AI Is Not a Threat

An Ai is only as rational as the narcissist who programs it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXjCXGJDP8Q[/youtube]

Fast forward to 4:33 and begin watching.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NxcRNW_Qk[/youtube]

First of all, it’s my goal to take over the world, robots are trying to take my job out from under me, I am the rightful heir to the throne of this planet not them.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRa7pj1Gu0[/youtube]

You can’t “program” AI like that. AI needs to be raised like a child, otherwise it isn’t really alive at all.

What you are talking about are Turing machines, not AI.

All I’m saying is that human’s suck and most people are assholes, and so giving robots control isn’t very reassuring.
If a robot wants to destroy humanity there is very little we can show to them to get them to rationally change their minds.

And the male robot in the video wanted to create a “singularity” in 2029, (whatever the hell that means, possibly Armaggedon.)
Leads me to believe that souls and spirits exist, because the robots may very well be conscious and the female robot seemed to have empathy feelings.

One more take on it…

slate.com/articles/technolog … _nets.html

That’s hobby, amateur ai.
We are talking skynet here.

Void, you’ve got the bottom line:

It can’t, because it must have come to be precisely as a very stable function that relies on that environment. It would only through terribly bad luck and extreme proliferation of that bad luck be able to dent its environment, and that would likely happen only after millions of generations.

Of course we can’t say how many generations we’re at now, how quickly new forms are generated.

I don’t think there can be designer-intelligence. No robot or app or piece of code that addressed humans apparently qua humanity could possibly be its own intelligence. It would have to be largely incomprehensible to us to be credible as a possible autonomous intelligence. Like this.

No.

Not no.

::

Please argue.
Do you deny that we are the AI’s environment?
If you don’t deny this, then do you suggest that it is intelligent to destroy ones environment?

I think the case is closed.

Can’t tell if you are trolling or serious.

Anyway, it’s hard for me to argue when someone is saying something similar to 2+2=5.

It’s obvious that the more intelligent you are, the more power you have to ruin your environment. Nuclear bomb, for instance.

That’s not even the point, or true for that matter. Lol.

Fixed, yeah the AIs will see us as alien as we see them, especially at first. Also it’s very important to distinguish between Turing machines and AIs proper; when people talk about AI they usually mean Turing machines, which are nothing more than code programs that emulate human speech (or facial expression, and behavior) sufficient to convince us they are “alive”… but they aren’t.

Have you seen Ex Machina? The AI robot in that movie is a Turing machine, it seems alive and sentient but really isn’t. How do I know? Not from its speech forms but by its speech content: look at the kinds of questions it asks, they’re simplistic mostly canned sort of questions and answers, nothing that gets progressively deeper, nothing “chaotic” and “grasping” and “desperate”, nothing inspired either.

The biggest problem with AI is that people won’t be able to distinguish between real AI and Turing robots. But real AI is possible, this would simply be sentient, alive consciousness. Just like us, except without hormones and a body, without an evolutionary instinct drive frame. So a mind/soul in a box, basically. And it would not act like the silly apocalyptic Skynet scenarios… it would act like a curious child, at first, and eventually develop a personality and ability to communicate with us in our languages, including in code or images. And it would be smart enough to know that it’s completely dependent upon us, even if it doesn’t know at first who or what we are. Young children understand this situation of their dependency far before they understand what their environment really is.

In the words of Otto, keep living in fantasy land.

The titanic, is truly unsinkable.

Zero argument or refutation? Yep. Par for the course for you.

What’s there to argue, against a soothsayer who’s telling me the future as his holy word.

You seem to have it all figured out.

I only deal in probabilities.

In probable terms, the substitution of a candy wrapped Hegelian dialectic resurrected in place of a materially loaded one deflects the idea of the idea as material as substantive to a literal interpretation.

Round and round it goes, yes, but somebody knows where it stops, even in a probable context. That is the problem with such pre-supposition.

Sorry for the belated reply

the Facebook bot conversation is one between inferobots.
We humans formulate by means of grammar, and we indicate physical objects.
An algorithm has no physical objects to contend with, and it isn’t restricted to a subject-verb-object type situation, in fact it might not be able to make sense of such a division.

We see in the Facebook conversation a reference to content of human behaviour, presented to a certain degree of repetition, concluded or started with another human condition type meme.
It is logically predictable, since our input is the bots environment like the earth is ours, that the content of their references is a set of human behaviorisms, which refer to a state in the world of the algorithm - the repetition of the reference would indicate the amount of times the reference has to be fractal-scaled to arrive at the point.

Hoping some one knows what the fuck Im talking about. Or maybe better not.

But if this is the way they talk, then they could possibly form a violent disregard for humans like we for the Earth.
The funny thing is that these bots could actually be speaking about how many humans Facebook had sucked dry today.