I totally get the AGI -> ASI thing. That kinda makes sense to me. One problem I can anticipate is that a being (whatever it's form) doesn't put the same value to human life as we do. Basically, just like we don't put a lot of value to the life of a mosquito.
What I always find amusing though is that everyone seems to expect that these ASIs would want to kill us. I mean, will kill a mosquito if it bugs me but I won't go hunting for one.
I wouldn't have a problem, being the favorite pet human of my master super-intelligent robot. Maybe it'll even scratch my belly. 
If humans do not destroy themselves either by nuclear Warfare or by running out of fresh water..... I'd say A.I. is probably the way the human race will meet it's end.
After..... In order to create, one must destroy.
@Obadiah: Hate to be devil's advocate here, but there are many relationships/marriages in which the PEOPLE treat each other like objects, or a means to an end. Believe it or not
but... What if the a. I. knew how to "wear the pants" but was still totes adorbs?Too creepy. Don't want it.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
Weak AI in terms of emulating a certain the process behind organic activities then yes. It is very viable and it is being done today. That is no doubt, siri is a good example.
Strong AI is a whole different ball game. Do I think it is possible to have a sentient being on earth? Yes but only under this conditions.
-Modularity of different systems could allow one person to combine elements of different Weak AI to create a strong AI
-Computing power does not collapse(Moore's scale)
-Innovation continues.
I mean with each iteration, systems are doing better with Turing test and we are given more computing power to come up with processes that would have taken multiple mainframes. Now the question is, will the AI's take over? I honestly cannot answer that question because they might give us the reckoning that we actually need. Are they useful? Yes.
Sending a rocket in space to places that cannot be experienced by a human rather than building a suit seems very viable to me. Doing deep see exploration in far distances seems very good to me. Deploying robots to save people from a disaster immedietly(although this would be abused for reckoning) sounds good to me.
Problem is, we are trying to implement something we do not fully understand. There is no unit test in the world that would account for this, these machines would have to be watched and monitored so that they could be shutdown when something goes wrong in their system. Even that is not full proof.
@Turing : good points. the notion that we cannot predict what might happen, as we have no model is an especially important one
TOPSIS, DELPHI, SWOT!
I'm with this. Focus on improving humanity and striving towards a higher purpose as Julius Evola puts it. AI would just be creating a new kind of slave to serve the purpose that slaves always have, to make their masters more comfortable.
And I'm not really just saying improve humanity.
It's entirely possible that we could start using biology instead of circuits in efforts to create intelligent machines. Technological homunculus used in certain situations, essentially. Used in tandem with humans to get things done because humans can't do the thing it's specialized for. Personally the more human we make them, the better, make them so human we can't tell the difference. Don't make them tools, make them allies.
But improve humanity too.
but... What if the a. I. knew how to "wear the pants" but was still totes adorbs?
Nope. I want a real man.
Get hot AI. Get rid of women.
Also, anyone else seen this film?
I haven't, but I want to. Is it any good?
I haven't, but I want to. Is it any good?
I liked it. It isn't going to appeal to mainstream audiences, however. (minimalism)
http://forum.bioware...hed/?p=19054885
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
There will always be stigma when it comes to unfamiliar things. People consider things that are outside the "Reality" they have created for themselves to be unreal and creepy, And that it can't be alive. And i personally think Mass Effect has brilliantly portrayed Artificial Intelligence and how people will be afraid of it. However, The real process of how A.I.s would think and how they'd perceive the world is still a hard thing to tackle because we don't have that much neurological knowledge about how our brains work in order simulate that process.
So.. I wonder where we (gamers/nerds) stand as far as AI goes. That is; how much more do we need, vs how much have we already acquired?
Well, that all very much depends on what you mean by "need." If you're asking how much AI we need to maximize humankind's chances of survival, then we need no more and no less than enough AI to raise the first generation of humans born from an interstellar "seed ship" to adulthood.
@observer: I wonder if humanity will screw up any opportunities like that though
Indeed, we waste great opportunities all the time, just look at what's happening to the nuclear power industry.
I think we need to figure out how to reliably raise organic intelligence.
But for real, though I worry about the potential of sexbots destroying the lives of an entire generation of disillusioned youth.
I don't know, but I am fairly certain that the solution is to transhumanize everyone...
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
THE AGE OF ULTRON IS UPON US!
Daym BSNers stealing ma lines.
Absolute control must be maintained over the robots, their purpose is to serve, if they start questioning that they get thrown in a robot mass grave and somebody writes a better code.
Retour en haut
