3 ms·
> There is no reason to think that a general AI would have any of these things, thus concerns about it deciding that its better off without us are completely un
by maaku 13y ago
> There is no reason to think that a general AI would have any of these things, thus concerns about it deciding that its better off without us are completely unfounded.
That's addressing a strawman; I suspect you don't understand the argument. It would be narcissistic to worry about advanced AI meddling in human affairs, unless it were specifically programmed to do so.
But that's not what people are worried about. The concern is that we would be no more to a super-intelligence AI than ants are to us. The concern is that these slow, stupid fleshy bags of meat would be a nuisance in the way of an amoral AI.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago>The concern is that these slow, stupid fleshy bags of meat would be a nuisance in the way of an amoral AI Why would this be a concern unless the end result is an AI who decided to get rid of us? I think I understood the argument just fine. Edit: I think I see where the misunderstanding is. For an AI to decide we were a nuisance it would necessarily need some kind of drive that we were getting in the way of. No drives means no decision regarding out fate.
- maaku 13y agoHumans have an annoying tendency to monopolize the energy and material resources of the planet we occupy... that could be a nuisance for an AI with other plans, without the end-goal being anything to do with humans at all. And all AIs have goals. That's what an AI is: a utility-optimizing machine. Utility implies a goal, and end-game state of affairs with maximal expected utility.