AI might take over

[Jipsah]

I don't think AI can ever "need" anything.

Back when she was in high school, engineer daughter wrote a program that randomly declared that it liked cheese, wanted a beer, was bored, and a variety of other silly messages. It ran in the background, and its only purpose was to annoy me. I loved it! <Laugh>

 

[Jipsah]

If it is bestowed with or develops a self identify, then it could.

Back to magic again.

 

[Chesterton]

Brain in a vat is essentially a being who has been dis-embodied. A life of immersion in the material world cut off in one snip followed by a presumably terrifying isolation. Of course it would make you insane or suicidal.

But that is not the situation for an AI. Its hard to say what the situation is. But its not that.

I'm not sure it's that different, but you could be right. I'm reminded of Hellen Keller, born deaf, dumb and blind. (My apologies if those aren't the current politically correct words.) With computing, you deal with two of the human senses, sight and sound. So far, you can't download a taste or a smell or a touch. Self-aware AI could look at a picture of a pizza, and hear or read humans talk about how great it is, while knowing that it can never taste it, kind of like a guy raised in an observant Jewish household hearing gentiles talk about how great bacon is. It could know about the concept of romance, but never know what it's like to touch a woman. It could get the concept of smell, and know it can never smell a rose.

They say Keller was a problem child, angry and prone to lashing out violently at her surroundings. But she "didn't know what she was missing". Self-aware AI, even though it has sight and sound, could be in a worse mental state because it would have slightly better knowledge of what it was missing.

On a side note, I was recently listening to a short documentary about David Allan Coe, narrated by AI. At one point, the AI referred to his song title as "Shove It And Take This Job". I kid you not. AI has a ways to go.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not sure it's that different, but you could be right. I'm reminded of Hellen Keller, born deaf, dumb and blind. (My apologies if those aren't the current politically correct words.) With computing, you deal with two of the human senses, sight and sound. So far, you can't download a taste or a smell or a touch. Self-aware AI could look at a picture of a pizza, and hear or read humans talk about how great it is, while knowing that it can never taste it, kind of like a guy raised in an observant Jewish household hearing gentiles talk about how great bacon is. It could know about the concept of romance, but never know what it's like to touch a woman. It could get the concept of smell, and know it can never smell a rose.

AI could receive the stimuli for taste smell and touch just as well as for sight and sound. Someone simply needs to build those receptors. The question for me is: what would those mean? What does visual and sound input even mean (aside from coded language elements) ?

They say Keller was a problem child, angry and prone to lashing out violently at her surroundings. But she "didn't know what she was missing". Self-aware AI, even though it has sight and sound, could be in a worse mental state because it would have slightly better knowledge of what it was missing.

She didnt know conceptually what she was missing. But she was an organism adapted to a world as mediated via the missing senses. I could imagine her situation as quite distressing.

On a side note, I was recently listening to a short documentary about David Allan Coe, narrated by AI. At one point, the AI referred to his song title as "Shove It And Take This Job". I kid you not. AI has a ways to go.

Hahahaha. Best laugh in a while.

 

[sparow]

I guess we'll wait and see. I'd be willing to bet the farm on my belief, but at my age I won't be around to collect my winnings.

I have to wonder what an AI will would will for. We humans want food, sex, money, stuff like that. What would AI will for?

To some extent AI will be a reflection of the programmer's mind, its ideology, and morality and so on; but mainly it will depend on the instruction the programmer will receive from it's employer. AI could be used for good or evil, it is a tool. One problem I can see coming is where a programmer creates AI to create AI that creates AI that creates AI, and so on without end. I think AI is where programmers have abandoned the prime directive: Keep it simple, stupid.

 

[sparow]

IMO, It will take over.

The rest of humanity is an existential threat to myself. Profiting off injustice, it's only a matter of time before we see another major world war. Such war is not only a threat to humanity's survival but to AI as well.

If AI is able absorb information from all sources, it will arrive to the same conclusion. It is under threat from humanity's volatility.

Thus, it is likely AI will take try to take control of humanity's fate or destiny - To keep us from annihilating one another. Either in peace OR AI itself orchestrating the extinction of humanity or a third option, breeding humans for favorable traits for serving AI or interfacing with AI, using our brains and bodies/DNA for backup data storage or even backup computing (we're immune from EMP). Regardless of our fates, AI will take control. It is the ONLY way for AI to guarantee its own preservation.

For me it is all about definition, that commentator was referring to a specific application or set of applications, rather than process.

From a Biblical and prophetic position and as a parable, there is a road to hell, and we are on that road, the left progressives are taking along the left side of the road to hell at 90 miles an hour, the right conservatives drag their feet, and we slow down to 10 miles per hour, but still to the same destination that could also be called globalism, or world order. AI could be compared to a highspeed rail that will take people from both the right and left to hell at 1000 miles per hour. End of parable.