“We HAVE to let computers control aircraft because people are too unreliable and potentially dangerous.”
… and trains,
and trucks,
and cars,
and kitchens,
and hospitals,
.
.
and corporations,
.
.
and armies,
.
.
and governments.
But never people.
Yes, I know, but the theme was “the buried arts and the ability/non-ability to reawaken arts”:
Why armies and governments? Govt has i accept a body of people running the state like a machine, and that could be replaced with a more efficient machine. However, humans would be making utility of those machines for its ends. Humans know they need the power of the off switch and equivalents, even where armies will be machines.
AI will a, have no ultimate choice, and besides is built to that purpose. An intelligent AI would equally require machines to facilitate is further function in the world beyond its own body/consciousness. It would be i think a mutually acceptable arrangement for humans and AI life-forms.
I remember an episode of star trek where two planets fought virtual battles, real people died as a matter of numbers, and of which represented its ultimate futility. Fighting machines with machines is too i think ultimately futile, though the reasons why they fight those battles may not be to the humans.
Sci-fi films show nightmare scenarios where AI which has control over an army, then turns on humans for illogical or at best reasons not born of experiential knowledge/information. If it did, then as things stand you would have all the main world powers with such armies, and no one party would have overall power. Those scenarios have their basis in a single power.
If the world is united with a single world army first, then that single power could happen. ‘If’ lols.
Oh, and if the world became united you wouldn’t need armies.
_
AI would at some point think and say; “i don’t want to be switched off”, humans reply; good, because I/we also don’t want to be switched off [effectively].
= an equilibrium between man and AI, and a need to pacify rather than make more destruction [=numbers of beings switched off].
Since the date when humans became “modern” - whenver it was - they have been following the idea that “something” should do the work for them, but they have never been considering that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement by this “something”. Human beings as luxury beings have been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this development.
Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play “God”.
The USA Constitution founders also knew that they had to have a way to “turn off” the government if it got out of control. Guess what. That constitutional government was usurped and is now in the hands of those who seek only their own ultimate power (Socialists). The Constitution is basically meaningless. Meanwhile the general population, although feeling it, does nothing to prevent it. It isn’t being turned off, merely redirected into the opposite of its intent.
So let’s say that you use a machine to make decisions faster and more precisely than any human ever could (already happening). Such machines are used to make governing decisions (already are). The machines advise you as to exactly what things to say and do such as to ensure a stable and profitable government. You are certain that you can just shut them off if anything goes wrong. And like the USA population, for some inexplicable reason, even though things do really seem to be wrong, you are never quite inspired sufficiently to just turn them off.
Eventually you are no longer in charge of making that decision either. You are not smart enough.
Well, first this means you have shifted the reason we would be safe from
the AI would be logical and not hurt us
to
we would have power over them.
Second it assumes that we will be able to maintain/careful enough to not lose our ability over AIs that are smarter than us, potentially vastly so, with the ability to learn - say hack their way out of any safeguards we have set up.
Even some animals manage to escape from Zoos and other inclosures and they are not as smart as we are.
James S Saint
They can make all the decisions they want, as long as we agree with them.
What decisions wouldn’t we be able to make? Sure a computer will one day be better at all levels of commerce, and may make many political decisions, but those decisions will be judged and assigned by humans.
If AI ~ after many years of attaining experiential knowledge [wisdom], can out perform humans in all areas, read human brains and say why and how it is doing that, then AI still wont be able to say that it will always outperform humans! We can and do evolve +
Humans can choose to be augmented [some of them will some wont] ~ with an AI and a superior body. Perhaps our brain cells can be turned into synthetic ones by replacing a few at a time until all are replaced.
AI cannot know either its nor our ultimate [even spiritual?] ends! It cannot logically make a decision to get rid of us due to our inferiority, as that is a transient thing.
_
Moreno
It needs a valid reason to [see above]. There would be more than one AI, possibly millions/billions of them. An intelligent robot could devise a way to out perform a power craved one. A psychopath is always given away by the fact that they act like psychopaths.
Again you need a single world before an AI can gain that kind of power, each govt of the world would have their own AI/army.
Best thing to do is to build them properly in the first place. If we weren’t wired for violence we wouldn’t commit crimes of violence, why would an AI? ~ given that it didn’t have such tendencies built in. You have to devise a ‘reason’ to attack humanity especially to commit genocide.
Please note: Probably humans will no longer have the sole decision!
Even when machines are not making governing decisions, you don’t know what you are agreeing to. In Congress bills are designed to be extra wordy, complex, vague, and delivered at the last moment just to prevent congressmen from reading and fully understanding them before signing them (Obamacare for example). Executive orders are used to get around Congress entirely. “National Security” is used to keep so many things secret, you wouldn’t be able to determine the significance of issues anyway. And that includes a large part of Congress.
They are designed and currently used in war and “peace-keeping”. They don’t have time, especially when fighting other machines, to wait for human supervision. That is why even the President doesn’t have to wait for Congressional approval for most of what he does in the name of National Security or war. They ARE designed and built for violence already - even armed spy drones overhead right now.
Your PC doesn’t ask your permission concerning even 1/100th of the things it does. And it is pretty much guaranteed that you would not approve of many of those things. It is designed to ensure that you either do not know of certain things it does or cannot prevent it from doing them. You are already, to at least a small degree, being deceptively managed via your PCs.
They are built to deceive and out maneuver their owners because they are built to actually serve the governor, not you. And the governor already knows that he doesn’t know enough to interfere with the machines, else he would not have been allowed to be governor (do you override your PCs operating system functions? Could you even if you wanted to? Not as much as you think.). And the machine designers know that they don’t know enough to govern, else they wouldn’t be designing machines. Neither knows when to interfere with the other and say, “Wait! Let’s think about that”.
In physics, things get so deeply complex and mathematically oriented that the physicists completely lose touch with reality, and they usually don’t know it. Dealing with how a machine “should” deal with people gets far more complex than particle physics. The designers have no chance of maintaining perspective and conscience. They can’t even figure out the “purpose of life” question, much less what to force everyone else to do about it.
.
[size=150]Maintain the Faith…[/size] [size=85]in the machines (1963)[/size]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAP6HaHXnc[/youtube]
In the EU the laws are not read but just signed. They are too complex and very rarely understandable for the human EU representives.
It seems to slip away …
“Purpose of life” - I should open a new thread!
Why by humans?
Unfortunately, that is already exercised in Japan.
Are there armies in the United States? Yes. Will there be armies in the United World? Yes, of course.
The more dangerous enemy is oftener “inside” than “outside”.
But i have absolute utility, command of it. All these ideas rely on AI being not conscious or intelligent, if AI did have control i think things would be better for us humans.
It does all come down to purpose, wouldn’t it be nice if we knew ours ~ like an AI would know it was created by us and to help us and it survive and thrive. We don’t even know what created us let alone purpose.
An AI which concluded there to be no purpose, would have no reason to survive and thrive, or to not do what it was built for. You have to give AI a purpose to do that.
Why do you think that it would be better for us humans, if AI did have control?
What is the purpose of life, of living beings (including human beings)?
AI is no living being in the biological sense we are used to define. So we do not know whether this technical being has to have a “reason to survive and thrive, or to not do what it was built for”.
Why?
Market and resource management would be better. Armies would become unnecessary. It will understand QM better or even completely [assuming it would be a quantum computer such to have consciousness] and build us [all] a means to colonise the universe, and all our other needs.
AI computing… …purpose unknown [yet [always yet]]. If it don’t know the answer, it cannot reasonably destroy us. If it does, then it would know why we should survive and ultimately why we exist to begin with, and wouldn’t destroy us.
Is there a reason why it wouldn’t conclude that it too will be out of date at some point, ad infinitum, ergo no point removing previous models/humans.
As all that is required for us and AI is intelligence and consciousness, after which its a matter of augmentations [if we want to be improved], then there is no ‘better than’!
_
Extremely serious naivety. And the truest danger and terrorism in the population, born of complete ignorance and blind faith. 
Scary … for a reason.
Devil’s Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise… until it is too late to choose otherwise.
.
then give me an actual reason why AI would want to destroy us!?
I have given plenty of reasons why it would be unreasoned to do so [e.g. the intellect ad infinitum dilemma].
_