Let me respond to the general vien of comments in support of Dr. Hawkings statement.
Government, in its essence, is a system designed to propagate itself and pass itself along to the succeeding generation. The genetic material of this self-replicating system are the legislature and laws etc. by which it governs the land and acquires resources.
A great number of posts express an arrogant confidence that mechanical devices will never be able to supercede us because we won't let them. Let me continue the above analogy by saying that the monarchy in England never expected itself to be replaced by the more efficient democratic/capitalist system. Capitalism was to them, as computers are to us, a simple mechanical tool which could be kept in check.
One undeniable facet of life is its self-replicating, resource demanding nature. If ever a self-replicating structure develops which requires the same resources we do, it won't matter how noble our souls or how much art and poetry we've produced, we will be forced to compete on the same brutal terms, or risk extinction. In as far as machines can use every single resource as mankind, and in most cases more efficiently, Hawking is right to warn us to take this threat of competition more seriously than our current "hahaha, Sci-Fi geeks acting up again attitude".
AI would be a huge step, but is not a requirement for machines to supplant humans. To compete with us machines only need to be able to acquire resources on their own and be able to mechanically self reproduce. The machines have the upper hand in efficiency and self-reproductive ability if only they could figure out how to use it, which is why AI would be helpful. But any simple virus knows how to raid humans for resources and even simple bacteria can self-replicate so advanced learning algorithms aren't the technological barrier that threatens us.
Humans have the advantage in knowing how to compete but can't effectively modify themselves to do so. This is Hawkings point: Mechanical systems are increasing in complexity geometrically and organic life not at all. If organic life doesn't figure out how to compete more effectively there is a more efficient and flexible mechanism just over the horizon which will use our resources. Ergo, we should better our competitive advantage by increasing our genetic complexity.
For those who continue to dissent consider this point: Could computers continue to become increasingly complex and never develop the paramecium intellect required to compete with us?
This is the point I put to the thinkers out there. Is complexity a good measure of competitive ability or a good measure of "life"?
-->-- Faust
BS Course 18T (Theoretical Mathematics) MIT '01
BS Course 7 (Molecular Biology) MIT '01
Slashdot Mirror
Let me respond to the general vien of comments in support of Dr. Hawkings statement.
Government, in its essence, is a system designed to propagate itself and pass itself along to the succeeding generation. The genetic material of this self-replicating system are the legislature and laws etc. by which it governs the land and acquires resources.
A great number of posts express an arrogant confidence that mechanical devices will never be able to supercede us because we won't let them. Let me continue the above analogy by saying that the monarchy in England never expected itself to be replaced by the more efficient democratic/capitalist system. Capitalism was to them, as computers are to us, a simple mechanical tool which could be kept in check.
One undeniable facet of life is its self-replicating, resource demanding nature. If ever a self-replicating structure develops which requires the same resources we do, it won't matter how noble our souls or how much art and poetry we've produced, we will be forced to compete on the same brutal terms, or risk extinction. In as far as machines can use every single resource as mankind, and in most cases more efficiently, Hawking is right to warn us to take this threat of competition more seriously than our current "hahaha, Sci-Fi geeks acting up again attitude".
AI would be a huge step, but is not a requirement for machines to supplant humans. To compete with us machines only need to be able to acquire resources on their own and be able to mechanically self reproduce. The machines have the upper hand in efficiency and self-reproductive ability if only they could figure out how to use it, which is why AI would be helpful. But any simple virus knows how to raid humans for resources and even simple bacteria can self-replicate so advanced learning algorithms aren't the technological barrier that threatens us.
Humans have the advantage in knowing how to compete but can't effectively modify themselves to do so. This is Hawkings point: Mechanical systems are increasing in complexity geometrically and organic life not at all. If organic life doesn't figure out how to compete more effectively there is a more efficient and flexible mechanism just over the horizon which will use our resources. Ergo, we should better our competitive advantage by increasing our genetic complexity.
For those who continue to dissent consider this point: Could computers continue to become increasingly complex and never develop the paramecium intellect required to compete with us?
This is the point I put to the thinkers out there. Is complexity a good measure of competitive ability or a good measure of "life"?
-->-- Faust
BS Course 18T (Theoretical Mathematics) MIT '01
BS Course 7 (Molecular Biology) MIT '01