Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone."
Ethics laws will always be behind the current technology curve. Our computing and processing power increases just to fast for the law enforcement community to keep up.
I don't believe we are in any danger of a computer take over, if thats what you are getting at. Generally programmed into all AI programs is the number one rule of AI programs, thats not to hurt any living thing. Thats not to say someone can't design something without that restriction, the US military wants a computer program to be autonomous in the battle field, and I believe thats a mistake. But in the end, they need us for energy, and until that changes, we'll be just fine.
But in the end, they need us for energy, and until that changes, we'll be just fine.
Do you think there is some natural law that would restrict them from learning how to extract their own energy, without human agency? In fact, if I were designing a 'bot, the first thing I would do would be to design a power systen that could tap directly into solar, to eliminate the need for extension cords and AA batterues,
Is Homo sapiens he first species ever to create his own enemy? If we endow them with a human-based ethic, their primary objective would be to kill or enslave humans, as soon as they learned to discriminate race, color, creed, religion and national origin and develop a sense of economics.
Much has been written about the dangers of AI, however, we are not looking at the situation today as a clue to the real danger, human replacement in the workplace. How are we to redesign the compensation pardigm of working for wages when machines are producing the bulk of products and services.
This has been discussed as the most pressing aspect of mechanization, our social values are already being challenged by the fact of high unemployment due to machine utilization in the workplace. The post market era is under way, we are entering a different phase of existence, in this new world we will need to determine the economics of widespread joblessness, in this view, machines are already a threat.
Much has been written about the dangers of AI, however, we are not looking at the situation today as a clue to the real danger, human replacement in the workplace. How are we to redesign the compensation pardigm of working for wages when machines are producing the bulk of products and services.
This has been discussed as the most pressing aspect of mechanization, our social values are already being challenged by the fact of high unemployment due to machine utilization in the workplace. The post market era is under way, we are entering a different phase of existence, in this new world we will need to determine the economics of widespread joblessness, in this view, machines are already a threat.
Machines are only a threat if we stubbornly uphold he dogmatic principle that a shortage of work must necessarily result in poverty and indignity and shame for those who have no work, but have no negative impact on those aleady rich and powerful.
Lets say ten investors get together and pool resources to create an enterprise, and hire workers, and earn profits. The ten investors then continue to be paid from the profits, without doing any work, and a part of the profits is paid to the workers.
Another ten investors do he same, but use robots for labor. The ten investors feel perfectly deserving in continuing to reap the rewards, but they now squeal like pigs if somebody suggests that the displaced workers be paid something from the profits, too.
Now, lets expand the model and consider the entire nation. In a nation composed entirely of investors, robots, and displaced workers, creating aggregate wealth, why should not the wealth be distributed to the entire nation, including displaced workers?
There shouldn't be "limits", but human control should always be built in. The problem with limits is that they are applied arbitrarily, what is fine to one person is not for another. People should be allowed to try it out.
Heck, we have people protesting the robotic laproscopic surgical assisting devices at our facility because some people think it's using AI to experiment on people. We have even showed them the device, which has several surgeons who use the device for smaller and more delicate cuts, and they still scream bloody murder.
Depending on what should be did not save us from Pol Pot. It might be wiser to depend on what must be, and then enforce it.
What does the genocidal maniac in Myanmar have to do with putting limits on research for AI computer systems? Imposed limits didn't save civilizations from many dictators...Hitler, Caesar, Stalin, Pinochet.
As for "limits", no one knows how the end will turn out...it might be good and it might be bad. You shouldn't shut down research because there is a fear might possibly maybe bad. There is that fear with every other research in the history of man; atomic power, flight, cars, electricity, gunpowder, astronomy...the list goes on. What if we had put limits on research in those areas based on what people fear might possibly happen (and didn't)? There must be control, but not arbitrary limits.
Last edited by subsound; 07-27-2009 at 12:18 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
