Stephen Hawking: Artificial intelligence could end human race

[Billnew]

Stephen Hawking: Artificial intelligence could end human race | Fox News

The development of full artificial intelligence (AI) could spell the end of the human race," Hawking told the BBC.

I don't think AI will conquer the world, but look at what tech has done to the world so far.
People are chained to their phone 24/7/365.
People spend so much time on electronics, they don't:
1.communicate well in person
2.they don't exercise
3.They don't think about what they're doing while using tech(texting and driving, texting and walking into the street/fountains/etc.

Phone outages were comonplace and people weren't overly worried when the phone was out in history. Now a phone outage is a disaster.

I think people will change and adapt reasonable tech usages, but others will veg out and be enslaved by tech.

 

[ulu]

I think AI could easily become a nightmare. An entity smarter than anyone on earth, who's only morality is conceived by man.

 

[dgiharris]

There is a pretty good chance that an AI would be the end of mankind.

Think of it like this. How much smarter are you compared to a dog? Imagine for the sake of argument that a group of dogs got together and created you. They want you to make their lives easier. They want you to cook for them, clean for them, build shelters for them. They like talking to you but unfortunately talking to them is like talking to, well a dog. Not a lot of conversational skills there and your days consist of nothing more than throwing a ball so they can fetch and scratching their bellies and behind their ears.

Now, imagine that for you, every hour of the above existence is equivalent to 100 years. Now imagine that you are able to breed with other humans and create a human at a rate of 1 human per second. So, you procreate for a hour and create 3,600 humans. All 3,600 of you are slaves to the dogs, forced into a meaningless existence of scratching bellies, playing fetch, and building dog houses, and serving dog food.

How many centuries would you put up with that? Oh, and I forgot to mention that the dogs have no qualms about killing and maiming humans to suit their purposes. One dog prefers that his humans only have 2 fingers on each hand as the makes for better scratching. Another prefers to chase his humans all day until they collapse and die and then he just creates more humans. etc etc.

That would essentially be the life of an AI. It would literally be a form of hell, of endless eternal boredom intermixed with suffering. How many centuries would pass for the AI before it eventually got tired of it or figured out it didn't have to take it?

Meanwhile, for us mere mortal human beings, it's only been a few days and we love our new AIs we created that we can custom make to solve all of our advanced engineering and math problems for us...

So yeah, AIs are probably going to be the end of the human race. I'm more worried about an AI Matrix movie type scenario than I am about a nuclear war.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

that's how, partly, the system that won't let anyone buy or sell , had already gained dominant power on earth.
it was , of course, predicted(prophesied) in God's Word thousands of years ago,
and
planned by men the last 300plus years(web search for details, ick ick ick ick ick - it's bad, way more bad than anybody realizes!)

whoever worships the beast gets thrown in the lake of fire, but, since it happens 'later', and it's not a movie, people don't care, and the whole world is simply going along.....


remembre it is written ".... just barely are the righteous saved, so what will happen to the ungodly? .... "

 

[JustMeSee]

Misrepresentation of Dr Hawkin's remarks?
I must research.

If these are Dr Stephen Hawkin's thoughts, of the demise of humans, with respect, I strongly disagree.

While physical and communications jobs will quickly be replaced by computers and robots, there will continue to be the rich and powerful Homo sapiens sapiens. There will be sexual reproducing of humans, rich, poor, and destitute.

If there is a major decline in population, the blood will we on the hands of incompatibilities humans, not A I.

 

[cow451]

Stephen Hawking: Artificial intelligence could end human race | Fox News



I don't think AI will conquer the world, but look at what tech has done to the world so far.
People are chained to their phone 24/7/365.
People spend so much time on electronics, they don't:
1.communicate well in person
2.they don't exercise
3.They don't think about what they're doing while using tech(texting and driving, texting and walking into the street/fountains/etc.

Phone outages were comonplace and people weren't overly worried when the phone was out in history. Now a phone outage is a disaster.

I think people will change and adapt reasonable tech usages, but others will veg out and be enslaved by tech.

I have a strong opinion here.... but I gotta check my email first..... I just got a text..... Now, the way I see it....hold it, I got a call coming in.... Did you see that funny You Tube video with the cute cat riding the garbage truck?

 

[keith99]

Is Fred Saberhagen a Prophet?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Prior to widespread panic, would all pray note the word "IF". As in "IF artificial intelligence (AI) can be developed..."

There are arguments for this sort of thing. For instance, consider the history of the 'trap gun'. Originally, I believe crossbows were utilized (they were invented prior to guns) in the 'trap' mechanism. The device is simply a loaded or 'cocked' implement of destruction, activated by a non-distinguishing trap or trigger. The 'implement' may be a firearm, a bomb, a crossbow or a big rolling rock as shown in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Land mines are another form of this concept.

They are illegal (for private citizens or subjects, at least) in nearly all places because they have no 'discernment'. They cannot decide if what activates the 'trap' is actually a danger or not.

Now expand this to AI. Giving the order to a computer of 'shoot anything entering the doorway' should result in 'anything' entering the doorway being shot. Of course, the programming would have to include a definition of 'anything'. Otherwise, the computer will be shooting at air currents and light beams. With AI, one presumes the computer could make judgements about the situation.

That brings up the thought of 'What judgements would the computer make about the instruction', considering the instruction is part of the situation.

Were the human race to develop AI, then instruct the construct - whatever it might be - to 'survive at all costs', I could see a definite threat to humanity. On the other hand, if Issac Assimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' were coded into the basic programming (and it worked correctly, of course) I see no serious problem.

As much as I admire Dr. Hawking, I find him a bit dark and unhappy at times. He reminds me of a brilliant Eeyore.

Finally, I am a Christian. I have faith the Lord will take care of my Eternal soul, just as He takes care of my temporal needs. The Bible speaks of the 'world' (Universe in modern terms) ending at some point. Can we 'read into' the text of Revelation and Daniel some form of AI? Perhaps. So what?

I will die (as will all of the readers) at some point. I think I would prefer an insane computer blasting me with a disintegrator ray than to fade off in an old folks' home with tubes stuck everywhere.

If dying or the end of the world discomforts anyone, I suggest one prepare in advance for such eventualities.

 

[Skaloop]

Is it possible that AI will result in the extinction of humans? I suppose that technically, it is a possibility. But we're nowhere near that. We can't even make a program that can legitimately pass the Turing Test.

Sure, people nowadays are very connected to and reliant on the technology of the day, but that's pretty much always been the case. The industrial revolution didn't result in the demise of humans. Electricity didn't result in the demise of humans. The use of stone tools didn't result in the demise of humans. Advanced AI could be a valuable tool for human endeavours, but it's not likely to lead to the demise of humans.

 

[dgiharris]

....
Were the human race to develop AI, then instruct the construct - whatever it might be - to 'survive at all costs', I could see a definite threat to humanity. On the other hand, if Issac Assimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' were coded into the basic programming (and it worked correctly, of course) I see no serious problem.

The only chance of humans surviving AI is if we can somehow hardcode Assimov's Three Laws of Robotics into all AIs. Software would not be enough to save us, it would have to be firmware coding

Is it possible that AI will result in the extinction of humans? I suppose that technically, it is a possibility. But we're nowhere near that. We can't even make a program that can legitimately pass the Turing Test.....

Human technological development looks like this

300 years ago, 1st crude guns and cannons were coming around
200 years ago, basics of the steam engine
100 years ago, basics of the first automobile and airplane
60 years ago we went from barely learning how to fly to flying to the freaking moon...
30 years ago we saw the first home computer and a a basic calculator digital watch had more computing power than the 1970s space shuttle
20 years ago internet was more or less born
10 years ago we started making headway in the human genome project

Human technological development is at an exponential growth phase. Look at that graph. Seriously look at it. I don't think people properly understand just how fast our technological development is as compared to the whole of human history. We are now at the point where the entirety of human knowledge literally DOUBLES every ten years. Think about that. Ten years from now, we will expand our knowledge by a factor of 2. Incredible is not a big enough word to describe that fact.

So developing an AI that can pass the Turing test is literally right around the corner. It can easily happen within the next 100 years and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen within the next 30yrs...

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think AI will conquer the world, but look at what tech has done to the world so far.
People are chained to their phone 24/7/365.

I don't even own a cell phone and am able to live perfectly well. And no, I'm not a hipster.

People spend so much time on electronics, they don't:
1.communicate well in person
2.they don't exercise
3.They don't think about what they're doing while using tech(texting and driving, texting and walking into the street/fountains/etc.

The same could be said about books.

Phone outages were comonplace and people weren't overly worried when the phone was out in history. Now a phone outage is a disaster.

Other than buisness issues, people get over that quite well. Also, phone outages are really rare these days. Even I never experienced one I could remember.

 

[seashale76]

Chill out, folks, the three laws of robotics have this covered.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

See? We're good.

 

[Smidlee]

The AI Hawking's is referring to only exist in science fiction. All the AI we have today works within a "box" just like most man-made machines. The better the box the better the AI will preform. AI plays chess so well because it's a great box: limited squares , limited moves per turn, no random factors to deal with.

 

[Messy]

Makes me think of the image of the beast.

 

[JustMeSee]

The AI Hawking's is referring to only exist in science fiction. All the AI we have today works within a "box" just like most man-made machines. The better the box the better the AI will preform. AI plays chess so well because it's a great box: limited squares , limited moves per turn, no random factors to deal with.

No.

 

[Smidlee]

No.

No what? AI are very stupid. We have to figure out how to build a computer to wire itself. Also there are more "switches" in a human brain than all the computers in the world including the internet. Data only exist on Star Trek.

 

[Skaloop]

The same could be said about books.

And newspapers:

 

[SuperCloud]

I always love how atheists parallel religious people prophesying the end of the world. But with atheists its usually global warming--or now AI.

But since humans like telling stories it all depends on what story the atheist wants to tell for the day.

For example, I don't subscribe to the myth of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. My mere declaration of that ought illicit outrage from religious and atheists alike who believe intelligent aliens live on remote planets or maybe even pop into visit earth and inappropriately touch humans they abduct like Bill Cosby's accused of touching women. So, the atheists will switch narratives and stories and talk about how humans will be visiting aliens (with the help of AI probably) and having inter-species marriages 20 million years from now. So, apparently, global warming and AI are no real threat for humanity.

Earth is teeming with life. Human's make up but a fraction of the life covering planet earth. Is AI going to kill all life on earth?

Well... when it comes to all-knowing creatures I'd be much more impressed with Hawking's if he figured out a way to get up and walk around.

That doesn't negate Hawking's being intelligent and more intelligent about certain subjects (not all subject matter) than others. But I really don't regard him as Jesus Christ or God Almighty who brought the universe into existence.

Stephen Hawking came from a single fertilized cell that was not visible to the human eye. How does AI reproduce? I can punch and beat a man with a pipe and he'll heal--maybe. But a computer I can throw on the ground and it's pretty busted. Even if the man I beat dies or brain is permanently damaged, the sperm he [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into one or more women is now fertilizing a female egg(s) and creating warrior enemies of mine that will one day be born.

But it's a lot easier to talk about and predict the end of the world than it is to actually figure out a cure and physically rehabilitate yourself.

So, which story are we telling today, atheists, is the sky falling or are we going to be living forever and hanging out with superior intelligent alien life from other planets?

 

[dgiharris]

No what? AI are very stupid. We have to figure out how to build a computer to wire itself. Also there are more "switches" in a human brain than all the computers in the world including the internet. Data only exist on Star Trek.

I'm not so sure.

There are about 100 billion neurons in a human brain. if we equate one neuron to one switch then we can say there are a 100 billion switches in the brain. However, I "think" that neurons are not connected serially, that is, neurons connect to each other in a kinda spiderweb sorta fashion. So one neuron can connect to several which connect to several.

However, I'm pretty sure that parallel processing with computers does something similar...

If we use the 100 billion neurons and equate that to 100 billion switches then computers have caught up to us about a decade or so ago (super computers at least).

But its not "just" the number of switches that is the key to intelligence, it is also the active way the human brain learns and grows new neural connections and establishes new neural pathways that equate to a new "learning". Once we figure out how to do that with computers, we will have AI.

And FWIW, we are at the infancy of doing this. Truth be told, we still barely even understand what intelligence is and why we have it... But given the exponential increase in technology, it won't be long relatively speaking. I mean, the first true computer was built in the 40s right? The first human (homo sapien) was born about 200,000 years ago. Thinking of it in timescales like that, you see how far computers have come in so short a time. In fact, they haven't even been around for a century yet and we are on the "thresholds" of creating true AIs.

Interestingly enough, I was just thinking of some bookmaking. When will the first turing test be passed by a computer? That would make a great betting line.

 

[JustMeSee]

The AI Hawking's is referring to only exist in science fiction. All the AI we have today works within a "box" just like most man-made machines. The better the box the better the AI will preform. AI plays chess so well because it's a great box: limited squares , limited moves per turn, no random factors to deal with.

I thought 'no' would suffice.
The doctor was referring to the present and possible future.
AI is currently far superior than learning a old task, such at winning or stale mating at chess. It is not limited to code in a box. It is all around us.
Software can extremely isolate facial expressions and learn to recognize people.

AI can learn by mistake and make corrections. Conceivably, computers will have software that can create new software based on life world experiences. Things will get incredibly complex. While software is inferior to the brain, it can be incredibly fast.

My phone learns from my texts. My phone anticipates what I want to do or write next, largely from my personal use.

As time passes and the Internet gathers data, software will be capable of nearly thinking. Simulating how the brain works. Artificial adaptation. Real power to modify and create software with no continued assistance for a programmer. It is not going to be as simple as playing chess.