Could Ai Threaten Humanity?

[naomi24]

Stephen Hawking has said that AI in the future "could develop a will of its own - a will that is in conflict with ours" and that it could “end mankind if it is misused”.

Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction?

http://news.sky.com/story/stephen-hawking-warns-ai-could-be-worst-thing-to-happen-to-humanity-10624102

[Old_Geezer]

One way to find out. And the genii can't be kept in the bottle forever while we fear using the benefits.

If that worried one can probably note things are going wrong and roll back from dangerous tech when the point is reached. But I doubt such a point will be found.

[beso]

If it were truly intelligent it would decide that humans are a causing a massive environmental disaster. If enabled to take action then it would get rid of us, starting with those most responsible.

Would be a bad time for any politicians who refuse to accept that climate change is being caused by humans.

[B00]

Unless they're programmed with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics?


(ooo look at me in the Science category!)

[naomi24]

Hi B00. :o)

[Old_Geezer]

Can AI be bounded by such laws ?
Human RI managed to break it's/their programming.

[EDDIE51]

There have been many science fiction books on this subject, can't remember the titles off hand it was years ago I read them.

[hereIam]

Personally I think it's just the stuff of science fiction, but that's just my opinion of course.

[ToraToraTora]

possibly but AI has yet to emerge so I'd concentrate on the myriad of other things that could threaten humanity.

[atalanta]

What it boils down to is - we go on producing more and more sophisticated technology, so we must make sure nothing we create can give this technology any kind of conscious awareness.

[naomi24]

atalanta, indeed - but will we?

[atalanta]

Alas, I fear there will always be some maverick or smart-alec who will think it clever to try to give technology an extra upgrade. Awareness would probably arise without conscience, so heaven help us all.

[Bazile]

//Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction? //

At the moment , yes just SF

Humans natural instinct, is to invent / develop new technology in order to make life easier for himself.

However who is to say how man's knowledge will develop into the future and what will be the result of how we apply that knowledge . - 1000 , 2000, ....years hence ; and therefore what unwanted 'side effects' will result .

[wildwood]

Despite the positive opinion of the most respected Mr.Hawking, I really don't believe that we will ever invent robots with real cognitive thinking.

I do believe however that we and most animals will disappear from the face of the Earth by the year 3000, and leave the planet to plants and micro organisms, to start again.

[jno]

since we don't really know what constitutes "human consciousness" we can't know how far off the time is when robots will be able to mimic it. But it does appear they're getting better faster than was thought possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/artificial-intelligence-robots-ethics-human-control

To be sure, there's more to life than playing Go; none the less, it's one of the things humans do and now they don't do it as well as machines.

"Deep learning" sounds interesting.

[EDDIE51]

Very good artical of this subject here
http://www.universetoday.com/131576/mit-claims-programming-humanoid-robots-help-explore-mars-know-cylons/
Nasa are building robots to explore Mars and more!

[beso]

Birdie, you have resorted to exactly the same strategy that you deride other types of religious people for, simply denying the scientifically verifiable facts.

I am not going to argue with you because arguing with a religious view would be a waste of time. It won't affect you because you are as deeply entrenched in cognitive dissonance as any of the godly.

Moreover you have no comprehension of the science. Time will ultimately prove you are utterly wrong but you will go to your gave denying it. Such is the nature of a religious belief.

[beso]

birdie //I find it fascinating to watch people who put so much store in 'consensus science' dismissing as irrelevant a consensus amongst the public. According to you and others who think like you, when the vast majority of the public say something isn't a problem, then they're wrong. But when a statistically tortured 'poll' of published scientific papers (whose authors were never actually asked their opinions on the matter) says that it is, then it is. Consensus reached – apparently. //

That statement must rank as one of the stupidest ever posted on this site. What you are asking is, "why do we listen to climate scientists more than the ordinary public?". Do I really need to answer that?

Moreover your assertion as to the general public consensus is wildly incorrect. Take a look at the statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country