6 ms·

No, it is not about rebellion, it is about resource competition. And no, it is not Marxism, it is Darwinism. If we could ever give birth to the machine intellig

by liuliu 15y ago

No, it is not about rebellion, it is about resource competition. And no, it is not Marxism, it is Darwinism. If we could ever give birth to the machine intelligence, and if AI can reach the same level as human, the resource competition can be ruthless. It is exactly because we have so much in common and there is no reason for co-existence.

zeteo 15y ago
The fact that, ninety years later, (slightly) less outlandish scenarios can be imagined for the human species' Suicide By Robotics does not change the fact that the whole concept was originally a marginal offshoot of thinking about the proletarian revolution. Regarding the particular scenario you propose, natural selection is a much, much more complicated process than that. (Early 20th century racists would be right at home with this kind of simplistic argument, except they would substitute Aryans for AI and be happy about the forecast.) There is no a priori reason for intelligence, even if superior, to drive other forms of existence into extinction. After all, Nobel Prize winners are capable of peacefully co-existing with billions of people who can't understand a single equation from their work.
- jhamburger 15y ago
  Do those nobel prize winners sometimes eat hamburgers for lunch? To me humans approach to animal life is a better metaphor for what human-robot relations could look like. They won't hate us, they won't want to exterminate us, but we will be so clearly inferior that our concerns just won't register very high.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    Yes, any intelligence can and will be selfish to some degree. But we can live with that. It might require some legal and cultural adjustment, but it's perfectly possible to have artificial intelligence in our midst without having it decide everything for everyone.
weavejester 15y ago
If that were true, wouldn't the same apply to resource competition between groups of humans?
- TheEzEzz 15y ago
  Yes. And look what happens when a more powerful group of humans (Conquistadors) meets a slightly less powerful group of humans (Aztecs). Now imagine the more powerful group is made of steel, have brains that run at gigahertz frequencies, and can copy themselves into available hardware.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    Using force to seize resources from other cultures is certainly a common theme throughout history, but this is quickly becoming an anachronism. Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy, as they were in 16th century, and modern warfare tends to involve huge costs with relatively little economic advantage. Secondly, machines can reach resources that are difficult for us air-breathing fragile apes to get to. Why compete over resources on Earth when there are other places in the solar system (and in the galaxy) with more raw materials and more energy?
    - RainFlutter 15y ago
      "Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy" It's fashionable to talk about information- and service-based economies, but that's not evolving beyond raw resources; it's merely taking them for granted. We consume ridiculous amounts of raw resources. Just look at what happens every time the price of oil rises.
      - weavejester 15y ago
        We still need raw materials, but the value of raw materials only makes up a small fraction of the total value of a modern economy. In the past, raw materials were the majority of the economy, and this meant they were worth fighting over. Nowadays raw materials worth very little compared to things like having good infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc.

by liuliu 15y ago

zeteo 15y ago

The fact that, ninety years later, (slightly) less outlandish scenarios can be imagined for the human species' Suicide By Robotics does not change the fact that the whole concept was originally a marginal offshoot of thinking about the proletarian revolution. Regarding the particular scenario you propose, natural selection is a much, much more complicated process than that. (Early 20th century racists would be right at home with this kind of simplistic argument, except they would substitute Aryans for AI and be happy about the forecast.) There is no a priori reason for intelligence, even if superior, to drive other forms of existence into extinction. After all, Nobel Prize winners are capable of peacefully co-existing with billions of people who can't understand a single equation from their work.

jhamburger 15y ago
Do those nobel prize winners sometimes eat hamburgers for lunch? To me humans approach to animal life is a better metaphor for what human-robot relations could look like. They won't hate us, they won't want to exterminate us, but we will be so clearly inferior that our concerns just won't register very high.
- zeteo 15y ago
  Yes, any intelligence can and will be selfish to some degree. But we can live with that. It might require some legal and cultural adjustment, but it's perfectly possible to have artificial intelligence in our midst without having it decide everything for everyone.

weavejester 15y ago

If that were true, wouldn't the same apply to resource competition between groups of humans?

TheEzEzz 15y ago
Yes. And look what happens when a more powerful group of humans (Conquistadors) meets a slightly less powerful group of humans (Aztecs). Now imagine the more powerful group is made of steel, have brains that run at gigahertz frequencies, and can copy themselves into available hardware.
- weavejester 15y ago
  Using force to seize resources from other cultures is certainly a common theme throughout history, but this is quickly becoming an anachronism. Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy, as they were in 16th century, and modern warfare tends to involve huge costs with relatively little economic advantage. Secondly, machines can reach resources that are difficult for us air-breathing fragile apes to get to. Why compete over resources on Earth when there are other places in the solar system (and in the galaxy) with more raw materials and more energy?
  - RainFlutter 15y ago
    "Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy" It's fashionable to talk about information- and service-based economies, but that's not evolving beyond raw resources; it's merely taking them for granted. We consume ridiculous amounts of raw resources. Just look at what happens every time the price of oil rises.
    - weavejester 15y ago
      We still need raw materials, but the value of raw materials only makes up a small fraction of the total value of a modern economy. In the past, raw materials were the majority of the economy, and this meant they were worth fighting over. Nowadays raw materials worth very little compared to things like having good infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc.