Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man

[CuttingEdge100]

ScottHM,

But if it's intelligent like us, it can evaluate it's programming, and modify it's programming. Just like how we can evaluate beliefs and find them to be complete nonsense.

What if it is able to evaluate it's programming that says that it should not harm humans but finds no rational reason for this and even arrives at the belief that it shouldn't be prohibited from doing so or in fact should do it?


CuttingEdge100

 

[msbae]

Please realize that robots are your friends.

Robots are my tools, nothing more. I see no reason to program them to think for me when I happen to enjoy doing that for myself.

 

[Lindley]

ScottHM,

But if it's intelligent like us, it can evaluate it's programming, and modify it's programming. Just like how we can evaluate beliefs and find them to be complete nonsense.

What if it is able to evaluate it's programming that says that it should not harm humans but finds no rational reason for this and even arrives at the belief that it shouldn't be prohibited from doing so or in fact should do it?


CuttingEdge100

You do realize there's no counter-argument to be made when your scenario is, "What if everything bad I can think of, no matter how unlikely or impossible, happens?"

Personally I don't believe it's possible for any of the current research directions (at least those commonly known) to produce a quality of intelligence similar to ours. Pure quantity, sure, but an extremely different type which is not well-suited to the kind of thinking you ascribe.

 

[msbae]

While I'm at it, I'm wondering what arguments people have to suggest why it would *not* be a good idea to have an A.I. in charge of government in lieu of humans and making our decisions for us.


Sincerely,
Helen

Here's one. I won't accept some device telling me what to do with myself. I will rebel. I will find its weaknesses (especially if I can argue it to death using its own flawed logic against it like Captain Kirk), and I will exploit them. That machine will be scrap metal by the end of the week.

Such a construct----fantastic as it would be, and still well into the realm of science fiction, nowhere near reality----would be a source of amazing intellect and insight into the human condition. It would literally understand us better than we understand ourselves. It would know we would never allow it to dominate us, but it would also realize that after the initial shock of its existence wore off, many would welcome the various ways it could simplify their lives.

As long as it sticks to helping find things online, I have no problem with a self-aware Google. When it steps out of line, I flip it the finger by using Bing or something else instead. Also, it wouldn't understand me well at all. I keep way too many secrets and much of what I publish online is Bullshit anyway.

We humans are really quite the self-determined bunch. I guarantee you that in the next few centuries, people will always shoot down the idea of handing power over to an AI. Because it's an other. Human beings don't trust things that are different, frankly, and a computer is too different to be trusted with running our lives.

W3rd.

Also, in order to beat Humans, you have to think like them. Machines are not capable of leaping beyond logic like that... and that is why V'Ger needed to evolve...

Yeah, that's right. I just made a really bad TMP reference as a joke about Technological Singularity. Deal.

EDIT: Look what I found on Slate...

http://slatev.com/player.html?id=30233340001

Doesn't look like any of them will be saying 'By your command' anytime soon...

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Msbae,

A computer that is designed to mimick the functions of a human brain would act just like a human brain including it's ability to "leap beyond logic", make guesses, and such.

Don't confuse scifi with reality...


CuttingEdge100

 

[SilentP]

I didn't say that, I simply said that superior ability breeding superior ambition is an expectation of anyone or anything that's intelligent.

Question, why is it an expecation of anything intelligent? You can perhaps make that expectation of all humans, but if the scenario arises that a non-organic sentience comes about, how can you make any expectations about how it may act? How can you have any expectations about an entity whose entire view on the world and it's place within it may be completely alien to what we can comprehend.

If a non-organic sentience were to arise, how we as a race will probably define our ability to handle any true non-terrestrial sentience, for it will be the first time we face a race that comes from a completely differene 'origin'.

 

[Lindley]

A computer that is designed to mimick the functions of a human brain would act just like a human brain

It's been tried. Turns out we don't understand the brain well enough to mimic it on that level. Not even close. There's also a question of whether we have the computing power to even approach the complexity necessary at this point.

 

[msbae]

A computer that is designed to mimick the functions of a human brain would act just like a human brain

It's been tried. Turns out we don't understand the brain well enough to mimic it on that level. Not even close. There's also a question of whether we have the computing power to even approach the complexity necessary at this point.

Thankfully we don't. Also, emulating a Human brain would be no help since Humans often find me to be inexplicable and unpredictable. I like that quality in my character...

 

[Supreme Admiral]

Here's one. I won't accept some device telling me what to do with myself. I will rebel. I will find its weaknesses (especially if I can argue it to death using its own flawed logic against it like Captain Kirk), and I will exploit them. That machine will be scrap metal by the end of the week.

I'm with you!!!

 

[msbae]

Here's one. I won't accept some device telling me what to do with myself. I will rebel. I will find its weaknesses (especially if I can argue it to death using its own flawed logic against it like Captain Kirk), and I will exploit them. That machine will be scrap metal by the end of the week.

I'm with you!!!

On second thought, maybe I should have said 'by the end of the episode'...

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

It's been tried. Turns out we don't understand the brain well enough to mimic it on that level. Not even close. There's also a question of whether we have the computing power to even approach the complexity necessary at this point.

Oh, but we will eventually...


Msbae,

Also, emulating a Human brain would be no help since Humans often find me to be inexplicable and unpredictable.

We're not really inexplicable. We're the product of our genetic make-up and our environment which consists of our experiences, things we're exposed to, and even injuries.


CuttingEdge100

 

[msbae]

We're not really inexplicable. We're the product of our genetic make-up and our environment which consists of our experiences, things we're exposed to, and even injuries.


CuttingEdge100

That, and...

1. my deliberate choice to act in certain ways under certain circumstances... i.e. forgetting that I'm civilized at all and emulating a ruthless Hunn and/or Mongol-like barbarian so I can win the war. (Thank you Atilla and Timugen.)
2. my deliberate choice to do exactly what no one would logically expect me to do in a battle... (Thank you, Sun Tzu.)
3. I'm always going to be smarter than some glorified adding machine. I (or someone like me) created that beast, I can destroy it too. (Thank you, Science.)

 

[CuttingEdge100]

However the thing is, those choices are merely a product of how you brain acts in relation to it's environment based on environmental products and genetics.

Technically there really isn't actually a choice per se.

 

[msbae]

However the thing is, those choices are merely a product of how you brain acts in relation to it's environment based on environmental products and genetics.

Technically there really isn't actually a choice per se.

The mere fact that Human Free Will exists compels me to disagree.

Yet another article about Scientists being scared of their own inventions.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6736130.ece

 

[Lindley]

Yet another sensationalized article by a journalist who doesn't really understand the issues----or if he does, isn't interested in ensuring his readers do. Let me pick out the relevant points from the scare-mongering:

Robotic unmanned predator drones, for example, which can seek out and kill human targets, have already moved out of the movie theatres and into the theatre of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. While at present controlled by human operators, they are moving towards more autonomous control.

Yes, robots armed with weapons are nowhere near smart enough to be trusted with kill/no kill decisions on their own. Duh. They're glorified mobile turrets, and should be treated as such.

The scientists dismissed as fanciful fears about “singularity” — the term used to describe the point where robots have become so intelligent they are able to build ever more capable versions of themselves without further input from mankind.

I'd agree, we're nowhere near singularity. You wouldn't know it from the tone of the rest of the article, though.

The researchers warned that many of the new viruses defy extermination, reaching what one speaker called “the cockroach stage”.

This is a bit concerning, actually. Of all the life-like features of AI, self-replication is one that computers are extremely good at.

 

[Geckothan]

Machines already outsmart most men, despite their lack of consciousness and intelligence.

 

[TeknoNurd]

However the thing is, those choices are merely a product of how you brain acts in relation to it's environment based on environmental products and genetics.

Technically there really isn't actually a choice per se.

The mere fact that Human Free Will exists compels me to disagree.

Yet another article about Scientists being scared of their own inventions.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6736130.ece

"Free Will" is anything but "fact" and is a topic all it's own.

CE100 is saying, in long form, that your brain works on very physical chemical, electric, and physical reactions. Every thought you have is the result of these reactions. To the extent that these reactions are predictable (100%) is directly proportionate to the amount of free will you have (0%). There is a persuasive school of thought that says when the big bang banged, that all of this was innevitable as it is merely the result of consistent chemical and physical reactions that were set into motion then. Freaky.

We have the illusion or appearance of free will in that we don't have complete knowledge of the ongoing chemical reactions that are occurring.

OK... CE100 may not be saying that

 

[msbae]

However the thing is, those choices are merely a product of how you brain acts in relation to it's environment based on environmental products and genetics.

Technically there really isn't actually a choice per se.

The mere fact that Human Free Will exists compels me to disagree.

Yet another article about Scientists being scared of their own inventions.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6736130.ece

"Free Will" is anything but "fact" and is a topic all it's own.

CE100 is saying, in long form, that your brain works on very physical chemical, electric, and physical reactions. Every thought you have is the result of these reactions. To the extent that these reactions are predictable (100%) is directly proportionate to the amount of free will you have (0%). There is a persuasive school of thought that says when the big bang banged, that all of this was innevitable as it is merely the result of consistent chemical and physical reactions that were set into motion then. Freaky.

We have the illusion or appearance of free will in that we don't have complete knowledge of the ongoing chemical reactions that are occurring.

OK... CE100 may not be saying that

That sounds like a school that was started by students who used to wear the Dunce cap on a regular basis.

 

[Lindley]

CE100 is saying, in long form, that your brain works on very physical chemical, electric, and physical reactions. Every thought you have is the result of these reactions. To the extent that these reactions are predictable (100%) is directly proportionate to the amount of free will you have (0%). There is a persuasive school of thought that says when the big bang banged, that all of this was innevitable as it is merely the result of consistent chemical and physical reactions that were set into motion then. Freaky.

We have the illusion or appearance of free will in that we don't have complete knowledge of the ongoing chemical reactions that are occurring.

Basic quantum mechanics throws that out the window. Nothing is entirely predictable, because nothing is certain until it's observed. It's all just probabilities.

 

[msbae]

CE100 is saying, in long form, that your brain works on very physical chemical, electric, and physical reactions. Every thought you have is the result of these reactions. To the extent that these reactions are predictable (100%) is directly proportionate to the amount of free will you have (0%). There is a persuasive school of thought that says when the big bang banged, that all of this was innevitable as it is merely the result of consistent chemical and physical reactions that were set into motion then. Freaky.

We have the illusion or appearance of free will in that we don't have complete knowledge of the ongoing chemical reactions that are occurring.

Basic quantum mechanics throws that out the window. Nothing is entirely predictable, because nothing is certain until it's observed. It's all just probabilities.

Exactly, a school of thought started by kids who regularly wore the Dunce cap. We really ought to bring that back into schools these days. The embarrassment might actually convince a few kids to be less retarded.

Yet another article about some scientist thinking we're about to build Skynet...

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43496/135/

Where do these sensationalist idiots come from anyway?