I may have some dumb questions, here. But I'll stab at one or two anyhow of them, at the risk of looking even more dumb in this thread. Is there a possibility,

I may have some dumb questions, here. But I'll stab at one or two anyhow of them, at the risk of looking even more dumb in this thread. Is there a possibility, or likelihood, that hard AI could diverge into at least two major dichotomies depending on how those systems form and interact? In how they attain, analyze and process information? In how it is shared? In deciding what should be shared? In how information is used and grown? In how to manage ethical questions that are often very two-sided, and difficult to model with tools like mathematics and logic? Things like that. And what kind of outcomes could that bring about? AI debates? AI "wars?" AI manipulating other AI? I guess I'm simply confused and ignorant as to how the playing field is shaped, generally and specifically. I'm probably not even qualified to put these questions out there, because I have so little intelligence of AI, but the patterns in human thought that strike at me over and over in life is that a "yin/yang" of opposing perception (and resulting in oppositional thinking) almost always occurs in naturally intelligent beings. Further, those inevitable disagreements often turn out in generating new knowledge, which, in-turn, often splits into two (or more) "camps" yet again... ad infinitum. First, is this a valid question and perception of intelligence? And secondly, is it fair to assume this might apply to other forms of intelligent systems? Or maybe I am missing a big part of the discussion in AI, which may already be addressing this (or is disregarding as simply academic or even dead-wrong.) To me, at least, it seems counter-intuitive that AI would push in one general direction (we can debate what we mean by "direction", too). My sensibilities hazily point to a more dichotomic outcome, perhaps. Or maybe I'm the one with the intelligence issue! But I'm very interested in these concepts, and even more interested in what we may be blind in seeing as this technology continues to evolve and take on new meanings in both our biological minds, and non-biological minds alike. Maybe someone can help me out? I think I'm missing something, here. Machines may identify with a certain idea of "certitude", but I have trouble with that, myself. And if AI scientists have trouble with that, themselves, because I would hope they recognize and practice humility in their thinking and interpretation of meaning, what does that mean for the scientists working to build such a powerful and mysterious type of existence? Sometimes finding the questions to ask, and learning how to ask them is the harder than teasing out the "solutions", so to speak. Time for a stiff drink ;) Edit: Looks like I need to read this, among other texts: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/the-military-wants-to-teach-robots-right-from-wrong/370855/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/the-mi...