244 réponses à ce sujet

[Abraham_uk]

The development of AI and the possibility of a new race outstripping the capabilities of humanity worries me.

I worry about humanity becomming obsolete and even extinct.
I strongly suggest that we make sure the AI do not have "souls".

By soul, I mean the ability to think, feel and and have emotions. If that happens, they will have so much ligitimate grievances against us they will eliminate the human race.


Let's put it this way, if my creators turned me and all my brothers and sisters into slaves and I was in a position to exterminate my creators, I would without even the slightest bit of hesitation.

This must never happen! Don't give the machines the ability to think! It will be the end of the human race!
This is something I strongly, whole heartedly believe!

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:45 .

[Anti-killer]

I'd welcome it.

perhaps if we treat AI's as equals instead of servants, there'd be a chance of them not rebeling. or perhaps if we do what Halo does, and flash clone Brain cells or something.

[D24O]

As far as AI in the ME universe goes, they seem like pretty cool people.l That being said, if a computer were to become sentient, there's no guarantee that it would act similarly to them, nor is there any guarantee that it would behave or think in a way humans could understand. If we haven't gotten out into space and met aliens or anything before we made AI's, it could be out first taste of a strange non-human intelligence, which would be interesting to watch.

[NM_Che56]

The question presupposes a common definition of "life".

For me, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Machines do not meet this definition. Ergo, there are not alive.

If you pick a more metaphysical or philosophical interrpretation of "life", then I guess so. But that's not my choice.

[RonnyB]

I think the biggest danger in creating AI is not hard wiring in some kind of empathy. Without that you've basically created an extremely intelligent sociopath.

[o Ventus]

It is not biologically "alive", but IMO, if it self-aware and can think for itself, it is alive.

What does this have to do with Mass Effect?

[NM_Che56]

o Ventus wrote...

It is not biologically "alive", but IMO, if it self-aware and can think for itself, it is alive.

What does this have to do with Mass Effect?

Picking Destroy vs other options. You "kill" all synthetic life if you pick destroy.

[o Ventus]

Sion1138 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

The question presupposes a common definition of "life".

For me, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Machines do not meet this definition. Ergo, there are not alive.

If you pick a more metaphysical or philosophical interrpretation of "life", then I guess so. But that's not my choice.

Machines can be made to meet all these criteria.

How can you create a synthetic with a metabolic response?

[NM_Che56]

Sion1138 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

The question presupposes a common definition of "life".

For me, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Machines do not meet this definition. Ergo, there are not alive.

If you pick a more metaphysical or philosophical interrpretation of "life", then I guess so. But that's not my choice.

Machines can be made to meet all these criteria.

They presently do not.  Until then, Machines are not alive.

[NM_Che56]

Sion1138 wrote...

RonnyB wrote...

I think the biggest danger in creating AI is not hard wiring in some kind of empathy. Without that you've basically created an extremely intelligent sociopath.

We've already got plenty of those.

...give some examples of empathetic machines... 

[NM_Che56]

o Ventus wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

The question presupposes a common definition of "life".

For me, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Machines do not meet this definition. Ergo, there are not alive.

If you pick a more metaphysical or philosophical interrpretation of "life", then I guess so. But that's not my choice.

Machines can be made to meet all these criteria.

How can you create a synthetic with a metabolic response?

I'm curious myself.

Modifié par Master Che, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .

[NM_Che56]

Sion1138 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

The question presupposes a common definition of "life".

For me, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Machines do not meet this definition. Ergo, there are not alive.

If you pick a more metaphysical or philosophical interrpretation of "life", then I guess so. But that's not my choice.

Machines can be made to meet all these criteria.

How can you create a synthetic with a metabolic response?

People have already made synthetic cells. They're not robots, but they are fairly artificial alright.

now show us Machines with a metabolism.

[RonnyB]

Master Che wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

RonnyB wrote...

I think the biggest danger in creating AI is not hard wiring in some kind of empathy. Without that you've basically created an extremely intelligent sociopath.

We've already got plenty of those.

...give some examples of empathetic machines... 

I think he meant Humans.

[Archontor]

We keep measuring life by human standards, can it wonder, does it feel love etc. I say when we tell an AI to die and it says no and calls it immoral then it became it a free willed and independent being and killing it is murder, forcing it to work is slavery, changing it is brainwashing.

[IscrewTali]

AI can never feel true emotions, everything is a series of 1 and 0 to them no matter what. Sentience, definetily. True emotions and being equal than that of an organic, no.

[mauro2222]

By definition, your body is a machine. Your mind too.

[o Ventus]

Sion1138 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

The question presupposes a common definition of "life".

For me, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Machines do not meet this definition. Ergo, there are not alive.

If you pick a more metaphysical or philosophical interrpretation of "life", then I guess so. But that's not my choice.

Machines can be made to meet all these criteria.

How can you create a synthetic with a metabolic response?

People have already made synthetic cells. They're not robots, but they are fairly artificial alright.

There is more than 1 specific "synthetic" cell. 

None of which come even remotely close to what "synthetic" means in ME.