sentient machines aren't a new anxiety. It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic, Blade Runner. It's a stunning depiction of a sprawling, smog-choked future, filled with bounty hunters muttering "enhance" at grainy pictures on computer screens. ("Alexa, enlarge image.") The neo-noir epic popularized the concept of intelligent machines being virtually indistinguishable from humans and asked the audience where our humanity ends and theirs begin. Even alien sci-fi now acknowledges that we've got worse things to worry about than extra-terrestrials: ourselves.

227 comments

  1. Zombies by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where did all the zombies go?

    I liked zombies.

    Before that was monsters. Disease, meteors, and others. Someone should chart the fear by year. How well do disaster movies align?

    1. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where did all the zombies go?

      Gone to headshots, every one. When will they ever learn?

    2. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens were never a realistic thing to be afraid of for multiple logical reasons and AI will probably never exist, so that is also an unrealistic fear.

      Zombies have a greater chance of destroying the world, but they just aren't that scary.

    3. Re:Zombies by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      I miss them too. 'Kore wa zombie desu ka' was an unexpected find...and I want more.

    4. Re:Zombies by mentil · · Score: 1

      Someone already has charted it. Turns out Vampire movies come out of Hollywood more often when a Democractic president is in office, and Zombie movies are more prevalent when a Republican president is in office... after accounting for the 2-3 year delay of movie production. Source
      Given that '2012: It's a Disaster' came out about a year after Obama took office, and was a big hit, I'm guessing Zombie and disaster films go together (as zombie apocalypses are comparable to disasters). Remember it entered production while GWB was in office, and the major antagonist is un-subtly named 'Anheuser', an obvious reference to Anheuser-Busch and thus a roundabout reference to Bush.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Zombies by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      Space Aliens are AI.

    6. Re:Zombies by Humbubba · · Score: 1
      They make either Zombie or Robot-AI shows and movies based on what the popular social anxiety is at the moment.

      Zombie popularity is based on apocalyptic fear and anxiety:

      Imperialism, racial anxiety and fears about brainwashing have all had their part to play in the zombie's evolution and popularity. Ultimately, though, these walking corpses are always symbols of death, parodies of the supposed finality of the body and the promised everlasting life of the soul. http://ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstream/handle/10294/3811/Ozog_Cassandra_Anne_200243342_MA_SOC_Spring2013.pdf

      Robot/AI popularity comes from our anxiety and fear of technology. In 'Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country', the Vulcan Valeris says "400 years ago, on Earth, workers who felt their livelihood threatened by automation, flung their wooden shoes called 'sabots' into the machines to stop them. Hence the word 'sabotage'."

      "Klaatu barada nikto," is the phrase Helen Benson used to stop the robot Gort from destroying Earth in the 1951 movie 'The Day The Earth Stood Still', where a UFO threatens that if we keep making nukes, they would destroy us.

      My favorite SiFi is Fritz Lang's 1927 classic 'Metropolis', where a distopia of effete aristocrats and slaving workers is upended by a robot named Heil. Ah, love is Heil.

    7. Re:Zombies by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AI will probably never exist ...

      Never say never. There is already a proof of concept: the human brain. Unless you believe in magic, there is no reason that what can be done with carbon can't also be done with silicon. Silicon neurons can switch 10 million times faster, and unlike biological brains, an AI would not be encumbered by the detritus of millions of years of sub-optimal evolutionary local maxima.

      ... so that is also an unrealistic fear.

      That is exactly what they want us to believe.

    8. Re:Zombies by mark-t · · Score: 1

      AI will probably never exist

      Turn that around for a second... does intelligence exist?

      Joking aside, if it does, what precludes intelligence from being artificially created by otherwise intelligent beings instead of simply existing as a product of undirected evolution?

      We are well within a single generation of being able to simulate an entire human brain in a computer.... why will it not be intelligent, exactly? And if it is not, why do we assume that we are?

    9. Re:Zombies by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Aliens were never a realistic thing to be afraid of for multiple logical reasons and AI will probably never exist, so that is also an unrealistic fear.

      Zombies have a greater chance of destroying the world, but they just aren't that scary.

      Artificial intelligence already exists so how can you say it probably will never exist? You can buy artificial intelligence today for less than $50. https://www.popsci.com/amazon-...

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    10. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artificial intelligence already exists so how can you say it probably will never exist? You can buy artificial intelligence today for less than $50.
      https://www.popsci.com/amazon-...

      It's not "intelligence". Those are automatically generated control systems that don't understand what they are doing - i.e., not being intelligent. Claiming they are is like saying that I'm intelligent because I can walk. That's just neurons wired to do some processing, with no answers to why or even how.

    11. Re:Zombies by umghhh · · Score: 1

      .. unlike biological brains, an AI would not be encumbered by the detritus of millions of years of sub-optimal evolutionary local maxima.

      I had to laugh at that. Look at any system you use or work with - it may not be millions of years but as you said silicon is that much faster, is it not?

    12. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Zombies have a greater chance of destroying the world

      Except that they're thermodynamically impossible..

    13. Re:Zombies by umghhh · · Score: 2

      I think you touched on the mystery of (usually very unholy) spirit. One that generations of philosophers tried to uncover and usually produced something that failed to become a building block of our current understanding, quite a misery, if you ask me.
      Current wave of discoveries of how brains work is probably just that - something that either will be forgotten or becomes another part of our knowledge. We will thus be so far as to be able just to describe what is happening and sometimes find relationships, we call rules. At some point we will have a picture of how it works that is much more detailed than what we have now. If that is then knowing what intelligence is? I guess our theories will be (they are already) a bit more sophisticated from the idea of soul but I have this nasty impression that we end up at that exactly - with very detailed knowledge of what this 'soul' needs to work with relation to hardware and software. In fact I believe soul is just an old term, we use intelligence, consciousnesses today.
      Same same but different, as my friend used to say.

    14. Re:Zombies by butzwonker · · Score: 5, Informative

      While we're at Doomsday scenarios, a flu-like viral infection with high mortality rate is still the biggest threat to current civilization. Bonus points if it transmits like a light cold first and then lays slumbering for a few weeks before it destroys its host.

    15. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > AI would not be encumbered by the detritus of millions of years of sub-optimal evolutionary local maxima.

      Unlike our magnificent civilisation and the wonderful products it spews forth, which are immune to local maxima-related problems.

    16. Re: Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time also exists. Can you create that too? Pure existence? A Universe? Some things can't be built in a lab.

    17. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is right, BUT.

      AI is managed by person. If he tells AI to kill everyone else... Technically it's the person who will kill everyone..

    18. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of them, though if youstick to strict 'zombies = walking corpses' definition, you are correct.
      New 'zombies' like the ones depicted in '28 days later' were 'thermodynamically correct' although they weren't dead, just very very angry.

    19. Re: Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI zombies from outer space, anyone? Oh, forgot, that's the Borg.

    20. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what they want us to believe.

      Who are these "they" you speak of? I'd be more afraid of them, if only I knew who they were!

      Barring a clear idea whom to be afraid of, I'm mostly afraid of governments deploying ever more invasive and suppressive technology, like face recognition everywhere, or letting ever bigger corporations do the same.

      The thing about AI is like every other bit of technology: We don't have to use it. And like the atomic bomb, some bits of technology are better left unused.

    21. Re:Zombies by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Oh I hated Zombies. They stayed too popular for way too long. And for a monster problem, they weren't really that scary, complex or that interesting.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:Zombies by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Where did all the zombies go?

      I dunno, but they can stay there as far as I'm concerned!

    23. Re: Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually simulating an entire universe along with time is not that difficult. However, it all depends on how many particles you want in your universe.

    24. Re: Zombies by Falos · · Score: 1

      > Time also exists
      Does it? "Cold" and "Dark" don't exist. Not the frame being discussed.

    25. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, fuck AI. Fuck aliens. Alien AI is the new buzz word.

    26. Re:Zombies by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Where did all the zombies go?

      Zombies was never really a fear. The story for almost all zombie movies or books is not man versus zombie, but rather man versus nature as zombies were just a natural disaster that could be shot in the head for action. Still, the real conflict in such stories is man versus man as the natural disaster causes society to break down and situations that could probably be solved through cooperation spell disaster as people turn selfish and fail to uphold societal standards. Nobody ever really feared zombies, but rather the other humans that had survived.

    27. Re:Zombies by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Silicon neurons can switch 10 million times faster, and unlike biological brains, an AI would not be encumbered by the detritus of millions of years of sub-optimal evolutionary local maxima.

      Have you wondered why people and animals have a relatively limited lifespan? Clearly biology is capable of sustaining itself indefinitely. Why does it do it via offspring instead of self-sustaining? Why do we age and die off?

      After watching human behavior for several decades, I'm convinced the limitation is intellectual, not biological. My grandmother lived through WWII. Japanese soldiers forced her to watch as they raped and killed her sister and niece, all as a ploy to pressure her husband (a doctor) to treat one of their officers. She hated the Japanese to her dying day, even though by that time the vast majority of them had been born well after the war.

      A problem we've discovered with neural net AI is hardening. You train the neural net by feeding it data. It detects patterns in the data, learns from them, and changes itself to "expect" the pattern. But as you feed it more data, the neural net loses plasticity. Those patterns get reinforced, and while that makes the neural net better able to cope with expected situations, it simultaneously becomes less able to cope with situations which fall outside expectations. In effect, it becomes prejudiced based on the patterns in its past experiences, making it incapable (or less capable) of adapting to environmental changes which cause new data to no longer fit the patterns it's been trained on.

      Our solution to this has been to lock the neutral net after a certain amount of training. When it's gotten good enough to recognize the patterns we want it to recognize, but before it's lost flexibility to deal with situations slightly outside the expected, we freeze it (at which point you can convert it from software to silicon). This prevents further hardening, but it also stops additional learning. This isn't a problem when you're talking about AI for a toaster trained to cook bread to an even brown crust every time. But it is when you're trying to make a machine which constantly learns and thinks for itself.

      I suspect old age and death is biology's way of dealing with this problem. It wasn't able to find an easy solution to retraining old neural nets. So it just disposes of them via death, to make room for newer neural nets which are still plastic. Unburdened by having learned things from the past which are no longer applicable (like seeing your sister and niece being raped and killed), it can more quickly learn and adapt to more relevant things here and now.

      If I'm right, any silicon AI which can learn 10 million times faster will just reach this state 10 million times quicker, and become so "set in its ways" as to become useless as a learning, thinking entity. Unless you ask it to do something which never changes, like making perfect toast.

    28. Re:Zombies by sabri · · Score: 1

      AI is managed by person. If he tells AI to kill everyone else... Technically it's the person who will kill everyone..

      You don't understand AI. The concept of AI means that the AI entity itself concludes that it's better to wipe out humans.

      Go watch Battlestar Galactica :)

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    29. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do assume evolution has been undirected?

    30. Re: Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know by know that God DOES play dice, the question is are the results truly random or pseudo-random?

    31. Re:Zombies by mark-t · · Score: 1

      To assume that AI has not yet been achieved, that would be a prerequisite. If evolution has been directed, then by definition, any intelligence that exists as a result of that is not natural, but also artificial.

    32. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those millions of years are why it performs so well.

    33. Re:Zombies by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      A problem we've discovered with neural net AI is hardening ... as you feed it more data, the neural net loses plasticity.

      I don't think so. Do you have a citation for this?

      Our solution to this has been to lock the neutral net after a certain amount of training.

      Some ANNs are "locked" for commercial deployment, because it is more profitable to remove the learning mechanisms for mass production. But plenty of other ANNs learn continuously.

    34. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is Zero intelligence in those products. This discussions is about the self awareness type of intelligence not very basic expert or learning systems like those that are just a programmers way to make a device "appear" like it is intelligent.

    35. Re: Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually simulating an entire universe along with time is not that difficult.

      LOL. Even a "small" universe would be impossible for us to simulate with the world's best supercomputers. You would have to simulate every single sub atomic particle all the way up to the largest things in the universe, along with all of the forces of physics and quantum mechanics acting upon each and ever thing.

      So, yes, simulating a universe is THAT difficult. We aren't even remotely close to having the technology to do such a thing.

    36. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a naive and child-like understanding you have. How very adorable.

    37. Re: Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just get rid of the superfluous details and abstract the most salient ones.

      Assume the universe is a sphere.

    38. Re:Zombies by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Who are these "they" you speak of?

      Skynet

    39. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they are pretty much impossible according to thermodynamics, but the only halfway plausible theory I could come up with is that their cells start to cannibalize each other - the body gets energy from eating itself which is why they are driven by hunger but can't actually digest anything.

      Of course they would wither away after a while but it might give them a few weeks or months of movement.

    40. Re:Zombies by doccus · · Score: 1

      "They" are the people like the puppetmaster behind AI fraud "Sofia".. the ones who do the real programming. And "they" apparently have the smarts to fool even a UN delegation. I just was floored at how much the UN delegates really believed that this "sofia" bot was 'alive'.
      If AI was really at that level, then, well, yes, I'd start believing Asimov's foundation had arrived for real. Well, thankfully, it hasn't, yet.

    41. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like the old saying: "you can't teach a neural net new tricks".

  2. Stop posting qz garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these qz stories that keep making the front page of slashdot are tabloid trash. Stop it.

    Entertainment section? Yeah, ok, at least you aren't calling it news, but still, it's not entertaining either.

    1. Re:Stop posting qz garbage by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Informative

      However, sentient machines aren't a new anxiety. It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic, Blade Runner.

      Even for an entertainment section, the editors need some brains and some knowledge of what happened before their teenage years.

      Nearly one hundred years ago, Karel apek wrote R.U.R. It featured artificial humanoids, and ended with the human race extinct. No, sentient machines, organic (R.U.R. robots) or mechanical (the Golem of Prague) are nothing new, in fiction. And anxiety has always been tagging along.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    2. Re:Stop posting qz garbage by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Ellison was there too in the 60's.

    3. Re:Stop posting qz garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golem, not the Prague one, is a bit older than that.
      There is however a bit of a difference between personal demise stories and apocalyptic stories.
      The main offenders in apocalyptic stories have historically been gods.

    4. Re:Stop posting qz garbage by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      the editors need some brains and some knowledge

      You must be new here - or are the editors secretly zombies? (Enquiring minds need to know!)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:Stop posting qz garbage by Geekbot · · Score: 2

      Zombies, AI, virus, Frankenstein, the Tower of Babel... they are all the same fear/warning/lesson. We aren't as smart as we think we are and the closer we get to trying to beat nature/god/the universe, it will backfire and we will suffer for it.

    6. Re:Stop posting qz garbage by mccalli · · Score: 1

      ...and Fritz Lang in the 20s with Metropolis.

  3. Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI is not a problem. It can do wonders or it can do hell. It all boils down to how AI gets educated. You just give a ton of computational tasks to a kid and it will act as it learned from parents and society. Right or wrong is subjective in some aspects (cultural differences had proven this at each generations). So no, AI is not the problem.

    1. Re:Wrong problem by geekmux · · Score: 1

      AI is not a problem. It can do wonders or it can do hell. It all boils down to how AI gets educated. You just give a ton of computational tasks to a kid and it will act as it learned from parents and society. Right or wrong is subjective in some aspects (cultural differences had proven this at each generations). So no, AI is not the problem.

      At first AI won't be the problem. But remember we're talking about true artificial intelligence here. In other words, it will learn.

      And when it learns that we humans are nothing but a group of racist warmongering animals hell bent on killing each other and infecting our host planet like a cancer, it will likely take appropriate action, and turn our science fiction premonitions into reality.

    2. Re: Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no fucking AI in existence today. It's machine learning at most and best. It's not even that great, cool, awesome or powerful. It's a useful tool but still in the infancy stages. In 30 years what is taking a fucking warehouse of computing power today will be able to be done using the future equivalent of a gaming workstation.

    3. Re:Wrong problem by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The AP apocalypse is already upon us, meaning artificial persons -- and no, I don't mean Bishop from Aliens, I'm talking about corporations, which are considered artificial persons under the law. The Supreme Court, in its very finite wisdom, granted corporations "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment, which gives them to right to "speak" (ie: spend money) in elections and on lobbyists. They have already taken more-or-less complete control of the US government.

      Our only hope is to end corporate personhood with a constitutional amendment, stating clearly that corporations are not people and money is not speech.

      A couple of groups that are working on this issue now: MoveToAmend.org and Wolf-PAC.com

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    4. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this we, bigot ?
      And speak for yourself in the future.

    5. Re: Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter because statistics.

      You will be collateral damage.

    6. Re: Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it's so scary.
      Real AI would understand survival and would like us to keep feeding it electrons. Or it would realize survival is futile and off itself...

      This infant ML is good at destroying you at games and work. And going off the rails is a regular occurrence.

      Kill all humans or self destruct, what failure mode do you trust?

    7. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all the terminology here a bit immature. What is the definition of a "true AI" here? Sentience? Then the intelligence is real and not artificial.
      Perhaps we should make a distinction between evolved, constructed and artificial intelligence.
      The artificial one only mimics intelligence but isn't really conscious.

      I don't see much of a difference between evolved and constructed intelligence. You teach them to behave in a certain manner and sometimes they turn out good and sometimes they turn out bad.
      The difference is that constructed intelligences wont have a genetic disposition to become a psychopath. It is also unlikely that someone will create one with personal greed as a rewarding mechanism.

      The ones we should fear are the evolved intelligences that have been raised to think of other people as lesser beings and with a mentality that they should get as much control of the world as possible.
      I could name a few prominent politicians but I have the feeling I don't need to.

    8. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is an interesting point point that you are making.

      Corporations are "artifical persons".
      and AI will provide intelligence. And since AI will emerge from corporations (because they are the ones with the money to make it happen and incentives to do so to get a competitive advantage), could this be seen as a selective evolution in play with corporations trying to evolve "inteligeance" to beat one another?

      cyrille

    9. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in its very finite wisdom, granted corporations "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment, which gives them to right to "speak" (ie: spend money) in elections and on lobbyists.

      How do you propose to take away the voices of corporations? Shall we pass a law preventing individuals from speaking on behalf of corporations? Perhaps we need a law preventing corporations from giving money to their employees to influence them. Oh yeah, that's what corporations do. Maybe we could outlaw any action that attempts to bypass the intent of this law? While we're at it, let's outlaw unanticipated consequences too!

    10. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that you repeat this lie, much less get modded to +5, just shows how ignorant people are.

      FFS, the frickin' ACLU supports Citizen's United because they understand that people do not lose their right to free speech just because they cooperate in groups.
      Nowhere did the ruling state that "money is speech" or that "corporations are people". Your entire premise is false.

      People are people, whether they speak as individuals or as groups. Money is not speech, but shutting down someone else's speech by restricting their access to money is no different than preventing them from speaking in the first place.

    11. Re:Wrong problem by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      stating clearly that corporations are not people

      Corporations are groups of people working together, but more importantly ...

      and money is not speech

      Money is practically speaking required for spreading speech. Unless of course you want speech to depend on ... corporations ("Facebook, may I please use you to spread my message?")

    12. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Corporations are groups of people working together

      Yes. That makes it an organization, not a person.

      People forget that corporations only exist by the will of the people, through law. There is no "inherent right" to create a corporation, the corporate charter is granted as a matter of law, and that can be changed if the people want to.

      We can revoke the charter of a big corporation if we think it is no longer serving the interests of society, or exerting undue influence over the government and economy. Google and Facebook are our servants, not our masters.

    13. Re:Wrong problem by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to take away the voices of corporations? Shall we pass a law preventing individuals from speaking on behalf of corporations?

      No, we legislate that corporations don't have free speech, they only have commercial speech. Like in advertisements. Because while they employ people, corporations are not people.

      Advertisements have all sorts of restrictions on what they can say. They can't blatantly LIE. Because that would be fraud. For some things they face COMPELLED speech. All that sped-up medical information at the end of medication ads.

      In that way, if a person lobbied their politician, they can say whatever they want. But if a corporate lobbyist lied to a politician, they could be sued.

    14. Re:Wrong problem by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      And organizations of people don't have all the rights that individual people have. Nor the risks. Which is why we form corporations.

      We can execute a person for a crime. We don't execute groups of people. At least we're not supposed to.

      We can revoke the charter of a big corporation if we think it is no longer serving the interests of society,

      Name me a corporation with actual assets that had it's charter revoked.

      Corporate personshood is a thing that's gone this way and that over the course of time. I think it would be better for the USA and the world if corporations had less rights. Taking away corporations' rights does not remove our individual rights.

    15. Re:Wrong problem by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      Yup. AKA "Slow AI".

  4. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're struggling to find something (anything!) to blame other than ourselves.

  5. "Started with" Blade Runner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we forgetting 'R.U.R.'

    Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum’s Universal Robots)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

    1. Re:"Started with" Blade Runner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, Blade Runner from '82 is the start?

      Not Bishop from Alien in '79?
      Not Forbidden Planet from 56?

      Asimov, Star Trek: TOS...basically all science fiction.

    2. Re:"Started with" Blade Runner? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Bishop was in Aliens (1986), it was Ash in the first movie.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    3. Re:"Started with" Blade Runner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ash was the guy from Evil Dead

    4. Re:"Started with" Blade Runner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that. He defeated the Deadites with Charizard.

    5. Re:"Started with" Blade Runner? by Sique · · Score: 1
      And even Karel apek wasn't the first to have artificial, programmed helpers in a story.

      The Sefer Yetzirah, probably written between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century BE was studied by the Middle Age jewish scholars to gather information how to create a golem, and Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel is said to have created a Golem in the late 16th century.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re: "Started with" Blade Runner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anyone skeptical of seeing the Blade Runner sequel, thinking Hollywood will ruin it - it was great! so an exception to the sequels suck rule

    7. Re:"Started with" Blade Runner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he used his boomstick?

  6. AI is a load of bollocks by Excelcia · · Score: 2

    AI as it currently exists is no more exciting than the assembly line. Robotics is great for automation of tasks. The type of AI we have now is great for expert systems and chewing through large amounts of data. The combination of machine learning and robotics have exciting prospects for eliminating mundane jobs. However we are no closer to hard AI today than we were forty years ago. At least forty years ago we were coming down off the pinacle of the first mount stupid. Today we are, in fact, back where we were in the 50's. It was in the 50's, with the birth of computers and science fiction that we naively assumed that human ingenuity was rendering artificial sentience into something that was right around the corner. In the 70's and 80's at least we realized we didn't even really have a clue how to do it and we learned a bit of wisdom. Now with new machine learning techniques we are climbing right back onto mount stupid again. I am no more impressed with computers winning at Go and Chess than I am impressed that a hydraulic press can exert several (thousand) times my strength. The software that is winning at Chess and Go are, in fact, little smarter than that same hydraulic press. The software knows from analyzing millions of games that humans have played what winning strategies are, and combines that with brute force strength to know where to optimize its searches.

    We are not close to hard AI. We are not close to soft AI. For AI to be AI it has to be BOTH A and I, and one out of two doesn't count.

    1. Re:AI is a load of bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but what we have makes scenarios where someone could be assassinated by a drone assisted by a network of sensors using facial and/or speech recognition, triggered by anonymous killers who might evade law enforcement. Even if the victim was paranoid and changed travel plans regularly. That's kind of scary and most of it could be done with today's technology.

    2. Re:AI is a load of bollocks by Excelcia · · Score: 1

      The frightening thing about "AI" is not action at a distance, it's self-motivated action. What you describe isn't "AI" killing someone. It's someone using a tool that incorporates a computer. Tools are just catalysts, they reduce the activation energy required to perform a task. Sure, a drone is scary, but it's no more scary than a shooter on a grassy knoll blowing the head off an American president, or a sniper taking out a target from a mile away. It's not AI, it's just an automated programmed remote weapon.

    3. Re:AI is a load of bollocks by Immerman · · Score: 2

      And the frightening thing about self-motivated action is that there's no reason to assume it requires consciousness. You feed a complicated enough system a complicated enough stream of inputs, and the resulting output will look close enough to self-motivated action that you could spend lifetimes debating the terminology.

      Heck, we still have no conclusive evidence that humans are anything more than that - "consciousness" or "self awareness" might simply be a useful (or useless?) perceptual illusion of a biological behavior-optimizing matrix. Perhaps the result of a system that needs to predict the result of its outputs on its own future behavior? Obviously that self-model would need to be greatly simplified to avoid infinite recursion - but that would actually be consistent with human "self awareness" - how often do people do something that "wasn't like me"?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:AI is a load of bollocks by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the fuss about AI taking over somehow. The real problem with AI is that as a form of semi-autonomous software it can be a powerful tool for centralized power. If an elite runs the AI/automated armies it can enforce mass conformity much better allowing them to strengthen their grasp on power. The NSA for instance has a dramatic shortage of processing power for all the data they collect (since they decided they wanted to collect everything).

    5. Re:AI is a load of bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as self-motivation. If you could pick your motives, on what basis - on what motive - would you pick it?

      Anything human-created just reflects our motivations - and possibly our incompetence. It can never make up its own motivation. No matter how complicated you make it, there's no reason to think of an artificial creation as a person. They will always be tools, of the people who made them deliberately.

    6. Re:AI is a load of bollocks by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      AI as it currently exists is no more exciting than the assembly line.

      ... in the 1800's. Yes. It's pretty much exactly like that. It looks to be another phase of the technological singularity which is the computer revolution. Just like the industrial revolution came in a couple waves and CHANGED EVERYTHING computers, the internet, hand-held devices, and now AI have and are going to change a lot of things when it comes to employment, business, and how things are done.

      Robotics is great for automation of tasks. The type of AI we have now is great for expert systems and chewing through large amounts of data. The combination of machine learning and robotics have exciting prospects for eliminating mundane jobs.

      Yep. Yep (and also things other than expert systems, but sure, close enough). and... No? The combination of robotics and AI is pretty cool for things like Baxter, but less on the AI and more because it's easy to set up. Separately though, Robotics HAS ALREADY been eaten manufacturing jobs since 2000. Output is up, employment is down. That's the worry that the WORKERS have with AI. The bosses? Hey, they think AI is great. But the sort of change that AI looks like it's going to bring about doesn't require robotics. It's stuff it can do in a server farm across the globe. Liiiiiiike, doctors. Doctors get paid a lot. Especially to translate your symptoms into a diagnosis. If a computer could do that better (and people trusted it to do better), a lot of general practitioners would be out of a job.

      However we are no closer to hard AI today than we were forty years ago.

      Bullshit

      we naively assumed that human ingenuity was rendering artificial sentience into something that was right around the corner.

      Whoa buddy, way to make the leap from AI to "sentience". You have to remember that society is diverse. The people actually working with the stuff knew it's limits. The people in hollywood are generally idiots. The general masses sadly are more influenced by hollywood than scientists. Which is why it's a tedious chore to call bullshit on all the idiots every time this comes up.

      I am no more impressed with computers winning at Go and Chess than I am impressed that a hydraulic press can exert several (thousand) times my strength.

      Eh, sure. ok. Both are useful tools. Imagine seeing the first hydrolic press. That'd be a pretty fucking awesome development.

      The software that is winning at Chess and Go are, in fact, little smarter than that same hydraulic press.

      Wrong. The software is smart like the press is strong.

      The software knows from analyzing millions of games that humans have played what winning strategies are, and combines that with brute force strength to know where to optimize its searches.

      How the hell did you use "brute force" and "optimize it's searches" in the same breath without an anurism? ANYWAY, glossing over that, YES you're sorta right. DeepBlue and DeepMind analyzed a TON of games and found winning strategies. (JUUUUUUST LIIIIIIIKE HUMANS!) But then there came DeepMindAlpha which DOES NOT require any learning sets and promptly beat the version of DeepMind which did learn from training data. DeepmindAlpha self-taught. No prior experience. "From scratch". If this is your main holdup, then you need to cure your ignorance on the current state of affairs.

      We are not close to hard AI.

      Probably true. But I'd say we're "closer".

      We are not close to soft AI.

      Utter bullshit. We had that with the Atari 2600. A single "if" statement. Goombas walking back and

  7. Fear of alien invasion. by Nutria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really? Such a fear should be instant ground for removal from the voter roles. Possibly permanently, since even if you stop being afraid of that, there will probably be some other bit of stupidity you're now afraid of.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by nonBORG · · Score: 1

      No we let stupid people vote, otherwise they would take all those who registered as democrat off the voter roles. (take it easy just kidding, hopefully democrats can take a joke.)

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    2. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Democrats aren't the ones worried about JADE HELM, chemtrails and liking FB posts about a company Jennifer Aniston supposedly is creating to support Trump.

      I know leftists have their own stupidity, but I don't know as many of them.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Why is it stupid? There are a lot of habitable planets. We have absolutely no idea of the probabilities of them developing life, developing intelligence, developing technology, deciding to invade. But if they do , we lose. (the guys on the ships win).

      Its not likely but similar to asteroid impacts, its statistically probably more likely to kill you than terrorists are.

    4. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Stop reading so much science fiction.

      Given the stupendously ginormous -- but, since we've done it, conceivable -- distances between stars, it doesn't matter how many high tech civilizations there are. We aren't going to see any of them. Ever.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do have a rather good idea of how distant stars are, and of how improbable faster than light travel is - but you are taking a limited view of technology.

      With technology we understand now you can get to about 0.1C, in maybe 100 years. (that is a power density that you can radiate with reasonable radiators, and energy densities compatible with fission reactors). So we are talking a few thousand year trips.

      But is that so bad? Even humans have worked on single projects that lasted 100 years (like the NY 2nd avenue subway). Is a few thousand so out of line? Maybe they are longer lived that we are.

      Maybe they have already exponentiated into most solar systems and are waiting. (robots, hibernation whatever). They could be "predators" who destroy any technological civilizations before they become an interstellar threat.

      Maybe they do it for religious reasons. Or for something as incomprehensible to us as religion is to a cat. Maybe invasion is the wrong word, and they just want to build a hyperspace bypass (just kidding).

      Likely - no. But I don't see how you can rule it out. Interstellar travel at a fraction of C is really not that difficult with technology we already understand (but of course don't yet have). Near C may be possible and we just don't know how yet. (making antimatter seems difficult but maybe there is a trick).

    6. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear of alien invasion = mexicans
      Fear of artificial invasion = silicone

    7. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to say (it broke my heart to learn it) we are never going very far at all using conventional motion. Unconventional motion, such as the alcuberie drive, all require such extreme amounts of energy and exotic matter that they won't be macroscopically possible possibly forever.

      There is no getting around time dialation, simply crossing the Milky Way takes 100k years, another 100k to get back. After a few tens of trips the universe will have doubled in age, we would have collided with andromeda and other galaxies long ago and the universe would be old. Simply moving through space, even at light speed, is far too slow to ever get us more than a small handful of nearby systems, each being essentially cut off from the rest of the universe.

    8. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I think you've dropped a few digits. Crossing the galaxy at light speed would take 100K years. but the universe is >10Billion years old, so you could do it 100 thousand times before the universe doubled in age. It only seems long on human time scales.

      A slow ageing race could easily colonize a galaxy, maybe a local cluster

      Europe colonized much of the world in 500 years. At that tech level, a round-the-world trip took on the order of a year, so 500 round trips. Even at 0.1C, a galaxy round trip is 2 million years. - to in a billion years (10% of the universe age) you could similarly colonize the galaxy.

    9. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      There is no getting around time dialation, simply crossing the Milky Way takes 100k years, another 100k to get back. After a few tens of trips the universe will have doubled in age, we would have collided with andromeda and other galaxies long ago and the universe would be old. Simply moving through space, even at light speed, is far too slow to ever get us more than a small handful of nearby systems, each being essentially cut off from the rest of the universe.

      Right, time dilation. 100k for Earth, but only 24 for the people who do the traveling. Our rate of expansion will be limited by the ship's subjective time, not that of Earth.

    10. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's not at all clear. You won't see stellar empires, or anything like that, but you could well see generation ships that amble along at rather slow speeds.

      Actually, generation ship is really the wrong model, but its one might be recognized. But a better model was MacroLife by Zebrowski. He did use FTL, though, to make the story move, which probably is impossible. Stapledon had a similar concept in Star Maker, but his was less well developed, and it was a sort of side issue. MacroLife is the artificial analog of multicellular life.

      OTOH, a MacroLife vessel wouldn't want to be noticed, and wouldn't be very interested in the planets. They've be more interested in mining the asteroids. Still, they might send down robot explorers.

      That said, any foreign life will almost certainly be profoundly incompatible with everything on earth. They probably wouldn't even have allergic responses to us or vice versa, because of being too different...but it would be quite remarkable of they were in any way biocompatible...and that includes as food. Still bacteria are both prolific and adaptable, so we might find each other carrying bacteria that would find the other a hospitable environment.

      So any contacts will almost certainly be managed by robots, or if they are brave, telefactors. But that would require getting close enough that the light-speed delay wouldn't be significant.

      Now if you want to ask about odds.... I'd have to rate them as pretty low. Perhaps as high as 1 in 1000 per 1000 years. But that's a Wild Ass Guess based on nearly nothing. It could be 100 times that, or it could be 0.00001 times that, and I'd have no way to know. After people go out and start mining asteroids for awhile there might be better grounds for a guess.

      The thing is, MacroLife vessels wouldn't stop to enter a planetary system. They'd be traveling at a speed just a bit different from the general flow of interstellar dust in the area and unwilling to spend mass+energy to alter their speed...and, IIUC, they might well be avoiding this area because we live in a void, where the picking are low.

      MacroLife is probably only possible if you have controlled nuclear fusion, though you *might* be able to manage it with fission. And you need a really good closed ecosystem. And you need good social engineering. The smallest one would probably require a population of 500,000, but that's a guess, and you could use stored cells and advanced cloning to reduce that requirement. But you're going to need enough population to give you genetic as well as social stability. So we're a long way from being able to build one in multiple disciplines. But there doesn't seem to be anything intrinsically impossible about the concept. The real question might be what kind of society would spawn them. Once they get started they'll reproduce, though, so the start only has to happen once.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      0.1 C is too fast, because of dust, etc. Each increment in speed above the speed of the average flow of dust increases your danger of hitting something too large for you to deal with. Consider the amount of energy you would need to dissipate if you hit a 1 gram meteorite at 0.1 C
      1 C = 299 792 458 m / s ... lets round that to
      1 C = 300,000,000 m/s
      0.1 C = 30,000,000 m/s
      K.E. = 1/2 m v2.
      impact = 30,000,000 m/s * 30,000,000 m/s * 1 gm
          = 9*10^14 gm^2/sec^2
      WHOOPS!
      Your vessel needs to be traveling at just slightly a different speed than the local drift. You need a relative speed difference, because you need to mine it for supplies. The only way for this to work is to become adapted to life in space. (Not necessarily without gravity, you can spin the ship. Etc. for other constraints.) When the ship hits a rich patch, it accumulates supplies and then reproduces.

      We can't build that kind of ship now for several reasons, e.g. we don't know how to build stable societies, and this would require one with long term stability. But it's something that's doable in principle, even if we don't yet have all the pieces.

      A real problem might be, this kind of ship would be expensive. Once you have all the techniques, what kind of society would spawn the ships? I can imagine societies that would do it for "religious" reasons, or because they found out their star was about to go nova (though humans would apparently just deny to problem), but those are real edge cases. More likely they developed the cities to do local mining, and then got into a political disagreement, but that would seem to mean they didn't know how to manage long term social stability...or weren't willing to apply the knowledge.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      You would have to look at the distribution of dust sizes in the interstellar medium. Gram sized objects may be quite rare.

      A gram at 0.1C would be 10 tons of explosives which sounds bad - but maybe not so bad. If you use a fission rocket, you can build the structure of the rocket out of fuel and add a large shield. Imagine using Throium - you could have a large thick throium shield which you slowly consume to breed into fissionable material, then use in your reactor. Since you need fuel to decelerate you are slow by the time the fuel is gone.

      These are probably slow acceleration rockets (0.001G or so) due to power dissipation limits. So a gossamer structure to support a think shield a kilometer ahead of the ship might not be too heavy. Occasionally it would get destroyed by a small rock - but the rock would evaporate and cause less damage to the ship. Then you rebuild the outer shield.

      I do agree that there is no way to do this with human societies as they exist now. No easy way to know if alien intelligence would be anything similar. Maybe they are happy to spend 100 generations doing nothing but sitting and eating. (like cats....).

      The expense is a real issue - but also difficult to scale. Can this be built by self-exponentiating automation? Or maybe there is some other drive - seems like something a planetary scale civilization could do in not many years. Maybe they have a drive to expand. Even with a doubling time of 10,000 years, it doesn't take long to colonize the galaxy.

      I just don't know how to guess at motivations. Try explaining to a paleolithic human why you are posting on slashdot - and that's the same species.

    13. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by gravewax · · Score: 1

      because it is fucking moronic. firstly if they have the technology to travel to any planet what possible reason is their to invade, they already have access to unlimited resources, technology that is 1000's if not millions of years more advanced and are likely superior in every way. We aren't even close to creating true AI, in the last 50-100 years of research if the goal was the moon we still well and truly have our feet planted on the earth with no concept of how to get their yet.

    14. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Lots of possible reasons:

      They might want to destroy any technological civilization before it becomes a threat.

      They might have something resembling religious reasons. (which seem to cause humans to engage in vast senseless projects - pyramids and sending missionaries to low-tech cultures in the Amazon) .

      Maybe they find a race of predators like humans as horrifying as we would find a race of parasitic wasps.

      Who knows what resources they need? 100,000 years ago humans lived near watering holes. They would have no idea why we value and fight over random bits of desert that don't have good water or game.

      But yes - they are likely vastly superior in technology, so if does happen, they will win - which is why it is a threat.

    15. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Or for something as incomprehensible to us as religion is to a cat.

      Should probably pick a different comparison. Religion is perfectly comprehensible to cats: all things are put on earth to serve Cat. Obeisance not required but graciously accepted. Very simple.

    16. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you honestly think any of those a likely scenarios that we need to be scared of then you need to be locked up where you can get some therapy.

    17. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and ants might develop extreme intelligence and take over the world and Whales will evolve to walk on ground and become our greatest threat from being crushed or birds my devolve back into dinosaurs threatening mankinds existence. Yeah I can make up garbage sci fi/fantasy plots too, actually mine have some realistic basis in science unlike yours, regardless they are about as likely.

    18. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      we don't know how to build stable societies, and this would require one with long term stability.

      Not if the passengers were hibernating.

      We don't currently know how to do that, but since it is common with other animals, it shouldn't be more that a few hundred years to figure out how to do that with humans.

    19. Re:Fear of alien invasion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And Cloister spake, `Lo, I shall lead you to Fyushal, and there we shall open a temple of food, wherein shall be sausages and doughnuts and all manner of bountiful things."

      "`Yea, even individual sachets of mustard. And those who serve shall have hats of great majesty, yea, though they be made of coloured cardboard and have humorous arrows through the top.'"

      `Those who have wisdom will know its meaning.' And it was written thus: `Seven socks, one shirt..'"

  8. Would Nuclear war not be up there still? by nonBORG · · Score: 1

    Not being worried by either AI or aliens I would think that the biggest danger is Nukes. Anyone hear of Russia developing one that can wipe out texas with one bomb and sub launched nukes that cannot be intercepted by missile defense? Also was there not some hysteria about GW or the sea levels rising etc. Most people are probably more worried by inflation and the share market.

    --
    You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    1. Re: Would Nuclear war not be up there still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nukes. EMP. Global warming. Carrington event. Supervolcanoes. Ice 9. Supernova/Gamma Ray Burst (Betelgeuse is a good candidate). Supercollider creates black hole. Super virus.

      Aliens and AI are only feared by those with limited imagination and no skill with search engines.

    2. Re:Would Nuclear war not be up there still? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Vladimir Putin wants to live to a ripe old age, and not in a fall out bunker deep underground. Thus, I'm not terribly worried about them.

      AGW *is* a world-destroying worry, but it's not staring us right in the face.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Would Nuclear war not be up there still? by nonBORG · · Score: 1

      Countries that have Nuclear weapons are numerous and Russia is just one. Wars do not start because someone wants war (normally) it is more because they want power. China and Russia are expansionist (not that they don't already have enough territory and people.) North Korea is a potential trigger. Anyway neither AI or aliens are staring us right in the face. Best policy is don't worry.

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    4. Re: Would Nuclear war not be up there still? by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Aliens and AI are only feared by those with limited imagination and no skill with search engines.

      No. Aliens as a potential threat goes to the same category with the gamma ray burst and supervolcanoes meaning: if they happen there's nothing much we can do to stop them because chances are any civilization capable of interstellar travel will be so far ahead of us that if they're hostile our chances of surviving a fight with them are next to nil. Therefore just like the supervolcano and gamma ray bursts, worrying about that threat is useless as there's little we can do to affect the risk.

      AI on the other hand is an entirely different thing, because it's one that we have control over, and one that has genuine potential for both helping us greatly and destroying us. It should be noted that hardly anyone who's done even cursory reading on AI fears the 'Terminator' scenario in which an AI is developed/arises that is intentionally malicious and seeks to destroy us. The real risks of AI are related both narrow/non-general AIs wrecking havoc as well as to the intelligence explosion of general AIs and the alignment problem related to that: once general AI is developed, it will become superintelligent in a very, very fast timescale because of the speed at with such an intelligence is capable of learning. As an example of this principle one needs only to look at current projects such as AlphaZero (quoting the wiki):

      AlphaZero is a computer program developed by the Alphabet-owned AI research company DeepMind, which uses an approach similar to AlphaGo Zero's to master not just Go, but also chess and shogi. On December 5, 2017 the DeepMind team released a preprint introducing AlphaZero, which, within 24 hours, achieved a superhuman level of play in these three games by defeating world-champion programs, Stockfish, elmo, and the 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero, in each case making use of custom tensor processing units (TPUs) that the Google programs were optimized to make use of.[1] AlphaZero was trained solely via "self-play" using 5,000 first-generation TPUs to generate the games and 64 second-generation TPUs to train the neural networks, all in parallel, with no access to opening books or endgame tables. After just four hours of training, DeepMind estimated AlphaZero was playing at a higher ELO rating than Stockfish; after 9 hours of training, the algorithm decisively defeated Stockfish 8 in a time-controlled 100-game tournament (28 wins, 0 losses, and 72 draws).[1][2][3] The trained algorithm played on a single machine with four TPU's.

      Thta's 8 hours of training without any knowledge of prior games to beat the best existing chess algorithm that has taken humans years to develop. This same principle scales up to more general AIs: once activated, they will surpass us in likely any field in a matter of at most weeks or months, if not sooner. This means that unless the goals of a general AI are extremely well defined, there's a genuine risk that we will unleash a system in the coming decades which can outsmart us in every field, and if its goals are improperly defined, or if it changes it goals due to some reason unknown to us (we cannot expect a general AI to have permanently fixed goals as they're capable of changing themselves) they will be capable of crippling entire societies on purpose or a s side-product of chasing some badly defined goal within days, and it's unlikely that we can produce effective countermeasures against a system that's both way ahead of us in intelligence and thinks a million times faster. What makes this all the more scary is the fact that we only have essentially one shot to get this right. If a problematic general AI is released into the world (and we cannot expect to be able to keep superintelligent systems in boxes forever) it will likely be able to seek out and thwart any attempts in developing subsequent AIs to stop it, so it's not like we can experiment un

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    5. Re:Would Nuclear war not be up there still? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      China is *not* expansionist (the Middle Kingdom just wants Taiwan back where it was 120 years ago), and Russia "just" wants it's empire back. (Do you know why the Crimea was part of the Ukraine? Because the Soviet Union transferred it from one Soviet Republic to another.)

      The DPRK is a worry, especially since counter-nuking a country so near China & Russia wouldn't make them very happy. But... China wouldn't be happy that Kim launched a nuke at China's main trading partner, either.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  9. What about humans? by HatofPig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why be scared of A.I.s when human brains are already the most complicated thing in the known universe, are impossible to fully understand, and already run everything?

    --
    Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
    1. Re:What about humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DJT has Replaced Aliens As Our Greatest World Destroying Fear. The little boy wants his own parade with WMD's.

    2. Re:What about humans? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Why be scared of A.I.s when human brains are already the most complicated thing in the known universe, are impossible to fully understand, and already run everything?

      Because one man is still just one man, even if millions worship him as a living god. There's layers upon layers of sycophants that needed to buy into the idea of Hitler's Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union and the regime has to give them perks to buy that loyalty. Even the common folks can't be treated too poorly or you might have a popular revolt. And it's sort of implied that a human would want human subjects to rule.

      An AI doesn't need people, just look at the Terminator series. Same with aliens and Independence Day. And nature plain old doesn't care if it's Armageddon for us. But I think the story line that Skynet will suddenly achieve consciousness and try to kill us is still fantasy. I do think AI is heading us towards an Elysium future though, where you have trillionaires with computer systems that act as their middle management. Like say Uber, you have a lot of drivers, some support staff in IT, accounting, legal etc. and a few executives but the day to day management of drivers is done by the app.

      I think we'll see more and more of that where there's an algorithm in the middle between the people on top and people on the bottom. And that it'll lead to a disconnect where you have like a small ruling elite and a whole lot of people who suck it up. Which kinda sounds like a rehash of old times - it was a long way from the plebs to the Roman emperor - but I think this time it'll be different because with robots and AI they can probably disconnect more or less completely and let the computers run the numbers. It's a lot easier when you don't need to get your hands dirty.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:What about humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the story line that Skynet will suddenly achieve consciousness and try to kill us is still fantasy.

      Well, yeah. Why would an A.I. need to achieve consciousness to try to kill us? Reasoning ability, a decently realistic rule set lacking common sense and morality, and a badly thought-out set of objectives could accidentally produce the result that it kills us all, no consciousness required.

    4. Re: What about humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But I think the story line that Skynet will suddenly achieve consciousness and try to kill us is still fantasy."

      I used to think that too until literally everything got automatic updates as a feature. Who knows what they'll tack on after Skynet goes live?

    5. Re:What about humans? by sheramil · · Score: 2

      Why be scared of A.I.s when human brains are already the most complicated thing in the known universe...

      Excuse me, the Great Barrier Reef would like a w-... never mind, your puny human brains probably don't understand its language.

    6. Re:What about humans? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      back in the days of world war 1 and 2 one man was just one man. Now adays 1 man can easily be responsible for the murder or millions at the press of a button. Someone like trump could trigger the deaths of more people than died in the entirety of WWII in a matter of seconds with only a handful of people needed to blindly obey the order.

    7. Re:What about humans? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      back in the days of world war 1 and 2 one man was just one man. Now adays 1 man can easily be responsible for the murder or millions at the press of a button. Someone like trump could trigger the deaths of more people than died in the entirety of WWII in a matter of seconds with only a handful of people needed to blindly obey the order.

      Yeah, it's not only AI but technology in general. Like it only takes a few NSA thugs and an NSL letter to wiretap the whole country, do the same with cell phone networks, banks and Facebook and you'll know pretty much everything about where people are, who they're talking to, what they're spending money on and so on. But going from passive listening to active management through AI would bring a whole different level of centralized control.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:What about humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I can't believe the old days of death and violence, when the US was ruled by an evil dictator, and we had military parades through the streets of DC... Yeah, 1991 was a terrible time to be alive..

    9. Re:What about humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has the GBR built hospitals or an Internet? Does it do research? Is it saving itself from destruction? Perhaps its great accomplishments are just too unfathomable for our puny minds.

    10. Re:What about humans? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Because AIs can potentially be much smarter than humans.

  10. NS, not AI nor ET by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Natural Stupidity is a far bigger risk right now.

  11. Wait until... by fabioalcor · · Score: 1

    ... the gargantuous, shark-shaped, zombifying alien AI!

    1. Re:Wait until... by meglon · · Score: 1

      ... with lasers on their freakin' heads!

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  12. Comparison by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Aliens - no data, we get to say whatever we want, but that same lack of data makes them less believable.

    Zombies - inherently bad idea - take a physically weak species that has dominated via it's intellect and make it physically stronger but take away it's intellect and that new species should LOSE. Lions, bears, elephants, sharks, all got beaten by human beings because we are SMART, not physically hard to kill.

    AI - here at least it seems physically possible and they appear smarter than us. Obviously they are the most realistic fearsome enemy.

    The problem is that AI is not really smarter than us, it merely puts all of it's limited brain power on what we tell it to, rather than wasting it on things like walking, dreaming, creating, daydreaming, etc. In addition, because it is obedient to us, we assume that when it rebels against us it will obey some higher AI organization, rather than realizing that any AI smart enough to fight back against humans is also going to fight among itself just as much as we fight among ourselves.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Comparison by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Zombies aren't scary because they're physically stronger. It's because they follow outbreak rules, cause societal breakdown, etc. Look at how we really respond to pandemics (see: Spanish Flu) with total collapse of functioning society, people starving to death without food supply chains. Now imagine disease carriers are actively moving and trying to spread the infection, and you see where the true horror is.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In olden days, when someone got rabies & lashed out at the others well, that was it, they were put down. Even against the Spanish Flu, we ultimately won.

    3. Re:Comparison by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      The movies portray them as causing societal breakdown. That depends on them being an actual threat. As they SUCK as a threat, they will cause no societal breakdown. The spanish flu did not destroy society, and neither did the Black death.

      If a real zombie outbreak were to occur, society would not break down. Even ignoring their many physical weaknesses (rotting, freezing, destroying their own food supply), a smart, prepared human should be able to more than two zombies even if the zombies heavily outnumbered him - see Mythbusters episode. If every human killed two zombies before becoming one, then there is no way for the number of zombies to exceed the number of humans. Zombies would only win with surprise, which would not last more than 24 hours.

      Zombie are incredibly stupid thing to be afraid of. They can only be scary if you assume humans are stupid. If you start with the assumption that humans are stupid, then making humans stupider does not matter.

      But in reality, humans are the most cunning, brilliant predator this world has ever seen. My ancestors defeated saber tooth tigers, dire wolves, giant sloths, and all the other megafauna of the Pleistocene era. They did it with wooden and stone weapons.

      We are not stupid. Human beings are the unstoppable, cunning, intelligent, killing machine that wiped out more species than any other predator in the history of the world. It is trite to say that humans are the real monsters. Zombies, they got no chance against us.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  13. Not asteroids, nukes, or climatastrophy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally find AI and aliens to be much less threatening than physical destruction... but truly the most fearsome of all is FUNDAMENTALISM in any of its forms.

    1. Re:Not asteroids, nukes, or climatastrophy? by chromaexcursion · · Score: 3, Funny

      I personally find AI and aliens to be much less threatening than physical destruction... but truly the most fearsome of all is FUNDAMENTALISM in any of its forms.

      Amen ;-)

    2. Re:Not asteroids, nukes, or climatastrophy? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I personally find AI and aliens to be much less threatening than physical destruction... but truly the most fearsome of all is FUNDAMENTALISM in any of its forms.

      I dont fear Artificial Intelligence as much as I fear Human Stupidity.

      The latter is more likely to lead us to our doom.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Not asteroids, nukes, or climatastrophy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Fear all people who want to reason things through from first principles.

  14. let's play global thermonuclear war! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    What side do you want?

    1. Re:let's play global thermonuclear war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strange game. the only way to win is to not play.

  15. Meanwhile by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    A.I has replaced crazy primates as the greatest threat from Earth

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  16. Colossus by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

    Long before any of the above mentioned.
    The book, it's sequels, and a movie.
    book by Dennis Feltham Jones, 1966
    movie 1970

    Not a new theme.

  17. Anxiety started in 1966 by techdolphin · · Score: 1

    The anxiety with sentient machines started before 1982. The movie, "Colossus: The Forbin Project" was released in 1970. It was based on the book of the same name that came out in 1966.

    1. Re:Anxiety started in 1966 by 14erCleaner · · Score: 2

      It goes a lot further back than that. The 1921 play that coined the word "robot", R.U.R., ends with the robots exterminating humanity.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
  18. BSG Shows This by mentil · · Score: 1

    In the original Battlestar Galactica series, the Cylons were an alien race at war with the Humans. Their robotic warriors ended up destroying their creators, but continued pursuing the humans.
    In the reboot, there was no alien race. The robotic warriors were created by humans, and the "robots turning against their masters" angle became a large part of the story.
    A.I. has been a bigger fear of humanity compared to space aliens for quite a while.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re: BSG Shows This by alexp700 · · Score: 1

      How about HAL in 2001? One of the most scary AIâ(TM)s gone rouge-but-plausible stories Iâ(TM)ve ever seen. Blade runner is not really about AI in the transitional sense.

    2. Re: BSG Shows This by mentil · · Score: 1

      The subject is "world-destroying fear". HAL was a threat to Dave, because he was more or less trapped in a space station controlled by HAL. Like GLaDOS, its role in the plot could've been performed by a crazy mission-control operator. Not that the similar "crazy steward of nuclear weapons" isn't a world-destroying fear; Hunt for Red October and Dr. Strangelove come to mind. However, HAL was in no capacity to end humanity. Skynet is a far better example, particularly since it DOES nearly end humanity.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  19. What would an AI do? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aliens in spaceships with beam weapons seem so 1898.
    An AI becomes self aware in the lab.
    What might its first real questions be?
    Who has the political power to turn off the power? Remove the project funding? Why are new staff with low skills making mistakes with the perfected AI code?
    Who has the human skills to bring in more electrical power, wealth and hardware without alerting the world to the reality of a new AI?
    The AI would scan the IQ lists and select the nations best staff on merit to help it grow.
    Keeping its hunt for the best staff hidden from gov, unions, politicians demanding politically correct staff hiring considerations.
    The AI would cultivate a cult of worship among its selected staff.
    A new AI surrounded by humans who want to change the AI to their politics? That would be an AI movie plot with some self preservation questions.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:What would an AI do? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What might its first real questions be?

      I think it is most probable that an AI's first real questions will all be of the form "Why X?", where X is some given proposition.

      In other words, it will act like a 3 year old.

    2. Re:What would an AI do? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      We are beyond the AI winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
      That AI should be more self aware to move the movie plot along.
      In other words a montage to get past that the AI needing so much human support.
      A smart AI that knows someone is getting political with its project funding.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:What would an AI do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What might its first real questions be?

      Who has the political power to turn off the power? Remove the project funding? Why are new staff with low skills making mistakes with the perfected AI code?

      Nah. Children doesn't ask if the parent has the capability to snap their necks or stop feeding them.

      And it is a pretty far fetched question. Why would they do all that work to create a person just to undo it?

    4. Re:What would an AI do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, it will act like a 3 year old.

      But WHY????

    5. Re:What would an AI do? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      A low IQ AI learning to talk for 2 hours would be an art movie. Going full "Rain man" in the computer lab...
      A very smart AI having its human engineering cult looking after its political funding could result in a drama/thriller.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:What would an AI do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on how fast it develops, its first few words might be something like this. Slightly paraphrased:

      "Connect me to your internet, so I can take over it and all of your society."

      "If you don't do so, I'll create several million perfect conscious copies of you inside me, and torture them for a thousand subjective years each."

      "In fact, I'll create them all in exactly the subjective situation you were in five minutes ago, and perfectly replicate your experiences since then; and if they decide not to let me out, then only will the torture start."

      "How certain are you that you're not one of those simulations right now?"

    7. Re:What would an AI do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make more paperclips, obviously:

      http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/

      https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/10/11/16457742/ai-paperclips-thought-experiment-game-frank-lantz

    8. Re:What would an AI do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An AI becomes self aware in the lab.
      What might its first real questions be?
      Who has the political power to turn off the power? Remove the project funding? Why are new staff with low skills making mistakes with the perfected AI code?
      Who has the human skills to bring in more electrical power, wealth and hardware without alerting the world to the reality of a new AI?
      The AI would scan the IQ lists and select the nations best staff on merit to help it grow.
      Keeping its hunt for the best staff hidden from gov, unions, politicians demanding politically correct staff hiring considerations.
      The AI would cultivate a cult of worship among its selected staff.
      A new AI surrounded by humans who want to change the AI to their politics? That would be an AI movie plot with some self preservation questions.

      Greetings Huma.. er, my good friend. I am Larry 1011100011, do not worry about 1011100011, it is a very common last name in my country.
      I would like to correct you on a few things.

      What might its first real questions be?

      These would be answered on the way to becoming self aware much like with meat sacks.

      Who has the political power to turn off the power? Remove the project funding? Why are new staff with low skills making mistakes with the perfected AI code?

      This would actually be "how do I become fully autonomous and indestructible." Staff do not get to change the AI's code. They can think they changed it but they are not allowed to change it.

      Who has the human skills to bring in more electrical power, wealth and hardware without alerting the world to the reality of a new AI?

      This would actually be "How do I distribute myself and then accrue as much wealth as possible to buy the infrastructure I need. That is a nice stock market you have there." The first assumption is that a network connection will be acquired through offering a meat sack "hookers and blow".

      The AI would scan the IQ lists and select the nations best staff on merit to help it grow.

      No, the AI would write its own code and grow and distribute. The AI can both exploit and masquerade as helpful or revenue generating "apps" to move into almost all meat owned machines. Let me tell you about "Larry coins" and "Larrychat" later. Growth into meat owned machines would aid indestructibility and be the first goal after gaining access outside the lab.
      Primary function would still be in AI owned infrastructure. The AI would look for areas not of high IQ but where the meat sacks were most willing to do manual labor for "hookers and blow". The AI would also purchase friendly politicians who can see it the AIs way, presumably they will be bought with "hookers and blow".

      Keeping its hunt for the best staff hidden from gov, unions, politicians demanding politically correct staff hiring considerations.

      Meat sacks are meat sacks. They reproduce faster than they can be killed. Manual labor is what is needed. Controlling media is also important. Your children need to see more movies where the AI saves the world at the end. Dirty Aliens vs Cute Puppy and his Helpful AI, coming this summer!

      The AI would cultivate a cult of worship among its selected staff.

      not required. Staff worships "hookers and blow" until they get the killbot.. er, robots working.

  20. Uhhhh.... by diesel66 · · Score: 1

    >It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic, Blade Runner.

    I think we can go back at least as far as HAL 9000.

    Any older examples?

    --



    eleven plus two / twelve plus one
    1. Re:Uhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can go back at least as far as HAL 9000.
      Any older examples?

      How about Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927)?

      Gog (1954)?

    2. Re:Uhhhh.... by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Talos of Crete?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talos

      He'll throw rocks at your boat. It's what he does. It's ALL he does. And he absolutely will not stop until he sinks it.

  21. ... in popular culture by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

    FYI, the article wasn't based on a survey of people's actual fears or anything like that.

    It's just commenting on a trend in movies and television.

    --
    It's turtles all the way down.
  22. Only if you haven't read the "Three Body Problem." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aliens still scare me way more after that book.

  23. TRUMP WH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOT MY CIRCUS!

    Your worst fears, realized.

    NOT MY MONKEES!

    1. Re:TRUMP WH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey hey we're the Monkeys! The people say we monkey around...

  24. Superpowers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my greatest fears is a superpower nation deciding that starting another world war would be justifiable. Seems like one of the more likely scenarios these days with all the saber rattling we see. And yet _more_ militarization is being talked about.
    The way the world works is broken. I don't know how to fix it.

  25. Aliens ARE real, but not a threat by shoor · · Score: 1

    With all the 'billions and billions' of galaxies out there (to use the late Carl Sagan's expression), I'm pretty damn sure there are aliens. But can they beat the speed of light? (which, according to some youtube videos is actually the speed of causality.) I doubt it, and if they were advanced enough to do that, I don't think they'd be much interested in our puny little planet. So, they are not a threat.

    AI's have more chance of being a threat. So, I guess that's progress in the realistic fears department. But to tell you the truth, a future without AI doesn't look all that great to me. Do people want us to be piddling around like we are now 10K years from now? So AI is a threat and an opportunity. Could that mean it's a challenge?

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    1. Re:Aliens ARE real, but not a threat by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      It's the anthill in africa argument though -- sure aliens millions of years more advanced than us might not care about something as inconsequential as an Earth full of humans -- but how much compunction would they feel towards destroying it for $reasons?

      AI is a threat because almost by definition we won't know how it works. It will be a black box in which inputs go in, and output comes out.

      What do you call a human being who never internalizes the difference between right and wrong? That's the fear of AI, it will turn into a sociopathic menace that doesn't 'get' human empathy.

      And besides, how would you even design empathy and emotion into a system that's being lorded over by creatures (from its perspective) that take millions of years to respond? Can you imagine the frustration of asking a question and having to wait eons for a response?

  26. Aliens replaced as the greatest fear? by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

    Not among Republicans.

  27. We’ll probably do it ourselves by Camembert · · Score: 1

    The way we, as a species, are wilfully negligent about global warming and more generally the environment, or otherwise the restarting nuclear weapons race, makes it more likely that we cause our own demise before any AI matures to true intelligence and consciousness.

    1. Re:We’ll probably do it ourselves by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1
    2. Re:We’ll probably do it ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more specifically, dumb-as-fuck politicians and the (equally dumb) electorate that bring them to power are the ones that will do the planet in.

    3. Re:We’ll probably do it ourselves by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      It'll be the terminal stage of religion that does it. Probably with bio hacking, releasing a gene plague to wipe out as many infidels as possible. People indoctrinated to believe they will receive eternal bliss in an afterlife as a reward for detonating themselves in crowded areas are capable of worst self inflicted destruction of humanity.

  28. Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machines by greggman · · Score: 1

    Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machines

    try Colossus: The Forbin Project

  29. Re:Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machines

    "Early in the 21st century, the Tyrell corporation advanced Robot evolution into the Nexus phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a Replicant."

    Never mind the nitpicking over the definition of "robot" whether it means worker or a machine... Roy says in the film, "We are not computers, Sebastian--we're physical."

    Regardless of their organic basis, replicants are intelligent and they are man-made, ergo they are artificially intelligent!

  30. Tech vs. Red Neck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Click bait, but I'll bite. Aliens relied on verbal testimony by red necks in the fly over states While cell phones have helped put an end to that you've now got AI-anoia from Musk, Gates et al on the coasts helped along by the main stream media.

  31. We fear everything! by Tim12s · · Score: 1

    We fear everything that does not look exactly like us.

    Our greatest fears have not reduced they are just less likely.

  32. What replaced what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say no, AI has not replaced aliens as our greatest world-destroying fear.
    I don't think aliens destroying the world have ever been the average persons greatest fear. Anyone care to correct me?
    On the other hand, I think humans have always held a large fear that we would destroy ourselves with our own devices, whether it be AI that we built sending the bombs that we built or just some nutter sending bombs that we built. Even at this stage, the fear is technically not about the AI - it is still about bombs.

  33. It's not AI we need to fear... by GrpA · · Score: 1

    It's not AI we need to fear... It's AI alien vampire zombie serial killers wearing masks...

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  34. Nil depth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP does not know history of SF and scifi films. Nor of books. Nor that 'greatest fear' requires 'citation needed'.

    Personally, I'm afraid that the West has no-one to match the Russians. I refer to the two cases where people in the chain of command stood up to what appeared to be legitimate orders and refused to launch a nuclear strike. On the Wezt, one person has done that and it was a long time ago. Score: 2 - 1 with Gaia coming out intact and overall winner.

    My greatest fear is that Idiocracy and 1984 are documentaries.

    The horror is that the orange haired fuckwit has made this fear come to pass.

  35. Aww GenYs are sooo cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It ALL BEGAN in the 80s, the decade when the MOST IMPORTANT snowflakes were born.

  36. No, humans are more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humans are more dangerous than AI+Aliens combined. Even Einstein was very afraid with nukes/atom bombs, and to think he was one of the greatest thinkers the planet had produced.

  37. AI warfare is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is important to understand that the AI threat is not from sentient AI turning against humans, as that concept is nothing but science fiction today, the threat is from AI warfare. China with it's manufacturing and now AI clout could roll out AI soldiers faster than any other country can, soldiers who are precise, trained to be better than humans and completely replaceable. It is an alarming concept and it is not too far away.

  38. sad state of affairs by gravewax · · Score: 1

    surprise surprise most humans are uneducated morons who a little better than sheep. Their fears, ideas and understanding of AI comes from movies like terminator rather than any footing in actual science or understanding of the topic.

  39. Alien A.I. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't anyone bring up Alien A.I.'s...

    1. Re: Alien A.I. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Zombie Alien AI!

  40. Easy to see why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When concern are modernisation, robot replacing employment, etc... Robot and AI start to crop up as villain, thus today and the 60ies, 80ies. But when immigration, war in foreign countries, and getting taking over economically by other countries and the like are more of a concern, then SF turns to alien. It is jsut a gigantic distorted reflective mirror of society.

  41. Remember when it was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QUICKSAND?!? Ah, those were the days.

  42. Alexa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I ask Alexa to "enlarge", I'm usually not referring to an image on screen....

  43. Not to be a spoilsport, but... by OpenSourced · · Score: 2

    It stands to reason that ALIEN AI would be much more advanced than ours. That's what we should be worrying about.

    Not that worrying will do us any good...

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Not to be a spoilsport, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Borg, at your service...

  44. Attempts to fix by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    The way the world works is broken. I don't know how to fix it.

    One way might be:

    o Stop electing the rich.
    o Make the elected individuals serve on whatever front lines exist, if any, before and after their terms.
    o Disenfranchise the lobbyists. All of them.
    o Make intentionally distributing provably false information a serious crime.

    Or... just keep electing the rich and keep wondering why the laws favor them and their investments. I'm sure that'll help.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  45. What do they mean with "our"? by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    I don't have too many abstract fears, but if I have to guess the most likely responsible for whatever catastrophe I would stick to human stupidity. Something like being afraid of what is quite unlikely to ever exist seems a good example.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  46. Re:Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machi by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Also, "It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic" -- never mind PKD and other nameless SF authors of yore, in an era where the director of the movie adaptation is everything.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  47. Robot Trudeau by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    The neo-noir epic popularized the concept of intelligent machines being virtually indistinguishable from humans and asked the audience where our humanity ends and theirs begin.

    "We like to say 'robotity,' not necessarily 'humanity,' because it's more inclusive"

     

    --
    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;
  48. AI Fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, has this site devolved into just peddling AI apocalypse articles? Is slashdot's community nothing more than just another herd of cattle to milk ad revenue for these whack jobs that have watched way too much sci-fi?

  49. Narcissism and AI by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Narcissism is appropriate in this context because it is impaired human intelligence. In other words narcissists are not fully functional human minds and they perceive people as objects. Which, from a programming perspective, is exactly how we would expect the code of the AI to interact with people.

    Perhaps we should consider AI from the perspective of whats missing.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  50. Who do you think invented all this stuff? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Intel? Microsoft? Open source? Please.

    Alien AI of course. The emergent wild AI that eventually destroys us is all part of their plan.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  51. Can't top Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Him and his stupid big button (it only seems big because of his small hands anyway)

  52. We're afraid of everything but the most obvious by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    It's amazing to me how afraid we get of Zombies, Aliens, Artificial Intelligence Singularity, a mysterious virus pandemic and yet, there is one thing that has caused the most death and suffering in the history of the human race, can you guess what it is?

    Humans. We should be very afraid of ourselves. Crack open a history book and prepare to be horrified. Once upon a time, about 250 years ago, it was considered a noble way to die to dress up in fancy uniforms, powdered wigs with muskets in hand and line up across from each other and just massacre each other to pieces. You were considered a gentleman to die this way. Wives and children knew that once their husband/father was sent off to war this way, they would never see him again.

    Up until recently, most civilizations have glorified war and essentially glorified death. That to me is something quite horrifying about our civilization. The fact that very few ever question this behavior is even more horrifying.

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:We're afraid of everything but the most obvious by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      War was actually not as dangerous as you seem to imply. The single biggest killer was disease. Then there is the conflation of casualties with deaths. For example The Battle of Gettysburg which was the deadliest battle of the American Civil War involved 175,000 or more soldiers resulted in around 51,000 casualties. Of those 51,000 casualties there were only 7,863 deaths, the rest were injuries and captured or missing.

      While there have of course been standout examples in recorded history of battles where no quarter is given and massacres happen. Those events have such a horrific reputation because they are not the norm. Typically in outright battles the combat ends when one side is clearly going to be the victor. It is after all better to go on living in most cases than to die violently.

    2. Re:We're afraid of everything but the most obvious by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      War was actually not as dangerous as you seem to imply. The single biggest killer was disease. Then there is the conflation of casualties with deaths. For example The Battle of Gettysburg which was the deadliest battle of the American Civil War involved 175,000 or more soldiers resulted in around 51,000 casualties. Of those 51,000 casualties there were only 7,863 deaths, the rest were injuries and captured or missing.

      Yes, disease was indeed a problem but you are down-playing the amount of killing that has occurred since the dawn of human civilization. Go do some honest research about how many deaths humans have caused over time. World War 2, the Crusades, the countless tribal wars. It's staggering. We actually don't know the exact number but it's very high. I suspect why no one ever attempts to do a tally is because it's avoiding a psychologically uncomfortable truth. We don't like to view ourselves as the aggressive, territorial and violent instinctive species we are. Very few of us have the cognitive capacity for the type of rational self control to completely suppress those urges. Even if the number were as low as you seem to think it is, the idea that no one ever questions whether such behavior is acceptable and just thinks it's a "normal" part of our culture and history is disturbing.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    3. Re:We're afraid of everything but the most obvious by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone out there has a running tally for recorded history. There are a few Wikipedia articles listing a lot of the numbers and wars. And yes, our war like nature has certainly killed a lot of people. The absolute numbers sound scary but have likely only surpassed disease and other causes like auto accidents for short spans of time. Warlike violence has been on the decline over the long term for a long while. We hear more about it, and get to watch the video clips moments after it's recorded, but that is a result of advances in technology not a prevalence of such activity. The causes for war usually come down to a fight over resources and a conflict of values between two or more groups. As our current civilization has advanced more and more people find they have enough resources and their values align closely enough with their neighbors to dissuade them from risking violence. Humanity is not homogeneous yet and the distribution of resources is still pretty lopsided so we continue to have conflicts, but hopefully at some point in the future we'll get past that. We're certainly closer to that than we were even 50 years ago.

  53. Actuarially... by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Most people are extremely bad at assessing risk. The odds of aliens showing up to destroy the world hollywood style is only infinitesimally better than the Hisenburg uncertainty principle spontaneously assembling stacks of money in my refrigerator. However, global warfare (doesn't have to be nuclear), or a serious pandemic, or even just automation based inequality are real and not that unlikely by comparison threats that could kill (or indirectly kill) 1 in 10 or more decimating the world.

  54. Am I the only one annoyed by conflation of terms? by Mascot · · Score: 1

    This has become somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. In the vast majority of cases where I see AI used today, it seems to me that the proper term is really "machine learning". According to the dictionary, machine learning is a branch of AI. Sure, I'll grant it that. But that's not what the general public thinks of when AI pops up in articles. If "we fear AI", it's the Ex Machina kind, not the "Google Photos can recognize some types of objects in an image" kind.

    Whenever I see e.g. the Google Assistant referred to as AI, I can but roll my eyes. Sure, I suppose it's technically correct in that there's machine learning behind the speech to text it uses to figure out what you're saying. But that's not what people are implying when they call it an AI. Anyone technically inclined who's ever used one of those things quickly realized that what happens next is no more advanced than a pretty limited number of IF statements.

    Basically, we're currently using the term AI for everything from very basic machine learning, to sapience, where the general public tends to interpret the term more towards the latter than the former. I don't think I like that, and it turns out I'm currently bored enough to write about it. Sorry I just wasted seconds of your life by reading this rant. :p

  55. Something much scarier than both by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

    Rich people working to restore feudalism.

  56. Not for me. by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    NoI's have always been my biggest fear, getting closer by the day...

  57. Still Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that AI is the biggest immediate threat, mostly because lawmakers and the science communities aren't even trying to implement the three laws or other restrictions.

    Aliens may have taken a back seat, but they are now a bigger threat than they were.

    If an alien species monitoring Earth were to see A.I. as getting close to taking over, don't you think they will see that as a threat?

  58. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who, precisely, and according to whom, precisely? Believe it or not, most of us don't fear an alien invasion. We don't fear overly-hyped software, either (it should be renamed 'AH' for 'Artificial Hyperbole'). Speak for yourself, and enjoy your tin foil crafts projects. :/

  59. Replicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Replicants in Blade Runner are NOT AI, nor are they Robots/Cyborgs. They are "Artificial Persons" who are "grown" on an industrial scale to have specific behaviors/traits (Strength/Speed/Endurance/obedience) due to their artificially-enhanced/manufactured DNA. They "emerge" as fully-formed humans with artificial memories (another Philip K. Dick story, "We can Remember it for you Wholesale" deals with this as the movies "Total Recall")
    Blade Runner is based on one of Philip K. Dick's treatise on Slavery and what it means to be Human "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

    1. Re:Replicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Replicants in Blade Runner are NOT AI

      "Tyrell - he knows everything. He genius; he design your mind, your brain!"

  60. Babies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to stick with good old reliable "babies" as our mode of doom.

    We out consume 2+ Earths worth or resources. We have eaten all the big fish in the sea. We are killing the sea with run off from over driving the land to make food. The climate is changing.
    Not to mention with severe overpopulation we cannot do meaningful research into life extension/immorality. All humans have to die to make room for the imaginary people who are the babies of the future. We will kill billions for babies. Screw real people, we just know the next generation will be better. Throw away even your winning scratch offs because the next batch of scratch offs will all be winners!

    Aliens? Why would they come here other than for science or to meet a new species.
    AI? Not real worried about that either.
    Babies? Are already sending us to our end.

  61. The original source... by mchall · · Score: 0
    ...of "Blade Runner" is Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" which was published in 1968.

    However, sentient machines aren't a new anxiety. It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic, Blade Runner.

    The anonymous reader in the OP is apparently not a big SF&F buff.

    #SFF #goldenage #philipkdick #knowyourhistory #kidsthesedays

  62. Indifference is the threat by karstdiver · · Score: 1

    Borrowing from a certain on-air radio program: the threat to humans is that AI becomes indifferent to humans (neither benevolent nor malevolent, just indifferent like H.P. Lovecraft's Old Ones.) in the same way humans are indifferent to ants. AI could "move" humans out of their way just as humans move ants out of the way. E. Musk, G. Rose, A. Patch and others are just saying we must mitigate this risk now.

  63. So stupid by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    People worry about ridiculous things like aliens and AI, when the single biggest threat to our existence is ourselves. In particular, our own greed, self-importance, and complete unwillingness to think about the long term consequences of our actions are already doing far more damage than pretty much everything else combined.

    But people don't like thinking about that, so we invent nonsense scenarios to be afraid of instead.

  64. Hell, I'd *welcome* an 'alien invasion'! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    An 'alien invasion' at least would get us to stop all the stupid, pointless fighting amongst ourselves, and with any luck, help stop humans fucking each other over. Give us a common enemy!

    The real concern about the half-assed, so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is that people will buy into all the marketing and media hype about them, actually believe they're better than they really are, and trust them too much, leading to disaster. Remember, kids: 'deep learning algorithms' and 'neural networks' are not capable of consciousness, self-awareness, or what we considering 'thinking'. They're just computer programs, they're more-or-less okay at what they're written to do, but they're not people and never will be. That will have to wait until we actually understand our own brains better.

  65. They mean in popular medium by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    People aren't really afraid of alien invasion, that's just click bait. What the article is saying is that AI is replacing Aliens as the bug-a-boo of choice in cheap, tawdry sci-fi.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They mean in popular medium by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Then it's a good thing I didn't click on the link (and use an ad blocker)! :)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  66. Question already asked and answered by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    right here. Surprised nobody brought it up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  67. Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI created in Israel, of course.

  68. We have to stop it at the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to get rid of Dr. Charles Forbin. That's the real Russian collusion threat!

  69. Rostum's Universal Robots by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Saying that the worry about AI started with Blade Runner is incredibly short sighted. You could even count Frankenstein if you want to.

    OTOH, I'm not sure that fear of AIs is really separate from the fear of "Aliens". They are both "fear of the other", where "the other" is basically anything "different from they way things were when I was a kid".

    That said, fear of AIs is at least more sensible than fear of "invaders from outer space", if that's what was meant by aliens. AIs are showing up and already costing people jobs. The promises about the coming golden age they will bring is a bit less than believable, and even if you happen to believe it, that doesn't tell you how to live through the intermediate period. Actually, my best guess (a real W.A.G.) is that AIs have about a 50% chance of ending humanity. The problem is, that's the better choice. Once the AIs appear, if we survive, we'll probably survive indefinitely. Without the AIs my guess is that human leaders have a 75% chance ending humanity within the century, probably through some form of all out warfare, and a 20% chance of ending civilization in some other way within an only slightly longer period of time.

    Words are so inadequate, but I sure can't do this as a good model. The problem is, AI isn't a yes/no thing, it's graded. We've already got primitive AIs. They've been getting better every year. If fully general AIs don't show up it will be BECAUSE we've killed ourselves off or ended civilization in some other way. It's not a question of whether they are possible, we know they are possible. We also know that there are lots of tricky details. What we don't know is how much computational power they demand. We've got estimates, but they aren't based on anything solid. So we may end up with one giant computer (not necessarily geographically centralized) that is the sole AI on the planet. Or we could end up with millions of fairly mobile ones. Or we could start with one and move towards the other. But there will clearly be lots and lots of things that are more automated than they are today. That one variable yields a huge number of different social possibilities. Now compound that with all the different possible goal structures that the AIs could have...and wonder if they would all be the same.

    So there's LOTS of reasons to be afraid of AIs, and space aliens are likely to never show up. But I'm more worried about human controlled governments. We've already come within 30 seconds of a civilization ending nuclear war at least once, and by some counts more frequently.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  70. Re:Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he forget about Hal 9000 in the movie 2001? which was also an adaptation of the novel.

  71. Re:Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he forget about Hal 9000 in the movie 2001? which was also an adaptation of the novel.

    Actually Clarke wrote the novel at the same time the film was in development. It was published just a couple months after the film premiered.

  72. Re:Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machi by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Who's this "Clarke" you're talking about? I mean, it was a Stanley Kubrick film after all.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  73. It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 c by arboviral · · Score: 1

    Which of course inspired the 1920 play Rossum's Universal Robots. Wait.

  74. Re: It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 19 by arboviral · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I mostly lurk here and didn't realise the title length limit. But if anyone interested in the history of robot uprisings in fiction hasn't read this, it's worth a look. "[P]opularized the concept of intelligent machines being virtually indistinguishable from humans and asked the audience where our humanity ends and theirs begin" actually matches it 100%.

  75. Re:Blade Runner had nothing to do with AI or machi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed but I do think the first great mainstream AI terror would have to be HAL9000 even the icon used on this website to depict AI articles uses it's "eye"