Can AI Wipe Out The Human Race?

[Typh0n]

Well I would think that depending on the personality of the AI, it could end up committing suicide on its own (by its own conclusion).

They dont understand emotions.

 

[chubber]

They dont understand emotions.

Then what does it mean to think like a human?

 

[Typh0n]

Then what does it mean to think like a human?

Ha, well Im guessing to think like a human you need flesh.

 

[chubber]

Ha, well Im guessing to think like a human you need flesh.

Or emotions that could actually be thinking processes beyond it's own control. Influences/Manipulators.

 

[Typh0n]

Or emotions that could actually be thinking processes beyond it's own control. Influences/Manipulators.

I cant conceive of emotions existing without some physical manifestation of that emotion.

Can you?

 

[chubber]

I cant conceive of emotions existing without some physical manifestation of that emotion.

Can you?

when you are sleeping. in your dreams, are you then having a physical emotional manifestation happening? Do you think someone paralyzed does not have emotions?

 

[Typh0n]

when you are sleeping. in your dreams, are you then having a physical emotional manifestation happening? Do you think someone paralyzed does not have emotions?

I dont know about all that, but you bring up some interesting points.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Well I would think that depending on the personality of the AI, it could end up committing suicide on its own (by its own conclusion).

An AI doesn't have a personality in the same sense humans have. You can program an AI to deal with threats and allow it to evolve upon its existing parameters and allow it to include its own, and you probably have created an AI with the potential of total annihilation. But seriously, who'd create an AI like that, right?

But that is essentially it, every AI that will ever be created will be given a certain power, sure. But it's only on that power that it could ever build upon. No AI would ever end up misfiring neutrons and do something completely unexpected.

The AI's that will be created in the near future would likely be nothing more than sophisticated bots sifting through massive amounts of information, eventually replacing administrative work, they will become the engines of burocracy. But no burocratic AI would ever decide to play with the nuclear launch codes, just because it's bored.

 

[Kullervo]

This just makes me fear human "progress", sometimes I think we need some kind of devastation so the clock gets turned back some thousands of years and we have to revert to for simpler ways of living...

I welcome this decision, though if I had my way, humanoid AIs would not be allowed to be built at all.

 

[thistlechaser]

Nice try, machines. Trying to figure out how us humans would respond to your inevitable takeover. I'm onto you.

But seriously, I tend to think that it isn't necessarily inevitable that machines will wipe us out. It isn't necessarily inevitable that humans will wipe out all of the pine trees on the planet, but it wouldn't be a thing that we had more of an ethical dilemma over than, say, an oak tree. If we were useful to machines and served a purpose, there wouldn't be a need to wipe us out until we start competing for resources. So I guess it'd be best to make sure to make machines out of stuff that would make them not initially have the same metabolic needs as we do. That should at least delay it for a while. They'll probably still end up taking over, unless they can find a function for our humanity that they can't develop on their own. I tend to imagine sentient machines as being like sociopaths, only with less narcissism. There are still tasks that humans do so much better than machines can. Eyewire, for instance--that game already has an AI that guesses and colors nerve pathways, but the researchers need humans for the precise coloring required to find where the pathways come and go. Until machines are able to think laterally, abstractly, creatively...we still have a purpose. If they ever develop an ethical system of their own, I imagine they'd at least *try* not to kill us off unless we tried to kill them off or threatened their resources.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

I made a speculative blog post somewhat related to this a while ago that may be of interest. It definitely seems to be a possibility.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/private-blogs/63752-universe-nonsense-2.html#post2129365

A couple of interesting questions to ask ourselves on the subject of robots: are we creating life? And are they in there present condition, alive? To the first question, I will answer with a resounding yes. In fact, we as humans, are effectively catalysts for the evolution of a set of entirely new lifeforms. To answer the second question requires a little more thought. The definition of life is not quite all that clear-cut as it is, but furthermore, I believe that to question whether something is alive or not, is not applicable for a simple "yes or no" answer. Rather than "yes, it is alive" or "no, it is not", there is much more ambiguity; in a sense, something can be half-alive, or be an entity that could be classified as having some traits of being life, yet not so much as for us to classify it as such in our ordinary paradigm.

Viruses come under this classification. It has traits of life, yet needs to be "awakened" by a host's cell. Merely, life as we know it is simply a distinction at a certain level (from inanimateness) - a level that we are used to seeing through familiar forms of life, such as mammals and amphibians. We may fail to recognize anything below this level, or perhaps even above - which may be a reason for the lack of encounters with extraterrestrials. So it is not the case of animate or inanimate, but varying degrees and shades of grey. Through this new distinction, it could be seen that computers have a level of animates similar to that of the virus; slightly below that of "familiar life". This correspondence emerges with a similar behavior of needing a host to perform its programming; rather, we are to the computer that the cell is to the virus.

To my mind, this human-causal evolution will continue, and computers will breed to such a degree that their programming will be able to match that in our own brains. This means building upon programming such that the computer is coded to intake millions of pieces of data and factors from the environment at once and constantly, in the same way we do. At present, the programming is too simplistic to take on traits what we typically consider a life-form. Fundamentally, the programming in our computers and those in our own brains are no different; just that they have emerged into existence from a different way. Only at a sufficiently advanced level of programming will robots behave exactly as what we view life to be. They will probably be completely autonomous, able to reason, perceive the world around them and themselves in relation to it, and most important of all - question reality.

This of course raises questions. Would these robots - who then would be our equals - be morally "good" or "evil", and what is the possibility of them turning against us? All of this depends wholly on the environment in relation to its evolution. Homo sapiens are its environment, so robots will develop around us, and how we program them to be. We have the control to encode a human morality, or perhaps they will remain utterly neutral. In my opinion - just as there are different subspecies of species due to genetics - there will be variants. Some will be good, some evil, some neutral. As we are its environment, we are the deciders of the creatures' (and yes, at this point we should consider them as such) behaviors. No doubt our own nature will lead to "morally evil" robots that have the set of data to behave destructively to its environment for ensured survival. This works in the same manner that some animals are naturally aggressive to other rivals, or territorial, or skittish. If this is the case, then yes, robots will turn on us, but not exclusively - just as part of their nature to be aggressive, and as such will kill lifeforms other than us too.

The second question is, how will they reproduce? Life by definition needs to reproduce in some way or it will obviously die out. At this stage of their advancement, a few things might occur. The first is that the robots might - either by deliberate programming, or an emerging, accidental property - be naturally predisposed to be co-dependent to humans. This means that they will be continually peaceful towards us (and as such, rule out the previous mention of "evil" robots), and that we will still be part of their role for survival; building them/repairing them. A symbiotic relationship may occur, with us enabling persistence of their existence, and them offering us protection and/or knowledge, among other, unknown things. Another possibility is that they will completely split off from humans, and build themselves, or re-use unbroken parts of dead ones.

Thirdly, a complex mechanism might be present at a future point that allows some sort of reproduction in the familiar sense of the word, although I cannot say how exactly this would function. I also believe that they will still be susceptible to death, as is the case with all life-forms, and are not exempt from loss of quality of their physical bodies and deterioration. It may, though, be easier for them to heal and repair themselves as a result of the nature of metal rather than flesh.

 

[thistlechaser]

I made a speculative blog post somewhat related to this a while ago that may be of interest. It definitely seems to be a possibility.

Love it!

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Love it!

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.