So, let me be honest, I decided to create my first topic after having The Matrix marathon (plus the animatrix); also, my English is terrible, so please "bear" with me. And, seriously, it hit me like a brick when I realized how dangerous AI would be and how naive we human are when it comes to realizing that threat.
A little bit more clarification, I'm not saying that we are not currently aware of the fact that AI can pose a potential problem but rather we either underestimate it (with the justification that machine and AI technology in particular could never reach human level of cognitive thinking)or laugh and say we have many things to worry about. This article seems to show exactly what general (or at least the readers opinion upon said problem) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238152/Cambridge-University-open-Terminator-centre-study-threat-humans-artificial-intelligence.html
Another article showed much more insight on this topic, such as http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/why-we-should-think-about-the-threat-of-artificial-intelligence.html
not that I am saying those are academic and must be taken serious, yet, even the latter could not and rather would not want to admit that advanced AI can indeed outsmart human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity).
So, my opinion, is that AI IS a threat, well, at least not for now, or even 10, 50 or 100 years, but they will be and can be the most dangerous. Let me put it the way I understand (and it would rather stupid or bigotry for most of you, so please bare with me). First, the moment AI reach the singularity, which is the event that they achieve the greater-than-human intelligent; let it sinks in and think for a moment: if you have the most powerful weapon in the world, which is knowledge, plus you don;t need to sleep, coffee break and such; what would that make you? God, or something that similar in kind of metaphoric way. If you were God, would you let the lesser race control you? (ok, I admit, it is a bad metaphor). Secondly, let say you are a rational thinker with the utmost concern of pursuing knowledge and scientific achievement; would ethic be you concern? When it comes to human scientist, they still let some ethical consideration, such as they would not testing the effect of smoking on twin to find out which on of them would die first. But machine, on the other hand, could not perceive that; and let also make assumption that they would, since they are now sentient being, do you think they give a damn? Like the kind of damn you give when you eat a delicious steak, do you think a bout the poor cow? (I'm fucking love steak, btw).
Then, again, it seems that there would be no restriction or implement of laws on this subject when you think of how useful AI can be. Preventing or ban using of AI? that would only make people use it richer or more powerful. Like I said, a machine that can do whatever human can do, plus better and also does not need coffee break, and significant cheaper; that, my homo sapient fellows, is gold. Not to mention their abilities to tirelessly create new things. Human mind can be hindered by the delicacy of flesh, we could die if we work too much; machine? give it some power and a new heat sink and we are good to go. Thus, in my opinion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
Anyhow, what do you think? Allow the pursing of AI development so that we can left machine do everything and their human master would sip some martini while tip their fedoras? Or we can go the Imperium style, worship the machine spirit and our Lord the Omnissiah?
EDIT:
My professor just give me some crazy scientific notions (turn our the guy loves Matrix (part one) too). This come up from a physicist name Brandon Carter, who came up with the term anthropic (human-centered, I think) said (as bollocks as it might be, I still think it cools):
" There is one possible universe that has been deliberately designed by a Higher Power so as to allow intelligent life- represented by humans only- to come into existence, and it is for the sake of humans only that the universe was originally created."
What does it mean then? Turn out, my professor said that the reason Big Bang theory was widely accepted was that the Pope was thrilled about it. It was the time that every one thought and would agree that the Universe, indeed, has always been there, unchanged and would forever be there. Then someone suggest that it had a beginning, which come nicely with the Church teaching of the Creation. Needless to say, you can imagine the frustration of many scientist; to think that they would be welcome by the Church, those who once burn people on a "steak" for the mentioning of earth orbited the sun.
But anyway, come back to that "human-centered" thing. He gave me the book call "The Big Questions - Physics" (which I recommend. Fascinating book, it is); and turn out, the notion that we live in a simulation was, indeed, made. It turn out that the condition of our universe seems to be too perfect to be true. The density of matter, for example, as they called it "Omega". If Omega, which had to have a particular values at one second after the Big Bang, was less than one by a small amount of "one in a million billion- then the universe would either crunched closed or flung matter far apart as they fail to form stars, planets and so on.
And then, other guy come in, Nick Bostrom, a philosopher with the argument that we are living in a computer simulation. His argument is the one of these must be true (source: Wikipedia)
- Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible.
- A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
- Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
Anyhow, it proposed that if we extinct, or that future human would not create any "world stimulation", then, our universe is natural, otherwise, it is a simulation. If we are living in a world, that is not created by God(s) but rather civilization that have technology that could create it, then, as some physicist suggested, would be much easier for them to answer why the hell relativity and quantum theory cannot a happy marriage.
And what does it mean to us then? Well, we might live inside the frigging matrix without knowing it, folks! The machine has won! Just kidding, it is still quite a controversial suggestion (not theory) but, it makes you think, doesn't it?
A little bit more clarification, I'm not saying that we are not currently aware of the fact that AI can pose a potential problem but rather we either underestimate it (with the justification that machine and AI technology in particular could never reach human level of cognitive thinking)or laugh and say we have many things to worry about. This article seems to show exactly what general (or at least the readers opinion upon said problem) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238152/Cambridge-University-open-Terminator-centre-study-threat-humans-artificial-intelligence.html
Another article showed much more insight on this topic, such as http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/why-we-should-think-about-the-threat-of-artificial-intelligence.html
not that I am saying those are academic and must be taken serious, yet, even the latter could not and rather would not want to admit that advanced AI can indeed outsmart human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity).
So, my opinion, is that AI IS a threat, well, at least not for now, or even 10, 50 or 100 years, but they will be and can be the most dangerous. Let me put it the way I understand (and it would rather stupid or bigotry for most of you, so please bare with me). First, the moment AI reach the singularity, which is the event that they achieve the greater-than-human intelligent; let it sinks in and think for a moment: if you have the most powerful weapon in the world, which is knowledge, plus you don;t need to sleep, coffee break and such; what would that make you? God, or something that similar in kind of metaphoric way. If you were God, would you let the lesser race control you? (ok, I admit, it is a bad metaphor). Secondly, let say you are a rational thinker with the utmost concern of pursuing knowledge and scientific achievement; would ethic be you concern? When it comes to human scientist, they still let some ethical consideration, such as they would not testing the effect of smoking on twin to find out which on of them would die first. But machine, on the other hand, could not perceive that; and let also make assumption that they would, since they are now sentient being, do you think they give a damn? Like the kind of damn you give when you eat a delicious steak, do you think a bout the poor cow? (I'm fucking love steak, btw).
Then, again, it seems that there would be no restriction or implement of laws on this subject when you think of how useful AI can be. Preventing or ban using of AI? that would only make people use it richer or more powerful. Like I said, a machine that can do whatever human can do, plus better and also does not need coffee break, and significant cheaper; that, my homo sapient fellows, is gold. Not to mention their abilities to tirelessly create new things. Human mind can be hindered by the delicacy of flesh, we could die if we work too much; machine? give it some power and a new heat sink and we are good to go. Thus, in my opinion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
Anyhow, what do you think? Allow the pursing of AI development so that we can left machine do everything and their human master would sip some martini while tip their fedoras? Or we can go the Imperium style, worship the machine spirit and our Lord the Omnissiah?
EDIT:
My professor just give me some crazy scientific notions (turn our the guy loves Matrix (part one) too). This come up from a physicist name Brandon Carter, who came up with the term anthropic (human-centered, I think) said (as bollocks as it might be, I still think it cools):
" There is one possible universe that has been deliberately designed by a Higher Power so as to allow intelligent life- represented by humans only- to come into existence, and it is for the sake of humans only that the universe was originally created."
What does it mean then? Turn out, my professor said that the reason Big Bang theory was widely accepted was that the Pope was thrilled about it. It was the time that every one thought and would agree that the Universe, indeed, has always been there, unchanged and would forever be there. Then someone suggest that it had a beginning, which come nicely with the Church teaching of the Creation. Needless to say, you can imagine the frustration of many scientist; to think that they would be welcome by the Church, those who once burn people on a "steak" for the mentioning of earth orbited the sun.
But anyway, come back to that "human-centered" thing. He gave me the book call "The Big Questions - Physics" (which I recommend. Fascinating book, it is); and turn out, the notion that we live in a simulation was, indeed, made. It turn out that the condition of our universe seems to be too perfect to be true. The density of matter, for example, as they called it "Omega". If Omega, which had to have a particular values at one second after the Big Bang, was less than one by a small amount of "one in a million billion- then the universe would either crunched closed or flung matter far apart as they fail to form stars, planets and so on.
And then, other guy come in, Nick Bostrom, a philosopher with the argument that we are living in a computer simulation. His argument is the one of these must be true (source: Wikipedia)
- Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible.
- A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
- Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
Anyhow, it proposed that if we extinct, or that future human would not create any "world stimulation", then, our universe is natural, otherwise, it is a simulation. If we are living in a world, that is not created by God(s) but rather civilization that have technology that could create it, then, as some physicist suggested, would be much easier for them to answer why the hell relativity and quantum theory cannot a happy marriage.
And what does it mean to us then? Well, we might live inside the frigging matrix without knowing it, folks! The machine has won! Just kidding, it is still quite a controversial suggestion (not theory) but, it makes you think, doesn't it?
