The Catalyst is right in saying that making AI is stupid. It is however wrong in saying that we will:David7204 wrote...
Hmm. Interesting that despite hating the Catalyst and proclaiming how stupid he is, you're agreeing with him entirely now.
So he's not stupid after all, then?
Be killed out by them.
AlanC9 wrote...
Darth Brotarian wrote...
David7204 wrote...
That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.
Those robots aren't your children. They're a seperate specis who, without any means of control, could and would destroy us for the sake of survival.
If thry feel they need to do that, we probably deserve it.
None of that requires AI.David7204 wrote...
I would absolutely want a car that can decide to go faster or slower depending on what's appropriate. In fact, that's pretty much a necessity for driverless cars. And I would be happy to have a microwave that adjusts itself depending on what it's cooking.
David7204 wrote...
I would absolutely want a car that can decide to go faster or slower depending on what's appropriate. In fact, that's pretty much a necessity for driverless cars. And I would be happy to have a microwave that adjusts itself depending on what it's cooking.
David7204 wrote...
I would absolutely want a car that can decide to go faster or slower depending on what's appropriate. In fact, that's pretty much a necessity for driverless cars. And I would be happy to have a microwave that adjusts itself depending on what it's cooking.
AlanC9 wrote...
KaiserShep wrote...
A mass produced product that can manifest its own personal preferences would be monumentally bad design, for the same reason why we don't want our cars to go faster or slower on their own, or our microwave to cook something for 20 minutes rather than 20 seconds.
What's wrong with self-driving cars?
uh yeah, there is a "refuse" option in the dialogue, make it clear on the wheel and move on, there was no need for the refuse trigger to be tied to shooting the starbratAlanC9 wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
no, no they did notThey did need a way for the player to Refuse if he didn't do so during the dialogue.
You think it would be OK to trap players into one of the three endings instead of letting them trigger Refuse? Really?
Not everybody plays with a walkthrough open in another window.
AresKeith wrote...
David7204 wrote...
That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.
So you want your children to be AIs?
Modifié par David7204, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:21 .
David7204 wrote...
None of these responses are remotely relevant.
Decision making doesn't required AI, but AI requires decision making.
The fact that sometimes technology screws up is irrelevant. That's why you make better technology. That's why technology undergoes extensive testing to ensure it as safe.
Translation: My ****** comment made no sense so it's time to cover it up by saying it's irrelevant and trying to debate something else. Also, I'm going to reach China soon.David7204 wrote...
None of these responses are remotely relevant.
Decision making doesn't require AI, but AI requires decision making.
The fact that sometimes technology screws up is irrelevant. That's why you make better technology. That's why technology undergoes extensive testing to ensure it as safe.
David7204 wrote...
None of these responses are remotely relevant.
Decision making doesn't required AI, but AI requires decision making.
The fact that sometimes technology screws up is irrelevant. That's why you make better technology. That's why technology undergoes extensive testing to ensure it as safe.
Modifié par David7204, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:25 .
crimzontearz wrote...
uh yeah, there is a "refuse" option in the dialogue, make it clear on the wheel and move on, there was no need for the refuse trigger to be tied to shooting the starbratAlanC9 wrote...
You think it would be OK to trap players into one of the three endings instead of letting them trigger Refuse? Really?crimzontearz wrote...
no, no they did notThey did need a way for the player to Refuse if he didn't do so during the dialogue.
Not everybody plays with a walkthrough open in another window.
David7204 wrote...
None of these responses are remotely relevant.
Decision making doesn't require AI, but AI requires decision making.
The fact that sometimes technology screws up is irrelevant.
That's why you make better technology.
David7204 wrote...
You take that gamble every time you fly in a plane, drive in a car, eat a processed food product, drink a soda, or walk outside. You take it by living in a house and using a computer. You're incredibly dependant on technology being safe. You take that gamble by existing.
I don't.David7204 wrote...
Technology does fail sometimes. So what? We still use it.
Modifié par Steelcan, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:31 .
Yep, takin a gamble. Sure hope that this walking thinking machine, inside of a bomber goes right. Here's to hoping.spirosz wrote...
David7204 wrote...
You take that gamble every time you fly in a plane, drive in a car, eat a processed food product, drink a soda, or walk outside. You take it by living in a house and using a computer. You're incredibly dependant on technology being safe. You take that gamble by existing.
Tis' true.
recent events have shocked my southern sensibilities...MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Once more, David has completely invented a point for an argument no one is making and has totally derailed the thread.
So back to synthesis and control...
David7204 wrote...
You take that gamble every time you fly in a plane, drive in a car, eat a processed food product, drink a soda, or walk outside. You take it by living in a house and using a computer. You're incredibly dependant on technology being safe. You take that gamble by existing.
No, the point was that they will very much function in trying to kill everyone they can to survive. If they act independently, as AI would, they will have needs and wants that will conflict with our own.David7204 wrote...
The point that has been attempted is that making AI is stupid because technology is sometimes imperfect and dangerous, and we should never gamble our lives with it.
That point clearly has no merit.
Retour en haut