Why Do We Fear A.I.?

My response to a great question about why we are so scared of artificial intelligence :)

Original Question from 5madheathens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu71UPXLexg

Check out more from 5madheathens:
http://www.youtube.com/5madheathens

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• artificial
• intelligence
• atheism
• religion
• philosophy
• science
• fiction

[MrEmreD]

Intelligent lifeform is always trying to be dominant, doesnt it? Take us, the human race as an example... If we created an equally intelligent and self-improving (a.i.) being, it would surely at some point (when it gets superior then us) try to dominate all the "inferior" beings, like we do with all the other beings (animals...)

And the thing with moral - wouldn't we kill other people if it was something natural in our society (no conseq.)? Moral is something that keeps us from harm.. at most...

[pfarabee]

@MrEmreD the main issue is that one of the core principles of evolution itself is violence. The organism that is most adapted to survive in a particular environment is often the organism that is the most dominant. Or, perhaps the best way to say it is that the most violently dominant organism assures its place in the environment, forcing others to adapt to it or die. It is a very powerful evolutionary advantage, and I have no doubt that a true evolving AI would reach that point as well.

[Largo64]

The word "moral" itself comes from a Latin root meaning "custom." Likewise the word ethics comes from the Greek "ethos" meaning - yep! - "custom."

Humans may be basically nihilistic, yet we are "wired" together by our common origins. Humans have empathy (in varying degrees) for each other. A machine would have no felt or perceived connection to humans, and therefore, no empathy with them. True AI would best be kept in a box.

[pfarabee]

I didn't know that, Largo, thank you! Might have to use that when arguing with people about the social nature of morality.

I agree with you, that a machine would have no inherent connection to humans or empathy for us. (unless we failsafe a connection in there somehow)

I think that True AI should not only be kept in a box, sans body, but in a disconnected box, with no ability to influence other machines, at least until we can adequately simulate how it would act out of the box.

[projectcyclopsrpv]

Just think if the robot could build a better robot more advanced, and that robots builds an even better one, and repeat the process...

[pfarabee]

Exactly. And there is no reason to think this could not happen, if we start with an A.I. that is as "intelligent" as a human. After all, if humans were able to develop the computer mind, then a computer mind as intelligent as a human should be able to improve on itself as well.

Thus we have the Terminator scenario, or possibly more likely, the movie "A.I. - Artificial Intelligence"

[shlockofgod]

I would hope an AI would be smart enough to notice the contradiction between nihilism and fact that truth is objectively preferable.

[Bluebull114]

Nothing to fear yet. We have too low computing power to simulate evolution for something as complicated as human mind or greater. It also needs an environment where it can live. thousands or millions of generations would take forever to simulate in this very complicated environment, what could produce something as complicated as an actual A.I.

We are still on the micro level, with very simple organisms, which search for food and multiply as actual microorganisms, nothing greater yet...

[RichardRoy2]

Interesting distinctions can be drawn about synthetic and nonsythetic. I think that the primary distinction is intent. From a God perspective, I suppose we could be considered synthetic. From a nature perspective, we'd be natural. If nature had an intent, then we'd be synthetic, perhaps. Otherwise, I don't think the quality of synthetic has much, if any relevance to life, or intelligence. The USA's Founding Father's didn't seem to think the creator was as relevant as the created, either.

[pfarabee]

That is exactly my point about nihilism, though. When we make the realization that there is no objective morality, or in your example, no objective "beauty", what tends to happen is we become apathetic, rude buttholes for a while until we realize that the lack of objectivity doesn't mean the destruction of the concepts, but the liberation of them. If they are indeed subjective, then that doesn't mean they don't exist, just they are what we say they are, and hold the importance we give them.