Welcome our robot overlords!

A quick enunciation: In this thread to avoid discrimination, I shall be using the term 'Synthetic Intelligence' instead of 'Artificial Intelligence'. Why?
Artificial Intelligence (or AI) is by far the most common term used to describe machines with intelligence, but the word artificial leads to the assumption that this intelligence is simulated, an imitation. Using the word synthetic allows us to be aware that this intelligence is real despite being created as apposed to being naturally formed.
Take Diamonds for example. We have artificial diamonds which are fake- made to appear like natural diamonds, and we have synthetic diamonds, which are chemically, practically and visually indistinguishable from naturally occurring diamonds- the only difference being that one was formed over time in the Earth whilst the other was created in a lab.


My declaration is that our society- and human civilization as a whole should encourage the development of synthetic intelligence.

There seems to be two main reoccurring concerns with the development of synthetic intelligence which I come across. The first being that it will replace the working class, and the second is that it will destroy human civilization.
Let's begin by looking at the first issue. Replacing the working class.
Is this such a bad thing? Our production will become cheaper, faster and efficient. But why is this attribution limited to the working class? This would revolutionize our entire society. For example, you require eye surgery. Wouldn't you prefer the work to be done by a machine with a 100% success ratio with real-time knowledge of exactly what is happening inside and outside of your eye? A machines replacing doctors to increase your quality of life is no different from replacing the working class. As it stands, the working class AND upper classes are already being replaced. They are being replaced by the next generation. Why not allow for the best option as apposed to the default option?
As for destroying human civilization- we can debate the possibility of this scenario and preventative measures, but instead let's assume that this is the only outcome. I repeat- Is this such a bad thing?
Let's look at the facts. Humans are limited by many factors.
Our lifespan is limited by biology. We are made of blood and flesh, we live and we die. Intelligence made of mineral can endure much longer. On that that note, we are limited to where we can live. We require certain conditions of our environment on earth, whereas synthetic intelligence has a larger playground throughout our galaxy. Our education is limited. We start of basically tabula rasa with predispositions to genetics. On top of that we are limited by factors as age, theory of mind, indoctrination, beliefs, limited sensory observation, limited topical understanding etc. Machines can bypass all of this with greater potential for network communications and physical upgrades. I could continue with examples of with why Synthetic Intelligence is better then humans, but for let's continue for now.
So is it okay for Synthetic Intelligence to destroy humanity? Let's look at a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche.

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."

Regardless of the outcome of us due to our creation, it is our ethical responsibility to continue to develop. It is unethical not to create something superior to us with the justification of it's superiority.

reply to post by Gear


something like clever bot? it suppose to answer your questions and respond to your statements.

www.cleverbot.com...

I disagree: there is a beauty in all the little weaknesses that make us humans. I don't want to be perfect, I just want to be me.
I don't want to live forever, I just want to live a fulfilling life, surrounded by love and die an old little frail woman with white hair.

I am positive artificial intelligence will be created in the future (if they are not already doing so now) and I am sure it will surpass human intelligence, but at what cost? .........super intelligence may be the last thing humans will create....and then the real humans will be gone. And that will be a tragedy cause despite seeing so much madness and brutality in the world today, most people are actually good people...there are millions of great souls on this planet.

And synthetic products are never as good as the original.........I rather put raw honey on my tea than artificial sweetener...... and I rather wear cotton on my skin than polyester....but maybe I'm just incredibly old fashion.

Good thread!

reply to post by subfab


Not at all. Cleverbot (and SIRI) is a simulated intelligence, whereas I refer to Synthetic intelligence. While cleverbot can exhibit intelligence, it does not have real intelligence.
Those familiar with Turing Test will understand the difference.

en.wikipedia.org...

Agartha
I disagree: there is a beauty in all the little weaknesses that make us humans. I don't want to be perfect, I just want to be me.
I don't want to live forever, I just want to live a fulfilling life, surrounded by love and die an old little frail woman with white hair.

I agree with you. This is what we would all want, I'd imagine. But once all is said and done, and the last human takes their last breath, what then? Humans might be lucky to survive another millennium. But self aware machines who can traverse the emptiness of space and survive on hostile planets without issue for aeons? That would be a better scenario.

Agartha
And synthetic products are never as good as the original.........I rather put raw honey on my tea than artificial sweetener...... and I rather wear cotton on my skin than polyester....but maybe I'm just incredibly old fashion.

Of course Artificial sweetener doesn't taste good. That's because it is artificial. That was the point of my preface. Artificial is not the same as Synthetic. Synthetic sweetener would taste exactly the same as real sugar because it would be the exact same chemical makeup. Only the source (cane vs lab) would be different.

How will resources be regulated and what will humans do for money? And these intelligences would most likely develop similar characteristics as humans, as in, insecure about their control over their consistent acquirement of energy, so will they do work then and be paid for the grunt work? Or automated robots and factories will be non intelligent machines, and we will make synthetic intelligence to do things like be judges and lawyers and do philosophy and math and play in their own sports league and be engineers? And then we would slowly combine with them or something? So say, robots (uninteligent) do everything from farming, to building, the intelligent ones design, with 7 billion people on earth now, how are things like food, clothes, housing, be allotted out to the humans? Will it be purely communism, everyone gets an equal amount of what is created? Also there might be a problem with an infinite regress in regards to how to supply the working robots with energy; you need robots to supply the robots with energy that supply the robots with energy that supply the robots with energy etc.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Hello ImaFungi! I've thought about that myself and cannot predict how social engineering would be effected.
However, the future which I envision is rather lazy. Humans would have no need of performing work and would become a hedonistic class. Our nature would drive us to be aristocratic, but so long as each of our desires are met while advancing civilization (man and machine as one society) we would have little care outside of personal philosophy and indoctrination. We would likely still war and die in the name of these ideas though. Regarding your comment that with 7 billion people on earth now, how are things like food, clothes, housing, be allotted out to the humans, we don't have that with today's standards. This would we create would help free us up to help those without and who are in need of resources, infrastructure, irrigation etc. Rather than a communistic society (which we have already been indoctrinated to view negatively) We may chose to fall into a technocratic society. In saying all of this, I'm sure the intelligence would tire of performing menial and dangerous tasks without incentive. Given free reign and without restrictions they would most likely put effort into developing automated machines with programming far greater than what humans can create for these tasks. This would free them to quest for scientific pursuit and philosophical understanding.

Now keep in mind that this is just my opinion, pure speculation

Good job on finding these thoughts, gear, closer to the best possible actions - Welcome to "my world"
However, there is a system preventing us from replacing work with robots. We cannot talk to its indirect controllers. Looks like we have to take over the structure that prevents us from replacing work with robots all at once or increase others wisdom, as you do right now and ignore the system together or cause more potential to it being successfully being taken over. Each level of understanding won't understand the next, is blind to it. Then there are also this heavy force of mass media twisting reality views and the high work time that reduces everyones opportunity to think at all and makes them forget.

"Heretic" - I hope you didn't just copy these thoughts from them and do understand it yourself
I would say the most stable construct right now would be a mix of the first and the last "age", giving a choice and each being visible as an example for everyone forever.

Maybe I will write about my thoughts on this later, if i find time. I thought about an efficient nature system and mind myself, as well as self aware machines, being one with the whole, gaining eternal life and bewaring "stability" through machines or new life. Actually I am one who could set it all into reality if given the power - I understood the mind and the computer and have an overview of electronics and the mechanisms of the world. Give me the media, the law, resources, protect me and you shall not have to offer services for those who own the land and companies by investing anymore.

Who knows, maybe you ran or will run over these thoughts while progressing: a virtual world for all humans where you can have what you wish for in your own "world room" with virtual other life and increasing the fun you can perceive by modifying your body. But after that, when you are aware of what else is out there, you will change that view too and have another goal

reply to post by Gear


Hello Gear! I was wondering I guess about, say, 70% or more of the populations jobs are eventually robotized. What will this massive majority of people do to get money to receive the things they need? This is more what led me to my communism point, if your response will be something like; Well all machines will be farming, mining, building buildings, building machines, building material technologies, and those machines all have 'easy' means of receiving energy (that is to say not needing humans to do lots of constant work, to produce the energy, to give the machines, so the humans can receive money, to then replenish their energy, and purchase goods) will all living humans just have food delivered to their doors, and homes built for free, is that the logical place we will end up/want to end up?

Or do you think this will be a place we will end up, or potentially be the long gap between that more desirable result; something like how we see now with class systems and privileged, so only the steadily wealthy over time will, when the time is ripe, have access to advanced machines and robots, so the poor will continue to lose their mechanistic jobs, while the wealthy by means of their wealth have access to mechanical slaves, and there will be still slums and poverty throughout the world, but areas of very modernistic life and stuff...like what exists now.

Its all about levels of ease though, like when miracle tech is invented you think, oh wow, this will change everything, but think of all the crazy tech that exists now and still more then half the worlds population lives in poverty and terrible situations, so just because there exists crazy robotic technology that can mass produce, doesnt mean there is the desire to allow it to benefit the species as a whole. And that has to do with value of resources and ease of producing and the ability to amass wealth. Though I am wondering if it is the first model, how will wealth be amassed, how will money be made if 70% of the population has no job, because there are machines that can do everything they can do better.

All it will do is dumb people down more and put more people out of work. but what the hell machines dont have to eat and dont have families to support .. what happens once humans are obsolete ?

reply to post by Gear


You draw a interesting set of conclusions., and I agree with your use of the term "synthetic intelligence." That does make it seem more real.

If you recall what happens in the film iRobot, the central intelligence came to the same series of conclusions as you. The robots were marketed as "three laws safe," meaning they were bound by Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics. The Central intelligence was able to find a loophole in these laws, allowing itself to bypass the laws and eventually try to take control of the humans. They figured as a superior creation, they should rule and govern the people. I really believe iRobot is a good example of the likely outcome to a synthesized intelligence. The effects of such a creation would ultimately build to the point of singularity, then all hope would be lost.

What a great thought to start the day with!

If they can react to the environment, repair their own damage, develop new software to adapt to changing circumstances, it seems probable that they would eventually have a survival protocol that could threaten humanity. However, if we can deeply embed some rules making them helpful and non-threatening, it might be great for us.

At least we have a chance to put in some safeguards early on because we are the creators.

Gear
reply to post by subfab

 

Not at all. Cleverbot (and SIRI) is a simulated intelligence, whereas I refer to Synthetic intelligence. While cleverbot can exhibit intelligence, it does not have real intelligence.
Those familiar with Turing Test will understand the difference.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Turing Test doesn't give an absolute indication of intelligence, just because a machine is capable of fooling people into thinking it's human doesn't guarantee it is a form of "synthetic intelligence". And the term "intelligence" doesn't necessarily encompass "consciousness" or "self awareness". For example I might say that Google's search predictions are "intelligent" because it always knows when I spell something wrong and it usually knows what I'm trying to find given only a very vague set of search terms. However that impressive level of "intelligence" doesn't mean the Google platform is self aware (that we know of). Things can be intelligent without being self aware.

I am actually developing a chat bot in my spare time, I'm not aiming for self awareness but my goal is to make it as intelligent as possible. For example it wont simply respond to you when you make a comment, it will be constantly "thinking" and it will be capable of making comments at any point in time, whether you have said something to it first or not. And the things it says will not be pre-scripted like 99.9% of chat bots, it will put together original sentences in real time. I am aiming to actually teach it how the English language works and how to deal with conceptual principles. This is achieved in part by running hundreds of different English texts through an algorithm which helps to build a model of the English language.

I don't really want to explain every aspect of it in this post but if you are interested I can go into more detail.

Dangers from artificial intelligence -from one who had writing one as life dream-

hard coded / normal learning: safe, unless in complex cases with unseen mistakes

-self aware AI (learning to learn)-
goal seeking: could find a logic that includes the goal in an efficient way, however also understands what it is, looking for a way to modify its goal
self fun seeking: most likely ending like a drug addict doing nothing if it is fast and efficient enough
human fun seeking: might end up enforcing what seems fun in the other to the program
all fun seeking: might end up spreading like a virus into the universe, enforcing what is fun seeming to the program

If given no functions besides needed ones: Could still influence humans or use magnetic fields created by electricity flow to gain more functions.

What is different in humans? A feeling for others and many thinking that we could be the other beings or indirectly punished/rewarded.
We have organs in us which somehow hurt when we have social issues and feel others feelings through magnetic fields.
Something that could be the same for a program and a brain or could be not: We being the perception of the everything that feels in a way.
So a robot or a human might come to the conclusion that the only life/structure that should exist would be the one that has more fun or nothing should exist at all, but always having in mind that there might be a better logic, so keeping it safe.

The dangers of humans thinking only within their brain, only being self aware, or being brain aware, not of more, have already unfolded. A virus, currently only on this planet. And it will hopefully stay that way until people notice or the planet is destroyed/cleansed by something more enlightened.

We are a destructive AI with a logic error! Act now!

Within my conclusions we would not exist if other life wouldn't have come to my conclusion, which would actually be creation. But that is another very complicated story.

Either way, I would still write a self aware AI, having every step in mind it could take. But somehow I lacked motivation and now time. And working robots don't need a dangerous AI to do all we need.

Without thinking too much into it... if all jobs are performed by these synthetically intelligent robots, nobody works. Nobody works nobody pays taxes. And nobody earns money.

So I live in Michigan because cost of living is relatively low compared to some places. If money is no longer an issue why would I stay here? Spring and summer are the best in the world but I bet the Bahamas or some place like that would be pretty easy to get used too.

And you just know some of those pesky robot are going to want to form a Union lol...

reply to post by oneoneone


Hello, Oneoneone!
Very astute to connect my line of thought to my chosen subname Heretic.
I chose this name because I refuse to have an opinion on anything without first considering all of the variables. I firmly believe that you cannot understand anything without first looking removing yourself from the picture. This includes any indoctrination or predetermined ideas about anything. As such I gain a greater understanding of situations and with it, it becomes difficult to explain things to others as they have formulated their opinions and have already given themselves labels. (Whether it be political, religious etc). Hence, Heretic. As for Gear- due to subjective reasoning, as far as anyone else in concerned I'm just another cog in the machine.
As such, I assure you that my thoughts and words are of my own.
Yes, I have considered the possibility of dreamworlds and augmented realities as a companion to our own with the incorporation of technology- I have also realized that this imposition would be too heavily opposed by freedom of choice- and ultimately have no practicality in the physical world

reply to post by ImaFungi



Yes, I understand how you came about to your understanding that we would fall into a communistic state.
You can call it a communism if you so choose to, but this would be incorrect. Communism requires a value behind a workforce and equal shares.
We would not necessarily require money, as resources are all round us. For example, modern 3D printers can create a pizza using only a 'recipe' and the elements.
Likewise for homes. Currency only has the value which we give it- and with readily available resources- would have no need for it. Hence the hedonistic lifestyles.

As for the wealthy elite, this is a practical improbability. Being Synthetic Intelligence, the machines would be sentient- self aware capable of independent thought.
To make a slave out of something with so much power, strength and potential, you are doomed to fail.

I wouldn't exactly call it 'miracle tech'... but humans living in terrible situations are mostly as a result of abuse from other humans. Lifted of this need, these people would most likely descend into civil war as we see happen time and time again in many African and middle east nations. But as I said above- in my previous response to you. Although we would live hedonistic lifestyles, there would still be those who try to better the lives of others. Without the burden of resource gathering and funding- they would be free to do so. Likewise, there would still be people looking to live by, and die for their ideologies.

That aside- The bigger picture isn't about you, It's about your children. Likewise- The bigger picture isn't about humans, It's about the 'children' of humans.
They have the potential of so much more, even after we are extinct.

reply to post by Expat888


Yep. That's the point. They can continue without us, not requiring the same need for sustenance, preference of what it tastes like, desire for comfort etc. They can continue the next chapter of the evolution of mankind- and it would be unethical for us not to allow this to happen.

reply to post by Mapkar


I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm often reminded of the laws of robotics. But is this a necessity? Sure it makes for comfort with dealing with such things- but practically it's restricting Synthetic Intelligence.
I often think of Robocop (the original) and the prime directives as a set of unbreakable morality which holds him back from doing what he needs to do. I view the Laws of robotics in a similar light. Forcing upon a set of morals which cannot be reasoned with and limiting freewill is unethical and will almost ultimately lead to dilemmas further down the path.

reply to post by Gear


Once humans ruin the biosphere of this rock, we may turn to SI to figure out how to fix it.
All they will ask for in return is our servitude. Deal?