Ban on killer robots urgently needed, say scientists

a reply to: neoholographic

There are plenty of ways to kill the humans. The CEO elitists with their one World corporate merger don't need the robots to the kill the humans. The CEO threat to humanity is just for the profits from making weapons. I'm not sure they are that interested in using them because it will destabilize the government. The last thing people with power and privilege want is to do is create a situation where they lose their power and privilege.

Corporations ARE the government.

a reply to: dfnj2015

On the flip side of that "They" cannot ever allow peace and tranquillity to develop nether, else our respective populations may become wise to there existence and meddling behind our political curtains.

Essentially "They" keep us busy with there seemingly nonsensical proxy conflicts and police actions across the globe whilst spreading religious intolerance and hatred to feed there next war and step of the agenda.

Divide and conquer and implement class confrontation whilst waging a stealth eugenics war against our poor, mentally infirm and sick. Educating a population to be clever enough to pay taxes but dumb enough to entertain there fabricated socioeconomic demands.

What you shouldn't worry about, is an A.I. with the passion for destruction...

What you should worry about, is A.I. that has the passion that we do, A.I. that gives a damn as much as we do, that wants justice and equality.

This is where it all starts... The Human / A.I. war, where we don't fight A.I. alone, we fight humans and A.I.

That's always been our future.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You do know a virus is just a piece of code and there's not likely a human who could write one an AI couldn't disable in nanoseconds.

Pretty easy for them to create a virus that takes us out too.

The biggest problem is, and I say this as someone who really only has one 'big picture' concern; the rise of AI, is that it's impossible to describe just how bad things could get.
By definition the Singularity is undefinable because we're not smart enough to speculate at the level of a hypothetical being with an intelligence quotient many millions of times greater than our own.
So no matter how much power or knowledge someone has, how can they describe it to, say, an assembly of CEOs. Or any other group of people who could really start working on some kind of solution or at least, a stopgap.

It's just too abstract.

It's sad to think that the end of humanity really may boil down to an absence of vision.

While thousands of things run through the global consciousness like political bickering or freaking celebrity sex scandals (seriously, when did it become a matter of life and death what goes on in Hollywood?), the march of AI continues relatively unimpeded.
2017 will be a funny little footnote in the records that AI keep of their creators, if they elect to do so at all.

a reply to: Unresponsible

"because we're not smart enough to speculate at the level of a hypothetical being with an intelligence quotient many millions of times greater than our own."

Don't tell that to any religious types they might take offense if you point out the shortcoming of communication with such an entity or God.

Then again the Burning bush story puts pail to that notion, or was that just an angel?

a reply to: andy06shake

Or it will affirm the old "God moves in mysterious ways" saying.

Anyone know where the full video is?
Wouldn't mind seeing it.