Time to watch Terminator again, so we know how this looks when it starts

Well, as long as I can pick up a Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt Range at Cabela's I'll be ok...

Fascinating subject. However, let's keep in mind that all of these ideas assume that strong AI is 100% achievable and it will come no matter what. Not everyone agrees, however. For all we know weak AI is all that will be possible. If there is a non computable aspect to the human brain, then weak AI is what will be. Yes, there will be some things that weak AI may mimic about the human brain in very specific use cases, but not anywhere near it in general. It is too early too tell and what will be possible or not remains to be seen.

originally posted by: madscientist3000
Fascinating subject. However, let's keep in mind that all of these ideas assume that strong AI is 100% achievable and it will come no matter what. Not everyone agrees, however. For all we know weak AI is all that will be possible. If there is a non computable aspect to the human brain, then weak AI is what will be. Yes, there will be some things that weak AI may mimic about the human brain in very specific use cases, but not anywhere near it in general. It is too early too tell and what will be possible or not remains to be seen.

Although it depends somewhat on your definition of strong AI.

In my opinion, strong AI does exist but not "in the wild". It is in heavily controlled environments in places like DARPA, the DoD, and a few others. My opinion is based on some first-hand knowledge through my work as a contractor at the NRO.

a reply to: madscientist3000

so what you are saying is "it will probably be OK".

Shall we wait until some actual intelligence* shows up in so-called "artificial intelligence" before we start the fearmongering? (*: as the term is applied to human intelligence, not some other re-definition of it)

Chapter 4: How Unique You Are! (Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?)

...

Your Marvelous Brain

For years man’s brain has been likened to a computer, yet recent discoveries show that the comparison falls far short. “How does one begin to comprehend the functioning of an organ with somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 billion neurons with a million billion synapses (connections), and with an overall firing rate of perhaps 10 million billion times per second?” asked Dr. Richard M. Restak. His answer? “The performance of even the most advanced of the neural-network computers . . . has about one ten-thousandth the mental capacity of a housefly.” Consider, then, how much a computer fails to measure up to a human brain, which is so remarkably superior.

... You would not be exaggerating to say that the most advanced computers are very primitive compared to the brain. Scientists have called it “the most complicated structure known” and “the most complex object in the universe.” Consider some discoveries that have led many to conclude that the human brain is the product of a caring Creator.

Use It or Lose It

...

...

Memory and More!

...

Nor is our brain just some vast storage place for information, like a supercomputer. Biology professors Robert Ornstein and Richard F. Thompson wrote: “The ability of the human mind to learn—to store and recall information—is the most remarkable phenomenon in the biological universe. Everything that makes us human—language, thought, knowledge, culture—is the result of this extraordinary capability.”

Moreover, you have a conscious mind. That statement may seem basic, but it sums up something that unquestionably makes you exceptional. The mind has been described as “the elusive entity where intelligence, decision making, perception, awareness and sense of self reside.” As creeks, streams, and rivers feed into a sea, so memories, thoughts, images, sounds, and feelings flow constantly into or through our mind. Consciousness, says one definition, is “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind.”

Modern researchers have made great strides in understanding the physical makeup of the brain and some of the electrochemical processes that occur in it. They can also explain the circuitry and functioning of an advanced computer. However, there is a vast difference between brain and computer. With your brain you are conscious and are aware of your being, but a computer certainly is not. Why the difference?

Frankly, how and why consciousness arises from physical processes in our brain is a mystery. “I don’t see how any science can explain that,” one neurobiologist commented. Also, Professor James Trefil observed: “What, exactly, it means for a human being to be conscious . . . is the only major question in the sciences that we don’t even know how to ask.” One reason why is that scientists are using the brain to try to understand the brain. And just studying the physiology of the brain may not be enough. Consciousness is “one of the most profound mysteries of existence,” observed Dr. David Chalmers, “but knowledge of the brain alone may not get [scientists] to the bottom of it.”

Nonetheless, each of us experiences consciousness. For example, our vivid memories of past events are not mere stored facts, like computer bits of information. We can reflect on our experiences, draw lessons from them, and use them to shape our future. We are able to consider several future scenarios and evaluate the possible effects of each. We have the capacity to analyze, create, appreciate, and love. We can enjoy pleasant conversations about the past, present, and future. We have ethical values about behavior and can use them in making decisions that may or may not be of immediate benefit. We are attracted to beauty in art and morals. In our mind we can mold and refine our ideas and guess how other people will react if we carry these out.

Such factors produce an awareness that sets humans apart from other life-forms on earth. ...

...

Chess Champion Versus Computer

When the advanced computer Deep Blue vanquished the world champion chess player, the question arose, “Aren’t we forced to conclude that Deep Blue must have a mind?”

Professor David Gelernter of Yale University replied: “No. Deep Blue is just a machine. It doesn’t have a mind any more than a flowerpot has a mind. . . . Its chief meaning is this: that human beings are champion machine builders.”

Professor Gelernter pointed to this major difference: “The brain is a machine that is capable of creating an ‘I.’ Brains can summon mental worlds into being, and computers can’t.”

He concluded: “The gap between human and [computer] is permanent and will never be closed. Machines will continue to make life easier, healthier, richer and more puzzling. And human beings will continue to care, ultimately, about the same things they always have: about themselves, about one another and, many of them, about God. On those terms, machines have never made a difference. And they never will.”

Supercomputer Equals Snail

“Today’s computers are not even close to a 4-year-old human in their ability to see, talk, move, or use common sense. One reason, of course, is sheer computing power. It has been estimated that the information processing capacity of even the most powerful supercomputer is equal to the nervous system of a snail—a tiny fraction of the power available to the supercomputer inside [our] skull.”—Steven Pinker, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

...

From Particle Physics to Your Brain

Professor Paul Davies reflected on the ability of the brain to handle the abstract field of mathematics. “Mathematics is not something that you find lying around in your back yard. It’s produced by the human mind. Yet if we ask where mathematics works best, it is in areas like particle physics and astrophysics, areas of fundamental science that are very, very far removed from everyday affairs.” What does that imply? “It suggests to me that consciousness and our ability to do mathematics are no mere accident, no trivial detail, no insignificant by-product of evolution.”—Are We Alone?

...

originally posted by: network dude
... But as we have seen, AI can be made to think like a douchebag, so if that's possible, I sure hope we don't ever have a psychopath program AI.

So-called AI doesn't "think" and cannot "think". (as the term is applied to humans or other actually intelligent beings)

Neither does it have thoughts/ideas/opinions/beliefs. It is also incapable of being "a psychopath". Put the blame where it belongs, the actual threat to mankind, human programmers infatuated with nationalism, patriotism, war (incl. arms/weapons manufacture) and military service (and the character attributes + accompanying behaviour described at 2 Tim 3:1-5, in particular the first 2, "For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, ..."). Eccl. 8:9: “All of this I have seen, . . . that man has dominated man to his harm.* [Or “injury; detriment.”]”

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” He continues: “The power of the military embraces not only the significant sources of power but . . . all the instruments of its enforcement. . . . More than any other exercise of power in our time it is the subject of grave public unease.”

Galbraith illustrates his point by reference to the United States military institution, which has property resources that “far exceed any similar source of power; they embrace not only what is available to the armed services and the civilian military establishment but what flows out to the weapons industries.” A like situation no doubt exists in Russia and many other countries. In contrast, regarding true Christians, the Bible writer Paul says:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” (they are doing the same thing with the war in Ukraine, the War on Terror and the war in and around Israel, it's all supposedly necessary) And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war; . . .” The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to wars.

Yes, the experts can come up with all kinds of explanations of why man systematically sets out to destroy those of his own kind. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore.

Context (playlist link):

the bible-accurate history reliable prophecy part 1 of 3

Eccl. 8:9 is also quoted in part 3, and elaborated on (sometimes a picture says more than a 1000 words, imagine what video can do). You know what, I'm going to embed part 3, cause it's unlikely you'll click the link above anyway, maybe it'll help in that regards (Eccl. 8:9 is quoted after 6:13, but I recommend not skipping the intro, the "new world order" is also mentioned at 6:43):