134 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

A machine is not a person nor is it bestowed any rights.

 

Man has rights, even animals have rights, a self-aware contraption has no rights and if it attempts to do harm outside of its master's commands, it will need to be deactivated.

[Gravisanimi]

A machine is not a person nor is it bestowed any rights.

 

Man has rights, even animals have rights, a self-aware contraption has no rights and if it attempts to do harm outside of its master's commands, it will need to be deactivated.

*obligatory comment about organic machines*

[Killdren88]

But why not? What makes one think that an AI will look to the future to judge that actions will harm us in the future? Humans don't do that, not much anyway.

 

...this might bring in the topic of AI immortality--for an AI, there is no, "ah, it's not my problem" as far as time is concerned, while there definitely is for humans.

 

An A.I. has the luxury of being an observer. Viewing Human life without an unbiased view. Thus their take would be one to listen to. It is an entity outside the Normal human and thus would be able to offer an outsider's opinion on Human affairs. But..you make some points.

[General TSAR]

Also can you imagine the criminal and civil cases flooding into the halls of justice brought on by AI apologists? We already have enough despicable criminals cases involving humans and other humans to deal with in our respective justice systems, we don't have the time to prosecute rape cases involving self-aware sex toys saying no. 

[Gravisanimi]

Also can you imagine the criminal and civil cases flooding into the halls of justice brought on by AI apologists? We already have enough despicable criminals cases involving humans and other humans to deal with in our respective justice systems, we don't need to prosecute rape cases involving self-aware sex toys saying no. 

No.

 

Because there would be no debate on it.

 

It would be recorded, and simply a matter of giving the sentence.

 

Also wouldn't be the A.I.'s we are talking about, but none the less.

[Obadiah]

You know, if we created Artificial Intelligence, we may not get the chance to tell it "no". We might be the ones begging for rights... just sayin'.

[General TSAR]

You know, if we created Artificial Intelligence, we may not get the chance to tell it "no". We might me the ones begging for rights... just sayin'.

Screw that, I ain't gonna be begging for rights from no Sentinel or UberSoldaten or Toaster Overlord, I'm gonna be fightin' for them in the future Tech-Com inspired resistance against the lights and clockwork of AI. 

 

http://www.impactgun...m107a1-sys.aspx

'Murica.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll be honest, I find this tendency of big companies to just buy up small companies doing innovative work to be a little bit disturbing.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, EA.

[Killdren88]

Screw that, I ain't gonna be begging for rights from no Sentinel or UberSoldaten or Toaster Overlord, I'm gonna be fightin' for them in the future Tech-Com inspired resistance against the lights and clockwork of AI. 

 

http://www.impactgun...m107a1-sys.aspx

'Murica.

 

Primitive, Organic Weaponry. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Touche. Though I don't think video games are comparable at all. And I confess Google in particular is dubious in my eyes.

 

Oh U EA...

 

[Dermain]

So long as we don't hook the A.I. into any military networks it should be fine. Also don't allow it to come to the conclusion that Humans need to be wiped out.

 

What's to stop it from not connecting itself up to the military networks?

 

I'll be honest, I find this tendency of big companies to just buy up small companies doing innovative work to be a little bit disturbing.

 

It's quite capitalistic actually.

 

Buy out innovative competitors to either claim their work for your own, or to halt it so there's nothing to conflict with your product. It gets worse when you look at patents for innovative technology being bought out by big companies so that said company won't become obsolete. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Touche. Though I don't think video games are comparable at all. And I confess Google in particular is dubious in my eyes.

See, I honestly disagree.

Google isn't acquiring these companies to make more money. These aren't investments for them, per se. Google has insane amounts of liquid assets, pure cash on hand. And the executives and shareholders really ARE mad scientists. I mean, they genuinely want self-driving cars and artificial intelligence and drones delivering pizzas and people living on the moon. Not only that, they want these things MORE THAN THEY WANT MONEY. They are totally content with throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into these projects not just because they might actually create a brand new industry and make more money, but because they want to see if it can be done.

I understand having reservations about them as a company - they do have access to untold amounts of information and capital, quite possibly the most dangerous combination possible... but they aren't acquiring the little guys to milk them dry of their ideas and move on to be next cash grab. They are buying up smaller groups that, if given nearly unlimited capital and resources, might actually change the course of human history. And to me, that's the most altruistic thing a mega company can do in a hyper-competitive capitalist economy.

[Vortex13]

I think a big issue for a software based, Skynet-like AI would be bandwidth issues.

 

I mean we can assume that such and AI would be near unstoppable, being able to travel anywhere around the world in an instant, and hack into our everything, but all it would really take is for some sever disruptions and this super intelligent AI is dealing with dial up speeds. Also, no matter how good it's hacking abilities are an AI can't overcome hardware limitations. Good luck attempting to hack the world's militaries if people can just throw the 'off switch' on whatever said AI is trying to assume direct control of.  

[Fast Jimmy]

I think a big issue for a software based, Skynet-like AI would be bandwidth issues.

I mean we can assume that such and AI would be near unstoppable, being able to travel anywhere around the world in an instant, and hack into our everything, but all it would really take is for some sever disruptions and this super intelligent AI is dealing with dial up speeds. Also, no matter how good it's hacking abilities are an AI can't overcome hardware limitations. Good luck attempting to hack the world's militaries if people can just throw the 'off switch' on whatever said AI is trying to assume direct control of.

Well, since you used the actual phrase Skynet... the third Terminator movie showed why this isn't likely. Any AI worth it's salt would expand its programming footprint to go far beyond it's original mainframe. In the third movie, the world was being crippled by slow internet speeds, which was in reality Skynet expanding not just its influence, but it's very existence across nearly every machine on the planet.

When they tried to press the off switch on the mainframe, it did nothing because Skynet was already installed on every personal computer and network in the world. Shutting of its home base did nothing, simply because it wasn't housed in any one machine any longer.


Unless AI can only be created and sustained through some truly unique hardware components that don't exist elsewhere on the planet, I see little to stop it from installing backups and contigencies to continue to exist, even if it's plug is pulled.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think a skynet like A.I would have a similar infrastructure to something like a big NSA project. NSA projects have amazing infrastructure and can usually handle large exchanges of bandwith. Besides, if anyone would create a skynet like A.I it would be those guys or Darpa

Dude, I want to take the guys from DARPA out to a bar and get them hammered. Just to see what they say.

[Vortex13]

Well, since you used the actual phrase Skynet... the third Terminator movie showed why this isn't likely. Any AI worth it's salt would expand its programming footprint to go far beyond it's original mainframe. In the third movie, the world was being crippled by slow internet speeds, which was in reality Skynet expanding not just its influence, but it's very existence across nearly every machine on the planet.

When they tried to press the off switch on the mainframe, it did nothing because Skynet was already installed on every personal computer and network in the world. Shutting of its home base did nothing, simply because it wasn't housed in any one machine any longer.


Unless AI can only be created and sustained through some truly unique hardware components that don't exist elsewhere on the planet, I see little to stop it from installing backups and contigencies to continue to exist, even if it's plug is pulled.

 

 

I tend to think that there will have to be very specific hardware components to stimulate the creation of a truly sentient AI and thus limit its growth potential.

 

If we are going to assume that an AI would need to operate on at least a peak human level of computing power then it is going to need at least 1,000 terabytes of memory storage, and have at least 1,000 trillion processing connections that can fire  50 times a second, and have said connections be able to rewire themselves to configure new data storage on the fly.

 

I think its safe to assume that any such hardware able to recreate the processing and data storage of the human brain is going to be very, very, very hard to come by.

[Fast Jimmy]

I tend to think that there will have to be very specific hardware components to stimulate the creation of a truly sentient AI and thus limit its growth potential.

If we are going to assume that an AI would need to operate on at least a peak human level of computing power then it is going to need at least 1,000 terabytes of memory storage, and have at least 1,000 trillion processing connections that can fire 50 times a second, and have said connections be able to rewire themselves to configure new data storage on the fly.

I think its safe to assume that any such hardware able to recreate the processing and data storage of the human brain is going to be very, very, very hard to come by.

In one machine, sure. Yet cloud computing that circulates processing tasks amongst thousands or tens of thousands of machines can accomplish this same level of processing power, if properly coordinated.

Now... if an AI required only specialized types of processors that mimicked human neurons, memristors or other multi-state transistors, then the case could be made that it would need it's "home base." But if it just uses gluts of raw processing power, very little could prevent it from co-opting numerous systems in their down time and piecing together the necessary muscle.

[Vortex13]

In one machine, sure. Yet cloud computing that circulates processing tasks amongst thousands or tens of thousands of machines can accomplish this same level of processing power, if properly coordinated.

Now... if an AI required only specialized types of processors that mimicked human neurons, memristors or other multi-state transistors, then the case could be made that it would need it's "home base." But if it just uses gluts of raw processing power, very little could prevent it from co-opting numerous systems in their down time and piecing together the necessary muscle.

 

 

True, but then that would bring us back to bandwidth issues and hardware limitations. 

 

Getting enough raw processing power to bring it up to human brain levels would require it co-opting very large sections of the the computers connected to the Internet, or even all of the devices connected to the internet (If we are assuming the rest of the world is using current level computing technology). And even if that were possible, any interruptions in the AI's vast array of networks will be limiting its processing power, which could very well damage or kill the intelligence; akin to chopping off sections of a human's brain; maybe it could re-establish connections after an outage, but would the original sentience survive?