Robots will never destroy humanity

[smukase]

i wish they would,, and fast too. or sum of these illuminati retards! i'm slowly getting tired of spreading peace and love to tuseless homo sapiens

[DeimosSaturn]

@smukase Your problem is you believe in peace and love. Pacifism is the most psychotic ideology on earth.

Your other problem is you believe there is some kind of conspiracy. There isn't. The problem is the system itself. Governments, politicians, priests. The very existence of any kind of state is THE problem.

[smukase]

@DeimosSaturn humans are the true problem. we r faulty and everything about us is faulty. we r like an experiment gone horribly wrong. the prison that we have created is in our minds and there s nothing that could change that at this point. we were already doomed to fail before we ever concluded that. what the hell do u believe in then, anarchy? if u r against everything the government stands for, everything we ve tried and screwed up at, then believe me, u are a pacifist fool just like me.

[DeimosSaturn]

@smukase Humans are "faulty" according to who and by what standard? Humans are just animals. We evolved. We are the product of billions of years of evolution. We are adapted to survive with our particular traits.

The math, science, and logic proves that we can have a thriving prospering technologically-advanced civilization that cares about scientific discovery, art, the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the otherwise weak, WITHOUT politicians and WITHOUT governments.

[smukase]

@DeimosSaturn u ll probably say that i m a religious zealot this time but i lean towards islam. the interesting thing about the koran is that it s the only religious book that provides proof. it contains many different subjects, from history to sociology, that s why scholars from all over the world wud come to study in it. so contrary to what sum ppl lie about, anyone can read it cuz it promotes individuality and deep thought so i recommend u to read it. u ll understand why i think we r Fucked

[axderaq]

@DeimosSaturn If inspected closely all of these were maybe initially only used for the benefit of the general population, now however all of these, are directly or indirectly used for harm and interest;thriving? You must be amusingly joking; thriving maybe if you decide to look at the stage of illusions without going backstage in fear of no more appreciating the show...Humans are all the same all from all corners of the world: wicked driven by selfish interest, cruel and duplicitous...

[aaronsamuel84]

hmmmm Orgainc Organisms from the Elements of the Earth are the problem?>... hmmmm how about the alien robots that influenced us to destroy ourselvs through science and technology?> Humans are Gods favorite Creation which is why Angels hate on us. Fuck outta here talking that crazy talk... Hybrid Beings are an abomination!! that were built in laboratories...nothing about them is Natural or Organic..except the small percentage of Organic elements of there "HUMAN" body suits.

[smukase]

@aaronsamuel84 umm u cant come at me like that without any clue of what my "reply to someone else" was about. i believe in God on top of science because i believe He is its enabler. that guy was brushing it off as silly pacificism because i actually believe that humans cud have been much more than they are if they wud have chosen a non-destructive path. of course today, we all kno what evil is really behind the veil, trying to destroy us. the real issue now is to try and convince ppl.

[aaronsamuel84]

my apologies for talking reckless...I understand what your saying. Please except my apology. mye eGo gets the best of me at times..and causes me to read,think, before i speak. We both understand.

[axderaq]

@smukase You are right, humans are creatures that are low minded of nature it seems, focused on trivial, they are despicable and I hope something kills all humanity (anyways there are only a few good humans on the planet); I wish humans could just be extinct...

[smukase]

@axderaq agreed. i ve tried to convince myself many times that i dont really mean it, but i m just tired of it all. it s not that i want to see the destruction of things so badly, or at all even. i just hate what ppl have "chosen" to become, rather than what they were meant to be. did u know that a fish is better at being a fish than we are at being humans? so these silly philosophers that are still clinging to darwin s retarded theory of evolution have a lot of gaps to fill. they r so dishonest

[DeimosSaturn]

@smukase you and @axderaq are both mentally ill. You hate humanity, you have zero prospects for the future of the human race, and you think Harun Yahya has ever made a single legitimate point against the theory of evolution, which has so much genetic evidence alone to support it that our court of law depends on the theory of evolution to be true in order to use any genetic evidence at all. Never mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept the theory of evolution.

[smukase]

@DeimosSaturn why do i have to be mentally ill for stating the obviously inevitable? it s just that i wish it wud happen sooner rather than later, but then again on certain days it s a different story. anywho u ppl and ur scientists if u only knew who they were working for u d smack ur foreheads for not thinking for urselves when u had the chance. when i was 14 i came up with a theory to back up darwin's, it was so retarded until i found out it actually existed, see what i m trying to say there?

[smukase]

@DeimosSaturn i had expected a scientologist like u to know these things, that is what scientologists do right worship science? doesnt matter, it still comes down to the same. according to those theories u believe in, it has happened before and the correct "scientific" term is called extinction. it s nature s way of recycling. and nature, or better said, the cosmos, has a fixed cycle. anything that s thrown out of balance is compensated for so good luck trying to outsmart it by "evolving" lol

[axderaq]

@DeimosSaturn Don't hide the truth from yourself; you know it's true somewhere but won't let it prevail in your mind for fear that it eclipses or alters 'negatively' your thoughts or habits...It's plain reality as clear as it gets;

[interwoven222]

damnit your gonna get us all killed!!!!

[65810527]

Where is the evidence for evolution in the fossil record??

[AAL]

mutation carried on through natural selection.

did you not pass 4th grade science?

[65810527]

Unfortunately there is not one fossil I have ever seen that could make a watertight argument for a direct illustration of evolutionary transitions..

School for me was a long time ago. I realise a lot I learnt at school in some parts of science was fake or pre-fabricated.

[AAL]

Just look at yourself. I'm sure you have some body hair and toe nails. Neither serves any purpose but are left over from our distant ancestors.

If that doesn't convince you look up the history of cows. You will see that they have evolved even during the short time we have had written history.

[65810527]

How did the eyeball evolve or the heart or maybe the brain should i keep going?

[AAL]

step by step over millions of years.

Mollusca species have eyes in veering degrees of complexity. check 'em out.

[DeimosSaturn]

You sir are an idiot. ^_^

[JCstudios04]

not quite...is not that they WILL,

is just they are CAPABLE off

getting rid of us

(should they become self-aware)

Because we create these machines to perform tasks that

a) we can't do ourselves

b) we can...but not quite as efficiently

c) we don't want to do them

And being that warfare technology tends to be the one that governments push their engineers to perfect...i'd say that's a very likely scenario

[outled]

science is in itself is artificial intelligence and it already rules over man. Terminator isnt a vision of the future, more a resonating feature of all human times.

[eyeofthecrow]

My first response to this is basically: "Well, of course."

We can already, in a very limited scope, interface technology with a human brain. We can put a chip in a person's brain, plug it into the recepters for sight, wire that connection into a pair of glasses with advanced video receptors, and slowly "regrow" a person's abillity to see, limited to basic shapes, shades, light and dark, etc, but it's there. We are working on the tech to replace a spine and CNS with inorganic components.

[eyeofthecrow]

The science is there, it's just a matter of applying it, which is the much slower process. As those technologies advance, and the technologies for storage and transfer of data advance(and further miniturize) the two fields will be able to interface with one another to allow us to upgrade the basic capabilities of our brains. It is likely that the above advancements will be what leads to(or at least fathers the advancement of) fully sentient AGI(artificial general intelligence)...

[eyeofthecrow]

the matrix scenario(robots becoming better than us and taking over the world) is the least likely singularity scenario.

[punchthedog]

If true artificial intelligence is ever achieved, as in machine consciousness, and someone is stupid enough to incorporate that intelligence into a machine that can do humans actual physical harm, then we would deserve to be annihilated. See Batlestar Galactica. (the new one.)

[skept1c615]

When that occurs we humans will not be the same as we are today, we will practically be immortal. We will be equal to them in every aspect. We will be connected to them. One with them. So it is no concern to me.

[mangablade]

If you watched the whole thing, what you'd realize is there was very little difference between the humans and cylons in wants and needs and basic behaviour, and that the start of the war was basically the humans fault, and peace could have been achieved.

[Xeletoph]

lol the creationist says there's no proof of evolution. bahahaha. Examine the fossil record, churchy.

Secondly, just because the guy makes a single grammatical error doesn't mean his entire presentation is defunct. He doesn't have to be a perfect fucking narrator to have a valid point.

[AkaysiaFae]

1:38 "Much more easier" discredits this whole video. Also, many things you say sound based on Darwinian theory which has never been proven, not one scientific discovery has backed this theory up since Darwin presented it. Also, you missed the main point, machines will only ever desire if we tell them to. They only have as much ability as we give them.

[NJBroca]

Are you serious? "not one scientific discovery has backed this theory up since Darwin" you really think that?

Ignoring, ERV's, the structure of DNA, observed speciation, discovery of chromosomal fusion, vestigial organs, homologous structures, mathematical models, extensive fossil finds and the discovery of nylonase...

Do you not realise, one could eliminate absolutely everything Darwin said and still have one of the most comprehensive theories ever?

[ThePerm]

I wouldn't bother, people who refute Darwin's theory never do the research nor listen to sense when they hear it.

They enjoy the ignorance.

[vman456]

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

[goroworo]

the level of a dogs midn is VERY more advanced then a humans.......just think they can see their surroundings easily sense danger and much much more humans and dogs are near the same very lvl

[NJBroca]

?? 'Very more advanced'? we can see our surrounding in colour-dogs only in black and white. Dogs cannot 'sense danger'...

are dogs capable of conscious thought? is the dogs cerbral cortex compairable to a humans? are dogs capable of complex language?

[goroworo]

yes they are they have there own language jsut liek we have ours. and about every living thing can is capable of thought!and also when i say sense danger i mean they can tell if a storm is coming without needing to see if there are storm clouds or such

[frbe0101]

The problem is that transhumans may just take over (actually its very likely they we are in power when they were human anyways) so semantically "robots" will take over humans, to the religious and the marching morons it will be the same thing and with the horrific future shock they will be experiencing there will likely be massive civil wars and terrorism, whats the transhumans to do but wipe out those the fight them!

[0x0Fire0x0]

Some people say that a computer is much faster then a human brain...however take a look at a computer processor. It can only calculate a few frames per second in a complete AI. A human however has been bread to survive of billions of years. A computer wont believe that it has to survive.

[BIoodBrotherz]

Well,who knows.We are not "there" yet..

[DeimosSaturn]

Guess again, puny human! TRANSFORM!

[maninlight]

So the way this works is not that computers and robots rise against humans.

What you will be looking at is the humans who merge with robots battling against normal humans.

Normal humans will be enslaved or wiped out unless a higher power protects the human race.

[DeimosSaturn]

Sort of...the cyberization revolution will always give the DOH (Descendants of Organic Humans) power over purely AIO (artificial in origin) entities. The DOH will be a blend of everyone from 100% human to 100% cyberized whom will all have inalienable rights protected by various constitutions. Any human who does not choose to participate in the cyberization of their minds will be left behind on earth...subjugated only by their own sentimentality.

[Littlegh0st]

A little slow on the talking, but good points. Already we've pretty irreversibly engineered our environments and ourselves. It's not flashy and noticeable, but we are far so different from our ancestors that we would be practically unable to survive in an un-engineered environment like theirs.

[Bridgerboy]

So you're arguing that the nature of humanity will change rather than humanity being replaced altogether? Just making sure I understand clearly ;]

[DeimosSaturn]

Yeah. Organics and inorganics will inevitably converge and become indistinguishable. As people begin to dub their brains onto inorganic bodies and go back and forth it will all become a blur and at that point a malevolent organic may just as easily dominate the world as a malevolent inorganic.

[angel2901]

Robots will never destroy humans because:

1. We are not competitors.

Many people see Robots just as "mechanic humnans". Thats wrong. A robot doesnt need food, doesnt need space, does not have the urge to reproduce itself etc.

So there wont be a robot race there will be just AI's - many of them virtual - who are connected. Probably there will be collective intelligence, a collective conscience.

[DeimosSaturn]

That's not entirely true. There will be a demand for an artificial intelligence that can reproduce. When they are built, there is no doubt in my mind that mutations of some sort will occur. With mutations, you have evolution. Never the less, human beings will recursively self improve well before the machines do.

[angel2901]

Evolution is not quite right. At least in my view. "Reproduce" maybe in the way that they will make thmeselfs better - self improvement. But not in the way that they will have Kids or sometging like that. And I dont thin we can keep up with them because they have so many advantages. They will exceed us in every way. But I dont think this will be bad. I think quite the opposite is true: they will make a better world for us.

[DeimosSaturn]

No, I really do mean "reproduce"...as in: Self Replication. In order to avert a local singularity engineers will design self replicators with low level intelligence or incorporate a fail safe that prevents them from improving upon their own design. There is REAL FEAR to be had with regards to the inorganic singularity. It's quite delusional to think they will have some sentiment for us.

[angel2901]

When you think about it: The more complicated a system is the more feelings it has. We are NOW the smartest beeings on earth and we can feel love, anger, mercy, luck etc. Feelings animals cant feel and I think the reason why is because their lack of intelligence. And when Robots are smarter than us they will maybe have feelings we dont know and we cant understand.

[angel2901]

And it logical that they will have sentiment for us because we made them, we obviously need their help and in the end we will programm them to love us.

[DeimosSaturn]

No. Sentimentality is predicated upon the value of the object to the individual's survival. A being capable of recursive self improvement does not rely upon its creators for survival BY DEFINITION, a singularity would have no dependence on its creator to survive.

[DeimosSaturn]

I don't know how you are measuring smartness but I have to say there is no such thing as the smartest. Each organism has evolved the optimal level of intelligence required to survive in the niche of its parents. Emotion has nothing to do with intelligence either. Emotion is more dependent upon the complexity of the organism's relationships with other individuals.

[angel2901]

Like I said its my theory and I think Im right. The more intelligent a beeing is the more feelings it can feel. Of course an AI that can self improveme it self does not rely on its creators survival. BUT: When we programm them not to harm us and maybe take care of us they will not re-programm themselfs so they CAN harm us. Its not logical. When I dont have the intention to harm you why would I re-programm myself so I CAN harm you?

[DeimosSaturn]

That's not a theory, that's an uninformed guess. A theory is an explanation of observed facts. Furthermore, your uninformed guess is asinine since you failed to mention how you would quantify 1>smartness 2>feelings. I'll save you the time: You can't possibly quantify those things.

You are still not understanding the concept of self-replication. Anything that makes a copy of itself is certain to make mistakes in the process.

[cheeesemonger]

Programmer here-

I have major, major doubts that any digital system will spontaneously mutate without analog input. It's impossible for a computer to generate any truly random number without "atmospheric" input, that is from the outside. Although an AI would be capable of seeing choices, it won't be able to narrow them down.

[DeimosSaturn]

Analog input is not necessary for random mutation, just a sufficient amount of digital chaos. Evolution algorithms will be essential for software on neural networks. It's how humans are able to narrow choices and have coherent behaviors. Furthermore, swarm robots that live in a chaotic environment will also tend to corrupt software in ways that may be beneficial.

[cheeesemonger]

This is true... But as the creators, we general have direct control over the amount of chaos. :-)

We are starting to see some automated chip design evolution, although it still has a lot of human input.

[DeimosSaturn]

The mutations are random. This randomness cannot be genuinely random unless the environment causes the mutations. The collective processing power can generate a random amount of mutations within the code and the environment can then select from the gene pool for fitness. Swarm robots on the field will always encounter some sort of physical real world interference. THis may also lead to mutations.

[cheeesemonger]

Well, I can't speak for future computer models, (in the style of I, Robot and 2001,) but even in systems with 'collective processing power' such as clusters don't mutate unless something makes them. Glitches are usually caused by faulty design... true randomness is an analog thing. I don't know what will happen in the future to computer design... but if we start to see whole-sale analog emulation, random input might have a visible effect. Maybe later though...

[DeimosSaturn]

you are still not getting it. the environment has randomness in it which causes whatever brute force adaptation to react. This adaptability will be inherent to true AI. At first it will seem like it's incapable of randomness or limited randomness, but it will be forced at some point to come up on land and grow lungs.

[cheeesemonger]

Ah... I think, then, that this is a fundamental disagreement in our interpretations of systems theory.

A complex adaptive system might behave as you describe... But I do not believe that an AI must be adaptive to interpret it's surroundings, but needs to in order to make meaningful decisions as we understand them.

Now, we must decide whether an AI must be capable of this...

[DeimosSaturn]

The value of this capability will be determined by the markets, and it's my opinion that it will be valuable indeed, especially for the space mining industry...

[cheeesemonger]

There's no need for adaptivity or creativity in that system... Nor would creativity guarantee true mutations. Even a sentient, creative AI could, would, and should follow directives... Terminator-style malfunctions are unlikely, unnecessary, and generally impossible to bring about. Hal was right... It's all human error. :-)

[DeimosSaturn]

no, it WOULD SO guarantee true mutation in the programming. The brute force random mutation paradigm works for nature and it will work for the micromachine and nanomachine industries. Even if you explicitly by design make evolution impossible, there is no absolute way to account for every circumstance that may result in successive generations of random mutations.

[SRProjeX]

What the fuck is this shit?

[DeimosSaturn]

It's a coherent thought provoking thesis on the emergence of malevolent Artificial Intelligence, unlike your terminator montage which is just a waste of bandwidth.

[SRProjeX]

Why is showing one's love for such films (or anything else for that matter) a waste? Just because you don't agree with it or like something does not mean you have to give people a hard time about it.

In all respects, this vid- in which I have commented on- is not a bad vid at all, because you do raise interesting points. Now, with that said, I request a truce with you. I don't bother you and you stay away from my vids. Deal?

[DeimosSaturn]

Showing love for film is not waste, disseminating your shitty amateurish fun with windows movie maker is. And just because I don't agree or like something certainly means I am well within my rights as a youtube user to criticize your childishness.

I don't pander to being quiet for politeness sake. I'll say whatever I want on whoever enables their comments.