We're all doomed!!!!!

[NickStone]

Prof Stephen Hawking, one of Britain's pre-eminent scientists, has said that efforts to create thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence.

He told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."

The full aritcle here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540

[Qqmike]

Not news. Most cosmologists/astrophysicists would agree. E.g., read Tegmark on this issue.

[GreyGeek]

I, for one, welcome my computer overlords.

Couldn't resist typing that.

I think AI is over rated and a sentient computer is a long, long way off ... if ever.

Let's start with the fact that we really don't know what intelligence is, except to believe that the human brain is the pinnacle, or even how the human brain works. We don't even know what "thinking" is, or how it is done. When you "think" what part of the brain is that taking place in? The frontal lobe? Someone else might argue that the brain is a quantum device and "thinking" occurs all over and throughout it. When you see something with your eyes where is the "screen" and who is watching it? That I can intercept electrical brain waves and create a fuzzy picture of the picture you are looking at doesn't mean I know how the brain sees that picture. That I can stimulate a few cells and cause a finger to twitch doesn't teach me how my conscience thought can do the same thing. When I give thought to moving my finger where did that thought arise from and how does it tickle the brain cells that make the finger move?

When the industrial revolution began people began describing the brain as a collection of "wheels and cogs". When the digital age arrived the brain was considered to be a system of neural "circuits" passing electric currents back and forth between the brain and body and between neurons in the brain. Now that all the rage is software, the brain is "mimiced" by neural network software, which are just a fancy hashing algorithms and pattern recognition. Watson is just that, a collection of hashing algorithms operating on a database using rules that are constantly being tweaked by human engineers and the answer is fed to an acoustic speaker. There is no "thinking" going on inside Watson. How do I know? Because we know exactly how Watson works from the first cpu to the last storage device. We can't say that for the human brain.

[MoonRise]

GG.... that is the most detailed thought into thought I've read. Makes me think!

Though, we all need to watch out for SkyNet --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29

[GreyGeek]

... Though, we all need to watch out for SkyNet --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29

Not SkyNet ... Armed drones! Our dear leader extended Bush's insanity to include his "right" to assassinate any American at any time and any place if HE deems them a "threat" to our nation. What greater threat to this nation is there than a man who thinks he has the right to violate most of the Constitution in order to "preserve" it?

[lcorken]

Humanity will be the cause of it's own extinction. Whether by AI, nuclear, Bio, chemical, pharmaceutical, big Agra, or some other dumbassity.

This differs from most other extinctions which were caused by natural causes or human causes.

Or maybe we will all learn to be friends and coexist with nature.

[NickStone]

Not SkyNet ... Armed drones! Our dear leader extended Bush's insanity to include his "right" to assassinate any American at any time and any place if HE deems them a "threat" to our nation. What greater threat to this nation is there than a man who thinks he has the right to violate most of the Constitution in order to "preserve" it?

Can you explain the difference in your president having the "right" to kill someone who threatens your country and a householder who shoots dead someone who breaks in to their home and threatens the family?

[kubicle]

"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."

Yes, but is there some hidden downside to that?

Can you explain the difference in your president having the "right" to kill someone who threatens your country and a householder who shoots dead someone who breaks in to their home and threatens the family?

When someone has unlawfully entered your home (threatening your family), self-defense is justifiable because the danger is clear, imminent and ongoing.

You can't, in self-defense, shoot someone on the street because you have heard he maybe planning to raid some homes in the area, for example (nor can you drive to another state and blow up a bus he's travelling in).

[NickStone]

Yes, but is there some hidden downside to that?


When someone has unlawfully entered your home (threatening your family), self-defense is justifiable because the danger is clear, imminent and ongoing.

You can't, in self-defense, shoot someone on the street because you have heard he maybe planning to raid some homes in the area, for example (nor can you drive to another state and blow up a bus he's travelling in).

So are you saying that your Government cannot kill someone in the street even if they know, through intelligence gathering, that the person is planning on causing an immanent "terrorist attack" and is putting people (your citizens) in danger?

[whatthefunk]

So are you saying that your Government cannot kill someone in the street even if they know, through intelligence gathering, that the person is planning on causing an immanent "terrorist attack" and is putting people (your citizens) in danger?

Of course not. They can detain him for a legal period of time and investigate further, but the government cant go around killing people because they have evidence that they might do something in the future. That opens the door to a huge amount of things that would suck way more than a terrorist attack. You have read 1984, havent you?

[kubicle]

So are you saying that your Government cannot kill someone in the street even if they know, through intelligence gathering, that the person is planning on causing an immanent "terrorist attack" and is putting people (your citizens) in danger?

You'd have to define what you mean, is the suspect planning an attack or is the danger imminent?

If he has his thumb on a trigger of a bomb in a crowded area (clear, imminent and ongoing danger), then the use of (even deadly) force is easily justifiable.

However, if someone has just threatened to "blow up everybody" without actually having a bomb [no clear danger], has been buying ingredients for a bomb [not an imminent danger], or after the suspect has surrendered or been apprehended [the danger is not ongoing anymore], the use of deadly force is hardly justifiable. That doesn't mean the suspect shouldn't be charged, tried and sentenced.

[Qqmike]

a weaving, meandering thread ...

Icorken has it right IMO,

Humanity will be the cause of it's own extinction. Whether by AI, nuclear, Bio, chemical, pharmaceutical, big Agra, or some other dumbassity.

This differs from most other extinctions which were caused by natural causes or human causes.

Or maybe we will all learn to be friends and coexist with nature.

I think that's the consensus of most scientists at this point. Our intelligence has evolved faster than our sense of judgment or social evolution.

[GreyGeek]

Of course not. They can detain him for a legal period of time and investigate further, but the government cant go around killing people because they have evidence that they might do something in the future. That opens the door to a huge amount of things that would suck way more than a terrorist attack. You have read 1984, havent you?

1984 Indeed. Too many people have been sent to prison or killed by police on the testimony of a known criminal who was "cutting a deal" and fingered someone. Some have been shot to death at 3AM in their own bed because the SWAT team went to the wrong house and the owner thought a break-in was occurring.

The administrations of both political parties in the US have had a hand in dismantling the Constitution, each for their own political purposes.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, however, police are very quick to search your cellphone, your car, and even your house without a warrant (the FBI creates and signs their own warrants without a judge - very convenient, very illegal), and they can take what ever they want. Civil forfeiture laws (RICCO Act) created "guilty property" which the police can take (steal) without any evidence of wrong doing merely because THEY "suspect", without a shred of proof, that the money or what ever was used in a criminal enterprise.
Travel down the Interstate highway in many states and when pulled over for an alledged traffic offense, if you agree to let them search your vehicle and they find money they can take it, and they will. Such monies stolen by police are divided between the local department and the Feds in a 20-80 split. Here is a case where the police stole $22K:

In another case the police took $160,000 that a man was taking to buy a business. He had to pay $5K to the police to get his money back after a year, but that doesn't include legal costs. If the police take less than $10K from you it will cost you more to get the money back than what they stole.

The DHS has expanded the operation of the TSA out of the airports and onto the highways and streets of this country using what it calls VIPR teams to set up temporary road blocks stopping all traffic and searching cars for anything, without warrants, and backed up by armored vehicles, helicopters and drones. They ask the questions (ID, work place, where were you, where are you going, etc...) and search your vehicle. If you try to claim any of your Constitutional rights you are hit with "obstruction of justice" and other bogus charges. If you deny their request to search your vehicle they bring in their drug sniffing dogs and what do you know, the dog "finds" drugs in your car, giving them "probable cause".

The NSA Letters, the RICCO Act and the PATRIOT Act, three major abominations, have been discussed on this forum elsewhere and I won't repeat it here. However, it's no surprise how and why America has slipped from the top to 58th in the list of free countries. All of the first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights have been infringed to some degree, and the meaning of some have been essentially reversed, and several of the remaining amendments have been abused as well.

1984 has already arrived in part. Before long it will be in whole. And most of the American people will have partied right through it and, addled by various chemicals, cheering on its arrival because they think they will be more secure.

At 73 I can remember living in a FREE America. Most Americans younger than 50 do not know what living in true freedom is like.

[eggbert]

I, for one, welcome my computer overlords.
I think AI is over rated and a sentient computer is a long, long way off ... if ever.

I actually think it's right around the corner. Check out some of the stuff http://numenta.com/ is doing. They have actually developed software that is emulating at least some of what the neo cortex does, and are using it in commercial applications. It's pretty neat stuff and it's not "traditional" AI.

Also keep in mind that these kind of advances tend to happen exponentially. E.g once they emulate the brain of comparable to say a mouse, the human brain is not far off.

[MoonRise]

a weaving, meandering thread ...

Icorken has it right IMO,



I think that's the consensus of most scientists at this point. Our intelligence has evolved faster than our sense of judgment or social evolution.

+1 and a +1 to Icorken