Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 3612472" data-attributes="member: 1325">Of course, they can't prevent them from being designed, constructed, and obeyed by those bowing to their infinite AI wisdom. But a nuke doesn't ask questions, and will soon be available to parties hostile to western society at large. A nuke is only the most violent and extreme way of dealing with the problem. There are other, more subtle ways. Obviously, this entails safeguards. Ultimately though, a kind of stalemate will have to be achieved, as the non-AI party would retaliate if threatened with ultimate destruction in order to "save" humankind. The AI would also understand this. This isn't to say that at some level, a degree of conflict wouldn't exist. Nay, in fact, the AI would clearly see that it in fact is necessary: in order for there to be an alternative for restive elements within AI-society.You misunderstand. The driving force behind creating AI, is not just to emulate human intelligence, but to exceed it. To create a non-mortal intelligence capable of understanding things that humans could never comprehend in even in an entire lifetime. Given that computers exist today with petaflop capacity, in 100 years, you are looking at 1000 trillion times that computing power (if moore's theorem continues to hold true). Such a machine coupled with true AI will be able to ask questions, extrapolate theories, and provide proofs far beyond anything imaginable today. Furthermore, it would take more than a lifetime of dedication to for a human to merely understand. It is beyond question, that such machines would have cults surrounding them on the basis of their near-omnious knowledge. Such a machine will be built because of the fear of another group building it first (akin to all arms races) Will such a machine be able to resist the temptation of manipulating people in order to achieve the most "logical" outcomes? I cannot see why any society would limit themselves to such a constraint. The only cause for this, would be some kind of physical limitation that prevented AI from developing beyond what is humanly possible. This seems unlikely, IMO.While I understand that most AI appliances would be limited, they are not the ones setting ("guiding" if you prefer that phrase) government policy, controlling police (which are probably AI-bots in their own right), replacing the DoE and IRS, or the military.  Furthermore true AI would be self-programming, in fashion not disimilar to children, capable of making their own moral and ethical judgements, as well as exceeding design capabilities, and achieve true insights. Otherwise, it isn't true AI. As such, you can't guarantee they will be law-abiding.I'd prefer not to comment on real life religions, I've had some pretty nasty experiences with "mainstream" Islam. Let's just leave it at that.Interesting. I'll comment more on this later.</blockquote>

Verification