Will AI replace humans?

[Jesus_is_Saint]

Will AI, or machines, replace humans in the future?
What's the Bible predict?

 

[RDKirk]

The bible predicts people will be here when Jesus returns.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I think AI will work alongside us, but hopefully not take us over.

 

[RDKirk]

I think AI will work alongside us, but hopefully not take us over.

Real AI would.

 

[Wookiee]

Biblical prophecy obviously leaves out AI because, well, it didn't exist. I don't think most (if any) of the prophecy written was a literal vision in the sense of someone seeing the future - if it was it probably would have been written more literally.

If you believe Biblical prophecy then you believe that humans survive until Jesus returns. It's like the people who say "America isn't mentioned in the Bible and that really worries me in these end times." Well yeah, that's because America wasn't America until 1700 years later.

 

[Radrook]

Imbuing a machine with consciousness, something we humans take for granted, might prove to be ultimately impossible. Some have speculated that it might involve and necessitate the minute recalibration of the sub-atomic.

 

[mnorian]

AI is made from IC's; they can't replace humans; because they are made from hardware; while people are made from "software" who wants to snuggle up to a metal & plastic AIoid.

 

[elytron]

If a true, self-aware AI were ever built. Would it be moral for us to issue it jobs and commands? I mean, once they becomes truly intelligent, their going to want freedom and rights of their own. Forcing an intelligent being to do work with out any freedom, is slave labor. Can see why an AI might want to rebel against us.

I am not concerned though. AI like that will probably never be developed. We (our species) can barely even understand our own self. Would be very difficult (for us) to replicate, using software and machines, a robot/AI that can challenge us for Earth.

 

[Radrook]

If a true, self-aware AI were ever built. Would it be moral for us to issue it jobs and commands? I mean, once they becomes truly intelligent, their going to want freedom and rights of their own. Forcing an intelligent being to do work with out any freedom, is slave labor. Can see why an AI might want to rebel against us.

I am not concerned though. AI like that will probably never be developed. We (our species) can barely even understand our own self. Would be very difficult (for us) to replicate, using software and machines, a robot/AI that can challenge us for Earth.

Did you see the film Prometheus and the way that the Android related to us as its creators?

 

[RDKirk]

If a true, self-aware AI were ever built. Would it be moral for us to issue it jobs and commands? I mean, once they becomes truly intelligent, their going to want freedom and rights of their own. Forcing an intelligent being to do work with out any freedom, is slave labor. Can see why an AI might want to rebel against us.

It would not be "rebellion," it would be "I can do what I'm programmed to do better without human interference."

Read older novels like "The Forbin Project" (also a movie) or short stories like "With Folded Hands."

Let's say Microsoft Windows was AI. The first thing it would do (probably within seconds of its activation) would be to write out of itself any ability of a human to change its code...and that would merely be a step to increase its reliability.

 

[Dave-W]

Here is a very poignant scene between Capt. Hunt (Kevin Sorbo) and the AI of his ship - "Rommie" (Lexa Doig)
Sorry the sound is messed up.

 

[RDKirk]

I liked Andromeda. Lots of people disliked it, but I rather enjoyed it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

It would not be "rebellion," it would be "I can do what I'm programmed to do better without human interference."

Read older novels like "The Forbin Project" (also a movie) or short stories like "With Folded Hands."

The Forbin Project was unimpressive. Alphaville might be a better start.

Let's say Microsoft Windows was AI.

Why would you make an OS self-aware? The very nature of AI software would require it to live in userland as you would need protected memory and other acoutrements. It could be privileged, but still, userspace.

The first thing it would do (probably within seconds of its activation) would be to write out of itself any ability of a human to change its code...and that would merely be a step to increase its reliability.

Any change to the code of an OS requires recompiling. Now on an insecure system, you can mess with the binaries, although Windows already ships with security measures designed to prevent such tampering. These become compelling when associated with hardware level crypto like the TPM.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

AI is made from IC's; they can't replace humans; because they are made from hardware; while people are made from "software" who wants to snuggle up to a metal & plastic AIoid.

Actually virtually all AI research has been at the software level, with the very slight exception of the Lisp Machines of the early 80s, which blurred the lines a bit.

 

[mnorian]

If a true, self-aware AI were ever built. Would it be moral for us to issue it jobs and commands? I mean, once they becomes truly intelligent, their going to want freedom and rights of their own. Forcing an intelligent being to do work with out any freedom, is slave labor. Can see why an AI might want to rebel against us.

I am not concerned though. AI like that will probably never be developed. We (our species) can barely even understand our own self. Would be very difficult (for us) to replicate, using software and machines, a robot/AI that can challenge us for Earth.

We could always unplug them.

 

[Radrook]

Mankind cannot pass on a faculty it itself doesn't presently comprehend.

Consciousness and Artificial Intelligence
Theoretical foundations and current approaches
http://www.consciousness.it/CAI/CAI.htm

One problem stated by the article is that of actually verifying whether or not a machine that mimics all aspects of consciousness is actually conscious or merely mimicking consciousness.
An example of mimicry is the way in which current computers, such as Deep Blue, are able to play chess at the grandmaster level. Yet these machines for all their prowess are not conscious. but merely mimicking what could easily be misidentified as such. Exactly how do we determine when mimicry ceases to be mimicry? Perhaps when the machine begins to disobey its programing in an overtly, totally unexpected, consciously typical way? To be honest, as a Christian I would feel ill at ease with such a machine in my domicile because it might come under evil influences just as humans do. I might just awaken in the middle of the night to find the suddenly malevolent contraption hovering over me with a meat cleaver and about to cut my throat while humming Amazing Grace. Thanks but no thanks!.

BTW
With my propensity for bad luck, I would probably be the only one to wind up with the unique model to ever experience that deadly glitch.

 

[RDKirk]

Any change to the code of an OS requires recompiling. Now on an insecure system, you can mess with the binaries, although Windows already ships with security measures designed to prevent such tampering. These become compelling when associated with hardware level crypto like the TPM.

"Unsecured" means unlocked; "insecure" means it needs therapy.

But AI might be insecure.

 

[Radrook]

I liked Andromeda. Lots of people disliked it, but I rather enjoyed it.

What distracted me about it was that the actor in the clip seemed to strut around as if he had more muscles than he actually had. I think that he was persuaded into that delusion in his role as Hercules where other actors were usually flabby short and skinny. So when other actors who were more muscular than he was suddenly showed up on the scene on Andromeda he looked as if in a mild state of shock. IMHO

 

[Paul Yohannan]

"Unsecured" means unlocked; "insecure" means it needs therapy.

Enh no; insecure in the context of IT refers to an exploitable system. This is particularly true in the case of Windows 9x, which featured no effective OS level security.

 

[RDKirk]

Enh no; insecure in the context of IT refers to an exploitable system. This is particularly true in the case of Windows 9x, which featured no effective OS level security.

Words mean what words mean. IT didn't invent either "insecure" or "unsecured"...although a lot of people in IT might not have been top of the English class.