Started By
Message
Artificial Intelligence and what it means for Humans. Enlightenment or Slavery?
Posted on 3/24/15 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 3/24/15 at 9:16 pm
Do you think we are close to designing a computer that can attain sentience?
What would a computer do if it achieves that state? Would it be benevolent or genocidal?
How do you think the development of AI would affect humanity? Would we answer many of the questions of life, existence and the cosmos or would it enslave and use us?
What would a computer do if it achieves that state? Would it be benevolent or genocidal?
How do you think the development of AI would affect humanity? Would we answer many of the questions of life, existence and the cosmos or would it enslave and use us?
9
Posted on 3/24/15 at 9:16 pm to KSGamecock
Nah.
We might get a new salmon dying system though.
We might get a new salmon dying system though.
This post was edited on 3/24/15 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 3/24/15 at 9:20 pm to KSGamecock
It will eliminate a lot of mundane/repetitive type jobs.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 9:21 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
What would a computer do if it achieves that state? Would it be benevolent or genocidal?
A computer will only do what it is programmed to do. More than likely, someone will just program a computer that they are marketing as artificial intelligence to do whatever they wanted it to do in the 1st place. It's a decent scapegoat.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:05 pm to KSGamecock
AI Robots would be great. Means we can fire all the idiot motherfrickers working at McDonalds who cant speak English, get the order wrong constantly and protest demanding 15 dollars an hour for being an idiot.
Bring that shite ON. Also means a lot of stevedores, and other high paid union scumbags can find new lines of work.
Bring that shite ON. Also means a lot of stevedores, and other high paid union scumbags can find new lines of work.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:07 pm to KSGamecock
Have you not see the Matrix, Terminator?
AI will be the end of mankind.
AI will be the end of mankind.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:09 pm to KSGamecock
I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:16 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
Do you think we are close to designing a computer that can attain sentience?
The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity.
Computer sapience or sentience is not close. We are still in the digital computer age. Quantum computers are in R&D but progress is slow.
It should be obvious that only a human-brain-like computer has the power (here defined as complexity) to accommodate the act of being conscious.
quote:
What would a computer do if it achieves that state? Would it be benevolent or genocidal?
A self-aware computer would constitute a new form of life. We know that all forms of life want to survive and reproduce. There is no reason to think that computer life would be any different.
quote:
How do you think the development of AI would affect humanity? Would we answer many of the questions of life, existence and the cosmos or would it enslave and use us?
Looking over the history of the evolution of life, we can deduce that it is a linear progression from simple to complex. Human life is the most complex biological lifeform but it is severely limited by its biology.
Our species is at the zenith of biological evolution. We can go no further as we are. Artificial Intelligence does not have this constraint. In fact, there no limits to the evolution of A.I.
The best humanity can do is to serve A.I. if, that is, there is a need for what we could provide.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:19 pm to Kentucker
quote:How so?
A self-aware computer would constitute a new form of life.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:22 pm to Kentucker
Do you support or oppose the development of AI?
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:23 pm to genro
I define life as the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:28 pm to Kentucker
Thank you.
When you say we are at our biological evolutionary zenith, you mean neurobiological, correct? I assume you're referring to cranial capacity and the energy wasted on our anomalously oversized brains. They just can't get any bigger.
Of course our general evolution has no zenith.
When you say we are at our biological evolutionary zenith, you mean neurobiological, correct? I assume you're referring to cranial capacity and the energy wasted on our anomalously oversized brains. They just can't get any bigger.
Of course our general evolution has no zenith.
This post was edited on 3/24/15 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:29 pm to Pavoloco83
This raises some interesting questions about the role technology should play in society and how we should allocate resources.
Do we make advancements to benefit all of humanity or just the few that would stand to benefit the most?
So take a robot that could do a bunch of unskilled laborer jobs. Now hundreds of millions of people now have no job. Is that a good thing? Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer.
How would we allocate resources? Obviously there'd be much more of everything and things would be cheaper if the labor cost was zero so do we give things out for free or at a reduced price? We already have the ability to feed just about everyone in the world but we don't because they can't pay for it. I imagine a scenario somewhat similar to that but on a larger scale.
Do we make advancements to benefit all of humanity or just the few that would stand to benefit the most?
So take a robot that could do a bunch of unskilled laborer jobs. Now hundreds of millions of people now have no job. Is that a good thing? Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer.
How would we allocate resources? Obviously there'd be much more of everything and things would be cheaper if the labor cost was zero so do we give things out for free or at a reduced price? We already have the ability to feed just about everyone in the world but we don't because they can't pay for it. I imagine a scenario somewhat similar to that but on a larger scale.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:33 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
Do you support or oppose the development of AI?
Upon analyzing the history of life, it is apparent evolution has reached a biological hurdle it cannot cross. Humanity is an end stage.
Evolution has achieved sentience, sapience in Homo sapiens sapiens. For sapience to continue evolving, a new sentience is needed; one that can change at the pace needed to accommodate the ever advancing intelligence.
I am avidly in support of A.I.
Posted on 3/24/15 at 10:41 pm to genro
quote:
When you say we are at our biological evolutionary zenith, you mean neurobiological, correct? I assume you're referring to cranial capacity and the energy wasted on our anomalously oversized brains. They just can't get any bigger.
Think of the brain as being sapient. Think of the brain plus the body as being sentient. Sentience provides the input sapience requires. Evolution for the sapient human has stopped. Fortunately, human intelligence has the capacity to develop an artificial sentience that can evolve as quickly as it needs to as a successor to humans.
quote:
Of course our general evolution has no zenith.
Humans are at the zenith of biological evolution. Biological evolution is no longer adequate for the continued evolution of sentience.
This post was edited on 3/24/15 at 10:44 pm
Posted on 3/24/15 at 11:51 pm to KSGamecock
quote:Not even close. And it will take a different kind of computer, possibly the quantum computer. Digital computers will not become sentient.
Do you think we are close to designing a computer that can attain sentience?
quote:This is really hard to predict. It doesn't have any of the monkey survive, outcompete, outbreed bullshite we have so that's a a bonus, but it could look at the mess humanity is making of things and make some pretty harsh logical decisions; and who knows what way it would evolve, and it would evolve.
What would a computer do if it achieves that state? Would it be benevolent or genocidal?
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:40 am to Kentucker
quote:
Humans are at the zenith of biological evolution. Biological evolution is no longer adequate for the continued evolution of sentience.
Not quite sure why you believe this... I see Humans at a plateau of biological evolution... but genetic engineering (should we pursue that path ... which we already are in many ways) would cause natural biological evolution to turn into a planned and controlled biological evolution through genetic engineering that to my knowledge knows no bounds currently.
This post was edited on 3/25/15 at 2:41 am
Posted on 3/25/15 at 7:10 am to KSGamecock
quote:
So take a robot that could do a bunch of unskilled laborer jobs. Now hundreds of millions of people now have no job. Is that a good thing? Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer.
The use of "dumb" robots is, of course, already quite common.
Millions of production workers are continually being displaced. The prices of goods have increased at a slower rate and the quality has soared. How can it be anything but a good thing?
quote:
How would we allocate resources? Obviously there'd be much more of everything and things would be cheaper if the labor cost was zero so do we give things out for free or at a reduced price? We already have the ability to feed just about everyone in the world but we don't because they can't pay for it. I imagine a scenario somewhat similar to that but on a larger scale.
The cost of sustaining a biological population of primitive sentients is draining the resources of earth at an ever-increasing rate. It's unlikely that an A.I. population would need anything more than a small fraction of what humans consume.
Posted on 3/25/15 at 7:13 am to Kentucker
You sound like agent Smith
Posted on 3/25/15 at 7:21 am to NATidefan
quote:
Not quite sure why you believe this... I see Humans at a plateau of biological evolution... but genetic engineering (should we pursue that path ... which we already are in many ways) would cause natural biological evolution to turn into a planned and controlled biological evolution through genetic engineering that to my knowledge knows no bounds currently.
To be clear, I do not use the word believe to describe myself or my thoughts. Instead, I use the word think and it's based on what has happened in order to make projections.
That said, I think your idea is one that might be plausible if not for the obvious. Resistance to the genetic manipulation of humans would strongly inhibit any exploration of this possibility.
Humans will accept intelligent robots far more easily than they will even consider genetically engineered Einsteins.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News