This article mistakes how we talk about AI with potential outcomes. It presupposes that AI will only do what we ask it, not that we'll program AI to, for insta

This article mistakes how we talk about AI with potential outcomes. It presupposes that AI will only do what we ask it, not that we'll program AI to, for instance, "protect us from enemy nations." It also seems to presuppose that we'll be able to understand why it does what it does. > "However computers change, they won’t have innate desires. They will be programmed by people. It still won’t be in their nature to want things." Regardless of the truthfulness of this (What is an innate desire beyond programming whether by evolution or people?), it doesn't matter if the desires are innate or programmed. We will definitely program them to want things and to do things like trade stocks and drive us places. If we get it wrong, it can go haywire. The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence has a very good explanation of this: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu... I'd suggest the writer should spend more time trying to understand what many of the smartest people of our time are saying before declaring them wrong.