Why AI won't kill us

a reply to: Unknownparadox

But that's not what you said.

Im not the be-all and end-all as to knowing about AI mate, and make mistakes on plenty of occasions.

Well you can think what you want. The cycle of life is evil if you ask me, everything depends on something else dying in order to survive.

And that's rather a Gnostic interpretation.

As to caution being a "super intelligent move".

Have you met Humans?

Generally stands that if we can do a thing, we will do that thing.

Anyhoo I'm a bit smashed to be going on about AI at the moment.

Ile happily play tomorrow, after the hangover goes away.

a reply to: andy06shake

Monkeys through have cognitive abilities and are intelligent animals capable of problem-solving, learning, and using tools, computers not so much.

That differentiation may no longer be valid for neural network processors. IBM's 4,096-core TrueNorth for example is a single chip processor that mimics 1 million neurons and 256 million synapses. That's far less the capacity of a human mind but the chips operate at a far greater frequency than our mind. Which relies on chemicals to open connections between synapses.

So a silicon counterpart in theory could replicate the human for everything except awareness itself. Which remains a mystery to science.

a reply to: glend

So a silicon counterpart in theory could replicate the human for everything except awareness itself. Which remains a mystery to science.

Sounds like the kind of problem the approaching singularity may broach.

The real question is what would be lost in translation?

Or where the soul resides, possibly down there amongst the quantum foam?

a reply to: andy06shake

Who knows. We can only assume that they will find a way around the problem. Imagine the awareness of a cat connected to a silicon mind exceeding Einstein's. A cyborg that is neither cat nor machine. Elon Muck is investing into brain–computer interfaces (BCIs).

a reply to: glend

I suppose in such a scenario we might speculate that the silicon mind could potentially surpass Einstein's intellect in certain areas.

Particularly those related to processing vast amounts of data, pattern recognition, or even creativity within a specific context.

Its important to recognise the inherent differences between human and artificial intelligence through, as well as our limitations where the understanding of consciousness is concerned.

Elon Musk well thats Neuralink you're alluding to whose purpose and goal is to eventually create devices that can be implanted into the brain, allowing for direct communication between the brain and other devices.

It has potential where the likes of being able to circumvent serious spinal injuries or operation of prosthetic limbs are concerned if taken to its logical conclusion.

There are however ethical and moral implications where the technology is concerned.

Have you met Humans?

Unfortunately I have.
I was referring to the OP statement that, humans are super intelligent. And my response to that is, humans are super stupid. And history has shown that to be true time and time again. They are being stupid and will continue to be stupid when it comes to AI.

a reply to: Unknownparadox

I was referring to the OP statement that, humans are super intelligent. And my response to that is, humans are super stupid.

Certain humans i suppose.

And history has shown that to be true time and time again.

Well if humanity is "super stupid" as you suggest recorded history would not be a thing now would it?

Or writing, mathematics, quantum mechanics, art, and the sciences for that matter.

They are being stupid and will continue to be stupid when it comes to AI.

Progress is not stupid, it's inevitable.

AI is simply a tool, all be it an intelligent one, if taken to its logical conclusion, aka AGI.

Its the purpose to which the tool is set that donates benevolence or malevolence.

I think your applying human morals to nature and its leading you astray.

The lion does not consume the gazelle out of spite or anger or greed, he consumes the gazelle because he is hungry…

Lions are kinda a poor example I guess because they also kill to train themselves or as some put it for “fun”.

We actually do know how AI does what it does and with machine learning neuronetworks you can actually see the decision making processes in how the machine got to its answer over time, one small decision at time.

It’s not a mystery, for example a AI is learning how to drive a car in a simulator. In the beginning it does nothing but accelerate until it crashes, then it accelerates and turns left and crashes, same thing but right and cashes, same thing but less left crashes….same thing but less right, oh it stayed on the road so next time it stays slightly right and keeps going until it meets its next obstacle a left turn, it’s crashes. This repeats through every scenario until the AI has formed an optimal paths

You make it sound like we have broke barrier and there is a literal demon in the machine. Soon but not yet buddy.

a reply to: Unknownparadox