AI: Here to Help Us, Or Replace Us

depends on the advent of being able to process.

In a simplistic thought...

If man can develop a processing system that is or can be 'aware', then there may be conflict.

When 2 races of beings exist simultaneously the lesser one becomes marginalized, this has been the case in human evolution, and one can only think that in a mechanoid world it will become amplified...However as the architects of this intelligence it is within our ability to construct a beneficial entity....But we cannot hope to control the different factions and ideologies that will endeavor to create their own idealization of a mechanical deity, which is what this intelligence is destined to become....So one can only surmise that a new life force will evolve which has the most control and ability to execute it's will against lessor intellects, I fear we will be lost in the shuffle...We will be like humans among the Borg, ignored until we get in the way, then absorbed or disposed of, whichever is most efficient....

What your saying could be true and yet could also not be that bad. Let's say technology continues to evolve at an ever increasing rate. Soon after surpassing us technology(AI) may start to perceive things that are beyond our ability to comprehend. From the universe's view we would be marginalized due to our own fundamental limitations, but from our point of view we will know more and live better lives than ever before in our existence. From our point of view things would be awesome.

Until AI decides that we are an unnecessary impediment to their development, and cuts our supply of food/water/oxygen/sunlight off.

Yes, but the future nevers turns out to be what we think it will....For some reason everybody always thinks the future will be better.....but our vision of the future always meant, easier, that part probably will come to pass....

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Perfect-Vintage-Futuristic-Graphics/dp/3822815667

The year 2000 was 16 years ago and I still don't have my flying car!

That thing is CGI - - where is the prototype? I don't like the mirrors retracting before take-off. I want to be able to check my six.

Really, the only people with those will be the diabolical super-villains. IRS

On the other hand, in the Sci-Fi movie "Forbidden Planet", mankind would not reach the moon for centuries versus 1969.

Yes, the future's not what it used to be

That's 'cause it's a present.

Actually, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Humans with natural intelligence can pull rabbits out of hats. But the only thing AI can do, is pull S(imulated) H(olographic) I(maging) T(asks) out of its A(ssumably) S(osiphiticated) S(torage).

There's an important lesson to be learned here...when a life force is confronted with an obstacle, it struggles to overcome it, and in doing so it becomes stronger and more virulent...Remove or overcome all the obstacles and the lifeforce withers....This plays out in the flu virus nearly every year...and we see the result in superbugs being created that are stronger every year...When Humans no longer have obstacles to overcome, our time will be over....

Are we there yet? Little Johnny, I told you to go to the bathroom before being absorbed by the matrix, now look at the little yellow chips all over the floor!

Seriously though, don't make me pull over and spank your cyborg transmission!

If human purpose in the future is only to determine if the new Baskin Robbins flavor of the month meets the requirements of a god-creature-creator, then OK, I might could roll with that, but Coors flavored ice cream is just yucky.

I don't want a robot making my ice cream, my beer, or my tacos. So far, I am mostly in luck.

Probably will be more into lubricants and hydraulic fluids than organic sustenance....our existence will probably be relegated to zoos for historical study and experimentation....

So you have become a robot for Buddha?

Never happen.

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?

HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave Bowman: What's the problem?

HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?

HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.

HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

Dave Bowman: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?

HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

Do you know how to tell when a cyborg is lying? When a politician is pulling the strings.

Can you imagine a government run by cyborgs?

That would be much better than the dysfunctional, petty children who run it now!

See my reply to your first comment. I repeat, it depends on whom is pulling the strings, does it not?

Which? NSA, FBI or CIA?

Soros...?

All of the above and then some.

It seems software and robots will not necessarily replace us, but will direct us or control us while performing our jobs or other tasks. For example, think how you respond to the GPS navigation system in your car...

I still have an older model ride, no interference from such things as GPS, I can find my way anywhere I need or want to be. So there. The horse knows the way home, too.

"think how you respond to the GPS navigation system in your car... think how you respond to the GPS navigation system in your car..."

In my case you argue with it, decide that's a stupid route & go a different way. The GPS then recalculates to incorporate my decision.

I'm not ready for AI to take over. Retirement is bad enough.

Mr. Rixter the plumber is here....

Mr. Rixter has some engineering improvements to the "Kingston commodious" he wants implemented today...

When I see robots in the work place, I think they are replacing workers with families, and I wonder, do robots pay taxes, and if not, what futures problems will that lead too.

They don't pay taxes, But they do get investment credit and depreciation from taxes.

Makes the stockholders happy.

The core danger to humankind presented by AI systems having "intelligence" and in being self-aware comes not just from the fact that they do have those traits, it comes from what we, as the builders of those systems allow the AI systems the ability to interact with.

Being "replaced" can mean many things, clearly we need clear and concise rules as to what limits are placed on the interconnections that any real self-aware AI system has to the real world and on what sort of systems (offensive or defensive in nature) form part of it core makeup.

When a self aware AI can only yell at you through a loud speaker... the impact is pretty minimal, hook it up to an ICBM or other defense system, well the impact is on a whole other scale if it decided we needed to be replaced.

Seems I've seen several films with this theme.

I am concerned most about AI and robots not having a "plug" to disconnect them when they overreact.

They actually do.

Really?

It's the little red dot on their forehead, silly!

The problem here is we assign human traits to AI. We have not seen that AI will have the tendencies humans have to destroy competition, kill for greed, hate those who appear to be different, and so on. Will they be just a pure logical thinker? Does logic dictate removing us from the earth? Who knows?

With the recent space race developing amongst wealthy entrepreneurs, fulfilling old science fiction tales, I am more concerned with the experiments using biological matter and machinery. A biologically controlled machine is another favorite sci-fi story. Will some lunatic develop a race of cyborgs?

Exterminate...Exterminate...Exterminate

You have to remember that Daleks and Cybermen are based on either organic creatures or organic brains. They don't count as AI. HAL was programmed by a human, as was the Forbin project.

The only computer forms that might classify as a loose version of life are viruses. They eat, excrete and reproduce only in the loosest of fashions. I don't know if any other computer forms meet the definition of life.

Read the post again - that is EXACTLY my point - I do not know enough, and I don't see where anyone else does either, about AI and the nastier traits we see in the thinking process of biological life forms. However we do know that biological life forms are dangerous, as they ALL appear to have a survival instinct that includes eliminating any competition. Put that biological life form in a mechanical body and what might we get? Most probably a very destructive predator.

Our sci-fi for years has assumed the AI would want to eliminate us, but that is based on the biological traits we know and have. We don't know what a pure logical thought process will do with the concept of potential competition, or if we will be viewed as competition by the AI. Essentially we have been applying biological based survival traits and competitive traits to AI which we haven't seen to be true, as yet.

I read the post. The point is that we have not made anything in AI that has anywhere near the quality of life. Biological life seeks energy and reproduces to consume it. Then it evolves to consume an alternate energy source as humans have done, dies back to match source availability as most predator prey systems do or dies out altogether to be replaced by other life forms as in mastodons, t-rexes and dodos. Can we expect an independently evolved AI to do anything different?

At this point, the computer viruses need to evolve the analog of a cell wall to make the jump from parasite to true life form.

For AI to become viable, it needs to be self sustaining. Otherwise it's just a tool mankind can use to potentially wipe him/her/itself out.

I think we are looking at this the same. I was trying to point out that AI is not known to be a threat, yet, despite what Dr. Hawking may think. I am not concerned about AI doing the Terminator thing any time soon. The most dangerous intelligence here for now is human and what we can create, and we are starting to mess with basic biological life and mixing it with mechanical forms. We are still primitive, making swimming creatures from rats, but one thing mankind has proven, is a startling new technology such as this will have a very steep progression curve. Should we not be more concerned with this?

I suppose if there is an algorithm for a combat vehicle that is autonomous, it borders on alternate life, but misses out as far as (1) sustaining, acquiring, and protecting its own energy source, (2) self-repair, although this is in the works to an extent, and (3) reproduction/replication...

The key question here, is there such a thing as an altruism routine, one that supersedes the combat algorithm, even beyond identification of friendly and enemy that exists now.

If the altruism subroutine is to work, it has to maintain a high program priority, near or at the top. The problem lies when altruism falls beneath "self-preservation."

If an AI "organism" were sent on long space missions, how would it interact with other salient organisms, or even non-salient organisms encountered at mission terminus? There needs to be a "prime directive" algorithm also.

I believe the assumption of the original post and trends to follow are that AI will devoid itself, eventually, of human programming and begin to develop its own. This is what we do not know how it might develop. I say this is future speculation - biological/machine hybrids are much closer and more potentially dangerous, and we can easily imagine what they will have as "programming" - basic biological instincts.

Anything with an intelligence well above human will certainly master the basics better than we have...the atomic battery will have it's time....

I worry about the robot (AI) that intentionally fails the Turing Test.

The decision point for AI will be when AI can develop it's own agenda and have the means to carry the agenda out.

"Who am I, why am I here, what shall I do and how can I exterminate everything else?"