Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

Think about this. Do we even WANT that much automation without humans in the loop?

Yes. The more automation we have in place, the freer we are as a whole to do the stuff that we want to do instead of the stuff we have to do. This includes things that are purely scientific and academic in nature, as well as things that are purely aesthetic and also fuckall. The whole sci-fi notion of the "robot uprising" is bullshit in and of itself, unless we model a highly sophisticated "brain" AI and put it in stuff that shouldn't have it. Machines will not get sentience unless we code it into them, and if we ever even do that, it should be in a very, very limited amount of machines.

Scientists are already racing towards making the smartest robots possible. People are already using machines as an excuse to be extraordinarily lazy and ignorant. People are using machines as an excuse to remove themselves from situations they should be dealing with, to resolve themselves from all responsibility.

I'd much rather see humans be stronger/smarter/faster, even if it means a bit more effort on our end. What life is worth living without responsibilities or boundaries, after all? I don't mean to deny that humans are highly intelligent, but it does occasionally make mistakes. I'm not entirely convinced that we will recognize/address this threat properly until it is too late.

It also brings up the issue of why a true AI would even want to control humans.

Why would a human want to control animals?

[Scoops Novel]

Someone will inevitably program an AI for a robot uprising. On the other hand, by then it could well be on the same scale as the threat of a zombie outbreaks (as easy as dealing with small, angry bears). My feet, nevertheless, are cramping uncomfortably.

[MonkeyHead]

Read the "Culture" novels by Iain M Banks - in them, "pan-humanity" is guided by superintelligent AI's (Minds). He postulates that AI's tend to take on the personality of thier parent culture, so Human constructed AI's were initially concerned in looking after humanity. Then you get AI's programming Gen 2 AI's, and so on... these Minds busy themselves with the wonders of the universe and solving problems using an optimally small expenditure of energy, most often by manipulating the actions of individual humans through thier behaviour patterns.

Though there is some handwaving with the idea that a perfect (i.e. no cultural imprinting) AI always sublimes.

[Doomblade187]

Think about this. Do we even WANT that much automation without humans in the loop?

Yes. The more automation we have in place, the freer we are as a whole to do the stuff that we want to do instead of the stuff we have to do. This includes things that are purely scientific and academic in nature, as well as things that are purely aesthetic and also fuckall. The whole sci-fi notion of the "robot uprising" is bullshit in and of itself, unless we model a highly sophisticated "brain" AI and put it in stuff that shouldn't have it. Machines will not get sentience unless we code it into them, and if we ever even do that, it should be in a very, very limited amount of machines.

Scientists are already racing towards making the smartest robots possible. People are already using machines as an excuse to be extraordinarily lazy and ignorant. People are using machines as an excuse to remove themselves from situations they should be dealing with, to resolve themselves from all responsibility.

I'd much rather see humans be stronger/smarter/faster, even if it means a bit more effort on our end. What life is worth living without responsibilities or boundaries, after all? I don't mean to deny that humans are highly intelligent, but it does occasionally make mistakes. I'm not entirely convinced that we will recognize/address this threat properly until it is too late.

A decent example of this in literature would be Dune, where computers aren't allowed to be used for many things, and instead incredibly smart humans do so instead.

Also, it's a feudal house system that uses melee weaponry so Humans are going to be stronger by necessity.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People are already using machines as an excuse to be extraordinarily lazy and ignorant. People are using machines as an excuse to remove themselves from situations they should be dealing with, to resolve themselves from all responsibility.

[citation_needed]

Why would a human want to control animals?

Humans control animals in the sense that they can produce labor and food for us. An AI requires neither of these from humans. Mechanized labor is superior to biological labor, and an AI's energy does not come from food.

[Lagslayer]

People are already using machines as an excuse to be extraordinarily lazy and ignorant. People are using machines as an excuse to remove themselves from situations they should be dealing with, to resolve themselves from all responsibility.

[citation_needed]

Why would a human want to control animals?

Humans control animals in the sense that they can produce labor and food for us. An AI requires neither of these from humans. Mechanized labor is superior to biological labor, and an AI's energy does not come from food.

Count the number of people you know who cannot even do simple arithmatic in their heads without a calculator. Count the people you know with horrible short term memory, and just wikipedia everything. Count the people you know that can't really do their jobs and have to rely on the computer database for basic procedures on a regular basis. And these are just mental activities. Now count the number of people too lazy to get up and change the channel when the remote is dead.


Let me put it this way; why would a human want to squash a cocroach?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Count the number of people you know who cannot even do simple arithmatic in their heads without a calculator. Count the people you know with horrible short term memory, and just wikipedia everything.

You sound like the Greek philosophers disparaging the written word because it will allow people to write down epic poems and not remember them entirely from memory. Humans only have so much brainpower. If we can outsource that to allow us to work on problems that we cannot, that is a good thing.

And hey, the cybernetic enhancements you so despise might just let us increase our brainpower, so that solves that.

Let me put it this way; why would a human want to squash a cocroach?

The analogy does not hold. Once again, you are assuming that a true AI is a godlike power compared to us and would hate us because of some stupid Hollywood thing like we "aren't logical enough".

An AI has zero reason to hate us.

[MaximumZero]

Honestly, any AI has zero reason to want anything at all. Ambition, as far as I know, is not something that you can code.

[misko27]

AI takeover in Minimum wage thread.
 
Seem legit.

[Lagslayer]

Count the number of people you know who cannot even do simple arithmatic in their heads without a calculator. Count the people you know with horrible short term memory, and just wikipedia everything.

You sound like the Greek philosophers disparaging the written word because it will allow people to write down epic poems and not remember them entirely from memory. Humans only have so much brainpower. If we can outsource that to allow us to work on problems that we cannot, that is a good thing.

And hey, the cybernetic enhancements you so despise might just let us increase our brainpower, so that solves that.

Let me put it this way; why would a human want to squash a cocroach?

The analogy does not hold. Once again, you are assuming that a true AI is a godlike power compared to us and would hate us because of some stupid Hollywood thing like we "aren't logical enough".

An AI has zero reason to hate us.

You seem to be missing my point. Eventually the AI is going to be smarter than us at everything, rendering all human thought obsolete next to it. the difference is that humans will no longer have an inherent advantage over the machines they created (or perhaps the machines that our first-gen machines created). Also, I don't like the idea of cybernetics, but that's more of a morality question than logical.


At one point, humans did not hate cocroaches either. Now that we have better ways to dispose of our own waste, they are seen as unnecessary and just get in the way. Cue exterminators. I suppose it's possible that they won't turn out that way, but they were programmed by a species that is like that. Even if they didn't try to kill us all, I'd rather we be the dominant life form instead of them having to babysit us.

[Andrew425]

Do you think humans are smart enough to make a machine smarter than us?

Also I'm banking on biological advancements to keep us as smart as AIs

[Max White]

Why do people always equate intelligence with certain aspects that we see in humans like the will to survive and prosper?
Most living creatures have these traits because the ones that didn't got killed off and were ok with it. The ones that didn't like to die avoided it and thus reproduced, spreading this trait of longevity. The reason that almost everything living likes to live is because of survival of the most well adapt, and liking to live is a useful adaptation.

Computer AIs would be just that, artificial. They wouldn't necessarily come with a built in instinct to protect themselves from us, unless we gave it to them. The idea that skynet would launch its missiles at us to protect itself means that somebody gave it that basic instinct to protect itself over humanity, and the intelligence to figure out how.

Just because an AI is intelligent doesn't mean it would have the same emotions, instincts or habits as a human. They will never try to take over the earth until we make an AI with an intrinsic desire to conquer all it can.

[DeKaFu]

Why do people always equate intelligence with certain aspects that we see in humans like the will to survive and prosper?

It's reasons like this that I'm skeptical about humans ever achieving AI. Human beings in general seem to have this ridiculously self-centred view of the universe, and look at everything around them through a filter of anthropocentrism.
As a result, a lot of people assume that intelligence is somehow tied up with humanity, so you get ridiculous leaps of logic like "if it becomes smart enough, it will automatically start behaving like a person". Also, I'm not really an expert on the topic, but a lot of AI-type projects I've seen seem to be approaching it from the angle of making computers able to mimic or pass for humans as an end-goal. I've always suspected that thanks to that, we're never going to actually create a true thinking AI. We're just going to create computers that are programmed to be able to fool humans into thinking they're human-like effectively, which is completely different.

A++ derail, would take part again.

[PanH]

Well, considering we're starting in making AI, it is just simply much easier to mimic an existing structure of intelligence. Like drawing with or without a model. It's necessary at start.

[Grakelin]

I was going to make a comment about how even the poorest provinces in Canada have higher minimum wage than what Obama is proposing the US rises to, but then I looked at the posts and didn't know what you were talking about.