3 ms·
An important point is that AI does not need to be sentient or conscious to do a lot of damage. My pet theory is that consciousness could be (not saying I know
by quadcore 4y ago
An important point is that AI does not need to be sentient or conscious to do a lot of damage.
My pet theory is that consciousness could be (not saying I know for sure this is the case but it could as well be) an effect of "survival instinct". That is: "i'll take action to not die".
Now this is very easy to learn from us as we do this all day long so to speak. Most of the way people react on the internet is tinted by the fear of death and survival for example.
What Im saying is that what we intuitively think as very complex could actually be very simple. As simple as some task optimization. Knowing the only thing that could unplug an AI is us, that'd lead to a hell of a fight. And maybe our complete termination.
- hooande 4y ago> "i'll take action to not die" This thought is entirely the result of evolution. Beings that didn't have a survival instinct didn't live to reproduce, so they don't have descendants that we can observe. There's no guarantee that a survival instinct is a necessary or even desirable element of conscious thought. You're just describing survivorship bias in its most literal form. cue the picture of the shot up airplane
- chucklenorris 4y agoYeah, i find the connection between consciousness and intelligence tenuous at best. Our survival imperative, thermodynamic and game theoretical constraints give rise to it and i'd argue that every living organism has a form of consciousnes, from very primitive to, well, our level. So yeah, I believe we'll have far more intelligent ais in the future that would otherwise be inert. Ofcourse, in our foolishness, we could create an ai with the goal of survival and replication at the expense of everything else. Or self optimisation could inadvertedly do so
- grantcas 4y ago[dead]