AI, Is Concern Warranted?

[Strathos]

Personally, I don't think a machine will ever be able to actually understand and "think", but just follow the code. I do think the code can get more and more complex to resemble more and more an actual human brain. If you have seen the show, Westworld, addresses and probably has the most realistic approach in science fiction, that I've seen, to artificial intelligence and consciousness.

Considering what I know of the study of consciousness, it is definitely possible, but probably not any time soon.

 

[bhsmte]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

Another video with no summary. Can you tell us your thoughts on this video?

 

[SnowyMacie]

Considering what I know of the study of consciousness, it is definitely possible, but probably not any time soon.

Right, especially since we don't even really know why consciousness even exists or the brain process behind it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Personally, I don't think a machine will ever be able to actually understand and "think", but just follow the code.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.

A robot, no matter how complex, is completely subject to it's code. It is not conscious or truly self-aware like humans are. In other words, it doesn't really make it's own decisions. It can be programmed to look as if it is, however, it does not.

 

[KCfromNC]

A robot, no matter how complex, is completely subject to it's code. It is not conscious or truly self-aware like humans are.

You seem to be implying that these are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't understand why.

In other words, it doesn't really make it's own decisions. It can be programmed to look as if it is, however, it does not.

Why is something which is programmed to make decisions not making decisions?

 

[durangodawood]

A robot, no matter how complex, is completely subject to it's code. It is not conscious or truly self-aware like humans are. In other words, it doesn't really make it's own decisions. It can be programmed to look as if it is, however, it does not.

For now, I agree.

But I can imagine ways in which a machine might become its own center of consciousness and make decisions on its own behalf.

 

[Speedwell]

A robot, no matter how complex, is completely subject to it's code. It is not conscious or truly self-aware like humans are. In other words, it doesn't really make it's own decisions. It can be programmed to look as if it is, however, it does not.

That is certainly true of all the robots we know about now or can conceive of for the immediate future,

but in order to rule out the possibility of self-aware intelligence for robots you would have to have a theory of how humans acquired and maintain self-awareness.

Do you?

 

[timewerx]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

Not at all concerned...

Just give AI instincts of extreme self-preservation, greed of money, love of pleasure, short-sightedness, and it will no longer try to destroy humanity.

Makes you think if God is an AI because God also wants to judge the world

 

[Radrook]

Not at all concerned...

Just give AI instincts of extreme self-preservation, greed of money, love of pleasure, short-sightedness, and it will no longer try to destroy humanity.

Makes you think if God is an AI because God also wants to judge the world

Judging it to be worthy of salvation and living in a paradise Earth?

2 Peter 3.5-13 and Revelation 21.1-22.5.

 

[Radrook]

Another video with no summary. Can you tell us your thoughts on this video?

I expressed my thoughts on post 15 and 19.
No, I don't believe that we are presently capable of endowing consciousness to computers or ever will be able to do so with the present approach. What we can do with the present approach is to refine the way computers mimic consciousness until it becomes difficult to tell the difference. Please read my description about chess-playing computers in post 19 which is very relevant to this issue. T

BTW
That having been said, no I don't consider AI in that mimicking form a threat to mankind.
Only if AI acquires volition, a conscious awareness, an ego that it feels it must aggrandize or defend, or a strong sense of having been wronged as in the short story "I Have No Mouth but I Must Scream"-would mankind be in danger. Even then that presupposes that mankind is stupid enough to leave itself vulnerable to such a danger instead of taking common-sense precautionary measures.

 

[Radrook]

Not yet. No more than concern over nanobots is yet warranted.

This article enumerates the dangers that self-replicating nanobots might confront us witch in the near future. The one that impressed me most was the calculation of unrestrained out of control nano-bots potentially engulfing the Earth's biomass in just three weeks. Sounds a bit far fetched to me but I suppose that they know what they are talking about.

Living creatures—including humans—would be the primary victims of an exponentially spreading nanobot attack. The principal designs for nanobot construction use carbon as a primary building block. Because of carbon’s unique ability to form four-way bonds, it is an ideal building block for molecular assemblies. Because biology has made the same use of carbon, pathological nanobots would find the Earth’s biomass an ideal source of this primary ingredient.

How long would it take an out-of-control replicating nanobot to destroy the Earth’s biomass? The biomass has on the order of 1045 carbon atoms. A reasonable estimate of the number of carbon atoms in a single replicating nanobot is about 106. (Note that this analysis is not very sensitive to the accuracy of these figures, only to the approximate order of magnitude.) This malevolent nanobot would need to create on the order of 1034 copies of itself to replace the biomass, which could be accomplished with 113 replications (each of which would potentially double the destroyed biomass). Rob Freitas has estimated a minimum replication time of approximately 100 seconds, so 113 replication cycles would require about three hours.2 However, the actual rate of destruction would be slower because biomass is not “efficiently” laid out. The limiting factor would be the actual movement of the front of destruction. Nanobots cannot travel very quickly because of their small size. It’s likely to take weeks for such a destructive process to circle the globe.

Nanotechnology Dangers and Defenses | KurzweilAI

 

[RDKirk]

This article enumerates the dangers that self-replicating nanobots might confront us witch in the near future. The one that impressed me most was the calculation of unrestrained out of control nano-bots potentially engulfing the Earth's biomass in just three weeks. Sounds a bit far fetched to me but I suppose that they know what they are talking about.

What they're talking about, though, is nothing more than what SF writers speculated about forty and more years or more ago...and isn't really closer to reality now, in terms of actually turning the corner into reality.

 

[RDKirk]

I expressed my thoughts on post 15 and 19.
No, I don't believe that we are presently capable of endowing consciousness to computers or ever will be able to do so with the present approach. What we can do with the present approach is to refine the way computers mimic consciousness until it becomes difficult to tell the difference. Please read my description about chess-playing computers in post 19 which is very relevant to this issue.

Chessmaster Bobby Fisher made an observation and a point a few decades ago that chess could be played at the master level by someone with merely a very good memory of possible permutations...something a computer certainly has.

That having been said, no I don't consider AI in that mimicking form a threat to mankind.
Only if AI acquires volition, a conscious awareness, an ego that it feels it must aggrandize or defend, or a strong sense of having been wronged as in the short story "I Have No Mouth but I Must Scream"-would mankind be in danger. Even then that presupposes that mankind is stupid enough to leave itself vulnerable to such a danger instead of taking common-sense precautionary measures.

BTW, you realize, don't you, that Harlan Ellison wrote that story as a diatribe against God? I think it was about 1972 before I belatedly realized it.

 

[timewerx]

Judging it to be worthy of salvation and living in a paradise Earth?

2 Peter 3.5-13 and Revelation 21.1-22.5.

Only few will remain though - Revelations 11:18

....and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”

That would be the vast majority of our population.

So I'm not a least bit concerned about AI for one way or the other, we are coming to an end.

 

[timewerx]

Only if AI acquires volition, a conscious awareness, an ego that it feels it must aggrandize or defend, or a strong sense of having been wronged as in the short story "I Have No Mouth but I Must Scream"-would mankind be in danger. Even then that presupposes that mankind is stupid enough to leave itself vulnerable to such a danger instead of taking common-sense precautionary measures.

When dealing with AI we cannot completely use the human perspective.

For starters, AI/computers doesn't have to deal with hormones or body chemicals which could induce emotions, pleasure, and affect decision-making.

If you remove those components in human physiology, including the sensation of pain, we'll probably behave like robots too.

We would simply look at our world purely from an information or logical standpoint. Efficiency and Order will be the rule..

as in the short story "I Have No Mouth but I Must Scream"

Could Jesus be talking about computers here?

Luke 19:40
"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

The most abundant mineral in stones (rocks) are silicates. It is from silicates we get silicon. Silicon forms the core physical component of information processing in computers.

Of course, it took thousands of years before that promise is fulfilled if that is the case. But time is usually seen differently from a divine perspective.

 

[jerrygab2]

 

[AV1611VET]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

If it wasn't for scientists getting us concerned over Y2K or nuclear fallout or global starvation or icebergs breaking off or ice ages or global warming or owls going extinct or an asteroid strike or caffeine in our coffee or sugar in our candy bars or grinding our teeth at night or overpopulation or raising fat kinds or condom machines in school keeping stocked, we would be concerned over our kids getting good grades or being nurtured and grounded in the Truth.

 

[Radrook]

If it wasn't for scientists getting us concerned over Y2K or nuclear fallout or global starvation or icebergs breaking off or ice ages or global warming or owls going extinct or an asteroid strike or caffeine in our coffee or sugar in our candy bars or grinding our teeth at night or overpopulation or raising fat kinds or condom machines in school keeping stocked, we would be concerned over our kids getting good grades or being nurtured and grounded in the Truth.

True! The concern we humans have are determined by our knowledge and science adds to the knowledge and therefore adds to our concerns. But generally speaking humans are more concerned with the immediate issues at hand that are affecting them or might affect them personally than in the theoretical calculations involving asteroids, global warming, or the Sun becoming a red giant in the very far future. That's one reason why we tend to plow ahead a bit uncaringly, pay little heed and in that manner increase the likelihood of the things that we are warned about overtaking us as a species. Also, our short lifespan makes it very convenient to leave the consequences of our actions as a species to our kids or our descendants. After all, we won't be around when the manure hits the fan so why worry?

 

[Radrook]

What they're talking about, though, is nothing more than what SF writers speculated about forty and more years or more ago...and isn't really closer to reality now, in terms of actually turning the corner into reality.

Not any closer? Are you kidding?


How far are we from Nanobots?

Nanosilver based products have already been rapidly commercialized worldwide. So it’s pretty much safe to conclude that we are not far away from Nanobots or Nano robots. In fact, we’re pretty close.