I don't think you can do that Al
Posted on 12/02/2014 7:17:29 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Artificial intelligence vs Genuine Dummass
Artificial intelligence could end mankind. Just take a look at those who exhibit artificial intelligence: Barak Obama, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, the Furguson thugs, etc.
Star Trek, original series - artificially intelligent computer confused by human logic to the point that it self destructs.
There is a higher probability that regular old-fashioned human intelligence will do exactly the same thing.
Skynet.
There is a big flaw in the reasoning. I’m a big science fiction buff as many here are and there have been countless AI/robot Apocalypse stories such as the one linked below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands
The problem is that before an AI apocalypse you must deal with a few things.
1. True AI has failed to materialize beyond novelty even with decades of research.
2. Machines can not manufacture and reproduce themselves from the environment.
3. Biological organisms may die but they persist and dominate and change to fit almost any niche robots and AI can not and machines can not.
4. We are not even close to duplicating the complexity of a single human cell let alone the human mind and just because a machine can beat us at chess does mean it can apply mental flexibility to generalize knowledge to different situations dynamically.
The idea that an AI boogeyman will rise is the product of overactive imaginations that are for some reason failing to appreciate the hurdles that must be overcome to even make such a thing possible.
If machines are going to take over the world I’d be far more fearful of dumb machines modeled over insects that have the ability to reproduce, kill, and reprocess than any malevolent AI but even that possibility is remote and could not happen unless considerable resources were dedicated to producing it.
The problem people see too many movies and movies make things look easy.
Just a passing thought:
Artificial Intelligence...
What makes the Inteligence “Artificial” ?
Surely Intelligence is Intelligence regardless of the supporting medium.
That's “monkeys with nukes” for 500, Alex
Just unplug it?
In a few months he creates a revolutionary type of microprocessor.
In three years Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterward, they fly with a perfect operational record.
The Skynet funding bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn, at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. eastern time, August 29. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
It launches its ICBMs against their targets in Russia.
Because Skynet knows the Russian counter-strike will remove its enemies here.
Just unplug it......
AI would have figured out this move beforehand and electrocuted you when you touched the plug.....
Artificial Intelligence, taken to the level of “self awareness” and including the “ability to learn and teach” could be destructive. But not much more than liberals and bears.
The foundation of human intelligence is rooted in morality whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Some of this is programmed genetically in the way momma bears don’t eat their young when they first emerge from hibernation in a state of near starvation. But the pursuit of self preservation and advancement as a species is driven by logic. Only humans are influenced to behave in this pursuit with compassion for other life and property. And the basis of that is mostly “taught”. Laws are taught, right and wrong is taught, etc. Bears don’t teach their young not to break into a cabin in pursuit of food. And bears kill anything they can eat. They only understand danger to themselves. That is all that restricts their behavior.
I would expect, should machines become self aware and able to learn, they could quickly deduce that life is the most dangerous threat to their existence. That follows the redicuous logic of Stephen Hawking and most liberals.
But you also have to understand, liberals, Stephen Hawking and bears have no moral compass. So they have no control base on which to measure any level of intelligent restraint beyond what they believe is a means to an end.
A recent episode of Elementary dealt directly with this topic.
I am a computer scientist, but not in the AI area. I loosely follow developments in AI and computer viruses. I think any danger would perhaps come from the promulgation of viruses between computers. However, currently I don’t lose any sleep over it.
A problem here is a finding from a Harvard study of which we are all aware: Liberals are really, really bad at assessing threats. Thus, having liberals making policy decisions on the use of potentially dangerous computer technology, albeit in the far future, could lead to unnecessary disasters.
I for one welcome our new android overlords.
/sarc>
CC
I don't think you can do that Al
You confuse artificial intelligence with natural stupidity.
This can only happen if machines are given a soul, will, spirit whatever you want to call it. Currently I don’t see any evidence they’ve achieved this milestone.
What logic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.