3 ms·

I think the only way to win is to make sure the first one is perfectly friendly, or to make sure we are integrated with the first one. I don't give us great odd

by ericb 8y ago

I think the only way to win is to make sure the first one is perfectly friendly, or to make sure we are integrated with the first one. I don't give us great odds on either front.

freehunter 8y ago
I'm trying to remember a book I read a while back, it was a sci-fi book where in the beginning chapters a war was being fought between the US and China to prevent China from developing a strong AI. The main character is killed but the preserved his body and brought him back to life some years later in a cyborg body, where he learns that the world is entirely controlled by a friendly benevolent AI and everyone has it embedded in their skin. But the AI goes rogue suddenly and the only people who survive are the luddites who refused to join the AI and the people who were off-world at the time the AI went rogue. For the life of me I can't find the book even through months of Google searching, but anyway my point is... a "friendly" AI can be hijacked. Or decide to go rogue, since we can't begin to comprehend its thought processes. --edit: sorry I went off topic a bit... I don't want to be just another one of those "AI will kill us all" kinds of people because, as my first comment suggested, that's completely useless fearmongering unless someone has a way to stop it. Kind of like saying "the supervolcano" or "solar flares" or something else completely unpreventable will kill us all... unless there's something you can do to stop it, life goes on until it doesn't. I'd be interested in hearing how to stop it, otherwise I wish people would stop printing these articles.
- ericb 8y ago
  I follow the point you're making. We do have options and perhaps if we were worried enough, they'd be put into effect. You could make AI research illegal. You could place massive R&D to human/brain interfaces. You could remove or reduce the medical device testing restrictions on the basis that this is an all-or-nothing bet for humanity.

by ericb 8y ago

I think the only way to win is to make sure the first one is perfectly friendly, or to make sure we are integrated with the first one. I don't give us great odds on either front.

freehunter 8y ago

I'm trying to remember a book I read a while back, it was a sci-fi book where in the beginning chapters a war was being fought between the US and China to prevent China from developing a strong AI. The main character is killed but the preserved his body and brought him back to life some years later in a cyborg body, where he learns that the world is entirely controlled by a friendly benevolent AI and everyone has it embedded in their skin. But the AI goes rogue suddenly and the only people who survive are the luddites who refused to join the AI and the people who were off-world at the time the AI went rogue. For the life of me I can't find the book even through months of Google searching, but anyway my point is... a "friendly" AI can be hijacked. Or decide to go rogue, since we can't begin to comprehend its thought processes. --edit: sorry I went off topic a bit... I don't want to be just another one of those "AI will kill us all" kinds of people because, as my first comment suggested, that's completely useless fearmongering unless someone has a way to stop it. Kind of like saying "the supervolcano" or "solar flares" or something else completely unpreventable will kill us all... unless there's something you can do to stop it, life goes on until it doesn't. I'd be interested in hearing how to stop it, otherwise I wish people would stop printing these articles.

ericb 8y ago
I follow the point you're making. We do have options and perhaps if we were worried enough, they'd be put into effect. You could make AI research illegal. You could place massive R&D to human/brain interfaces. You could remove or reduce the medical device testing restrictions on the basis that this is an all-or-nothing bet for humanity.