Why the future doesn't need us (2000) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the future doesn't need us (2000)

#21

Post by jsmcgd » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

dm2 wrote: post #19

icebraining wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that your explanation by analogy of death rests on the assumption the machines already understand how themselves work. There's really no reason why that should be case.

My definition of AI was based on human-like intelligence. I see your point that AI won't necessarily have human-like intelligence but could have something completely different, something that my puny human brain can't even comprehend. Then again, if an AI system can't understand how itself works, is it really intelligent? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. I'm just asking them in effort to help myself…

You've posed some interesting questions.

> Then again, if an AI system can't understand how itself works, is it really intelligent?

This question is particularly interesting as it can be applied to us as well.

Re: Why the future doesn't need us (2000)

#22

Post by T-A » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:25 PM UTC

There is a crucial sentence in this old article: "But because of the recent rapid and radical progress in molecular electronics - where individual atoms and molecules replace lithographically drawn transistors - and related nanoscale technologies, we should be able to meet or exceed the Moore's law rate of progress for another 30 years."

As far as I can tell, this expectation has not proved correct. Instead, we are getting talks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpgV6rCn5-g

Re: Why the future doesn't need us (2000)

#23

Post by steego » Sun, May 04, 2014, 6:37 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #6

Zigurd wrote: post #2

There is an alternative possibility: That the human need to dominate, procreate, etc. operates at a much lower level than the human intellect. That human intelligence is a tool of our selfish genes, and not the master or driver. A superhuman machine intelligence would have no genes, no body, no fear of biological death. It seems obvious that a key challenge will be to recognize whether a machine is thinking because i…

You should be afraid of any system which is potentially much more intelligent than you and doesn't share your goals. In the event that machine intelligence doesn't work like humans at all, the chances seem much higher that their goals will be at odds with ours, or even completely incomprehensible or nonsensical to us.

I would be afraid if my goals are to procreate and perpetuate the human race.

Re: Why the future doesn't need us (2000)

#24

Post by ajbetteridge » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:05 AM UTC

jsmcgd wrote: post #21

dm2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My definition of AI was based on human-like intelligence. I see your point that AI won't necessarily have human-like intelligence but could have something completely different, something that my puny human brain can't even comprehend. Then again, if an AI system can't understand how itself works, is it really intelligent? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. I'm just asking them in effort to help myself…

You've posed some interesting questions. > Then again, if an AI system can't understand how itself works, is it really intelligent? This question is particularly interesting as it can be applied to us as well.

Indeed. If a human baby can't identify that it's hand are in fact it's own hands is it intelligent by any reasonable standard? I'd say no. So couldn't this be how a machine AI begins it's own process of self awareness, then proceed to understand it's own surroundings and it's own sensors?