First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply AI could end mankind, warns Stephen Hawkings and other prominent thinkers
48492 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

masked185 wrote:

I for one welcome our robot overlords.
SciFi has taught us that an attempt to conquer must be assumed to be an attempt to annihilate.

Posted 2/2/15
What's so bad about that though. It would be our race's greatest achievement, and if you get over dying as an individual it's not all bad.
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/3/15
people here are speculating about things in ways that are way too specific, taking the fact that AI is purely theoretical at this point into account, as well as our lack of understanding of consciousness and the like to begin with.

most of the points in this thread are intellectual masturbation and nothing else.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

oodain wrote:

people here are speculating about things in ways that are way too specific, taking the fact that AI is purely theoretical at this point into account, as well as our lack of understanding of consciousness and the like to begin with.

most of the points in this thread are intellectual masturbation and nothing else.


It doesn't have to be conscious. All a mechanized expert system has to do (I'm not making up the term "expert system") is decide that human beings are taking up all the resources that should be going to the robots instead, and then do a house cleaning. How complex is that? It doesn't even take any sort of "philosophy" or "mental masturbation" to figure this out.
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
I think it's very possible, but only if we give the AIs access to real-world resource management.

Lesson here: don't let AIs manage real-world resources.

Expect to see more of these kinds of arguments as Age of Ultron gets closer to release folks!
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

Genbu89 wrote:

I think it's very possible, but only if we give the AIs access to real-world resource management.

Lesson here: don't let AIs manage real-world resources.

Expect to see more of these kinds of arguments as Age of Ultron gets closer to release folks!


There are plenty of resource management expert systems out there replacing desk jobs already. The reason they're there isn't because people are lazy but because of the capitalistic incentive to cut cost (e.g. get rid of people, they're expensive) and increase profits. In order to increase efficiency and cut costs, corporations are going to do this more and more.
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

nanikore2 wrote:


oodain wrote:

people here are speculating about things in ways that are way too specific, taking the fact that AI is purely theoretical at this point into account, as well as our lack of understanding of consciousness and the like to begin with.

most of the points in this thread are intellectual masturbation and nothing else.


It doesn't have to be conscious. All a mechanized expert system has to do (I'm not making up the term "expert system") is decide that human beings are taking up all the resources that should be going to the robots instead, and then do a house cleaning. How complex is that? It doesn't even take any sort of "philosophy" or "mental masturbation" to figure this out.


true about consciousness,

though on your point about expert systems you are quite wrong, nothing simple about it, even that chain of events quire a ton of assumptions, how does said expert system even know enough of the continual use of resources and its relation to it?

expert systems are still fairly dumb and very very very specific, something as general as understanding itself from something else is basically impossible for expert systems as in use in industry today.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 2/16/15

oodain wrote:

people here are speculating about things in ways that are way too specific, taking the fact that AI is purely theoretical at this point into account, as well as our lack of understanding of consciousness and the like to begin with.

most of the points in this thread are intellectual masturbation and nothing else.


Time is what it is up against have you looked at the current state of AI recently? The only limiting factor on it has been and will always be hardware and that barrier is rapidly vanishing with new tech that is currently being developed. Both carbon base processors and quantum computers. Faster machines means smarter AI's both of the newer system types give you that more power and speed quantum machines are down right terrifying if they even get them close to the original specs that they drew them up under. Carbon has an upper limit like silicon does have the heat limits or the power draw which means more power for the processor only disadvantaged to quantum is it doesn't have quantum third state it is still a binary system like silicon.

True quantum computers give you a unique platform for an AI to operate on which is a none binary system which is a lot close to how the human brain works. Putting a learning neural network on a system like that and you would be well on your way to have a true AI but it would be a limited hardware platform. Something that could true learn and make logical leaps at it's source you would want to make sure it has some type of empathy or you're just creating a prefect sociopath. Thankfully quantum computers are still a few decades off.

Carbon base system are closer to becoming a reality within the next ten to fifteen years mostly because silicon is rapidly reaching the end game Moore's law has finally caught up to the upper limit on it and they really can't squeeze anything more out of it. So everyone is really pushing this tech research right now since it is closer to the tech we use currently just a higher cap out at the top. But it is as I stated faster and more powerful naturally then the current hardware, now consider what happens when you put Siri's back end on a bunch of servers that now take half the power to run and have twice the processing power. Every-time you increase the processing power you get one step closer to human level the only limit is binary then.
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Don't worry. Karen Senki taught me that intelligent robots will stop just shy of exterminating us and decide to study and try to emulate us in a quest to understand our emotions, particularly this thing called "love." Also, they can be beaten with guns, fast motorcycles, and plenty of panchira.

5617 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Korriban
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
So I read most of the original post, but no comments...what I got is that you were talking about the Singularity, and how Earth could become like the Matrix? (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
2459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Minnesota, USA
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
If I haven't stated such already, I for one welcome our robot overlords. Maybe they'll be less stupid than mankind has been? Then again they were created by us so unless they improve themselves to a point of near perfection they'll probably be doomed to repeat our stupidity.
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Doesn't Steven Hawking also believe in time travel and infinite number of parallel universes? I not sure if he does or does not, my only source is the internet so I do not know if he authentically believes that.
6197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / USA- Ohio
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Hell, there are a lot of things that could end mankind, but we still use them anyways.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

kingrumZ wrote:

Doesn't Steven Hawking also believe in time travel and infinite number of parallel universes? I not sure if he does or does not, my only source is the internet so I do not know if he authentically believes that.


Yes actually he does goes with the field of study he is in though not in the conventional sense more like using the warping effect of a black hole to distort time space to allow you to slip into the future or the past. As for the many worlds theory again it goes with the field all possible outcomes occur until the observer sees what happens, the question is does this create multiply worlds answer is we aren't sure yet. Cat in box both dead and alive at the same time. It should be noted that with the many worlds theory you don't get paradox if you actually built a time machine since you would be creating a new universe by traveling back in time and you would travel back to your reality since that is where the machine started when you returned in theory. Yeah it get complex and strange and very interesting when you think that there are multiply you in other worlds doing the options you didn't. Yeah I hate time travel it's cheating in someone else's play ground.


time travel

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/i-do-believe-in-time-travel-time-travel-to-the-future-time-flows-like-a-river-and-it-seems-as-if-each-of-us-is-carried-rele.html

Many worlds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
I do not think time travel can be possible since it is a completely mental construct that humans invented for measuring distance and growth an decay. Is not time essentially imaginary? Time is like a river? as in it flows forward but not backward but the difference between a river and time is that time is relative and borderline metaphysical while a river exists in nature. the entire premise of time travel is based on the ASSUMPTION that time and space are not separate. Analyzing some of Hawking statements makes me feel like he has an organ inferiority complex.
" Children who suffer from illnesses often become highly self-centered. They tend to with draw from social interaction out of a sense of inferiority and inability to compete successfully with other children. However, some children may overcompensate for their original weakness and develop their abilities to an unusual degree."
Source: Personality and Personal Growth
Author: Robert Frager, James Fadiman.

Hawking i think has a clear desire to want to be able to master existence to due his own illness and exhibits a narrow perspective. IM not dissing Hawkings he is ultra intelligent but still I think he is a bit obsessed with time as he stated in the article.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.