Sci/Tech Will Superintelligent Machines Destroy Humanity?

The Helper

Necromancy Power over 9000
Staff member
Reaction score
1,698
In Frank Herbert's Dune books, humanity has long banned the creation of "thinking machines." Ten thousand years earlier, their ancestors destroyed all such computers in a movement called the Butlerian Jihad, because they felt the machines controlled them. Human computers called Mentats serve as a substitute for the outlawed technology. The penalty for violating the Orange Catholic Bible's commandment "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind" was immediate death.

Should humanity sanction the creation of intelligent machines? That's the pressing issue at the heart of the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom's fascinating new book, Superintelligence. Bostrom cogently argues that the prospect of superintelligent machines is "the most important and most daunting challenge humanity has ever faced." If we fail to meet this challenge, he concludes, malevolent or indifferent artificial intelligence (AI) will likely destroy us all.

Since the invention of the electronic computer in the mid-20th century, theorists have speculated about how to make a machine as intelligent as a human being. In 1950, for example, the computing pioneer Alan Turing suggested creating a machine simulating a child's mind that could be educated to adult-level intelligence. In 1965, the mathematician I.J. Good observed that technology arises from the application of intelligence. When intelligence applies technology to improving intelligence, he argued, the result would be a positive feedback loop—an intelligence explosion—in which self-improving intelligence bootstraps its way to superintelligence. He concluded that "the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control." How to maintain that control is the issue Bostrom tackles.

About 10 percent of AI researchers believe the first machine with human-level intelligence will arrive in the next 10 years. Fifty percent think it will be developed by the middle of this century, and nearly all think it will be accomplished by century's end. Since the new AI will likely have the ability to improve its own algorithms, the explosion to superintelligence could then happen in days, hours, or even seconds. The resulting entity, Bostrom asserts, will be "smart in the sense that an average human being is smart compared with a beetle or a worm." At computer processing speeds a million-fold faster than human brains, Machine Intelligence Research Institute maven Eliezer Yudkowsky notes, an AI could do a year's worth of thinking every 31 seconds.

Moar: http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/12/will-superintelligent-machines-destroy-h
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
About 10 percent of AI researchers believe the first machine with human-level intelligence will arrive in the next 10 years. Fifty percent think it will be developed by the middle of this century, and nearly all think it will be accomplished by century's end. Since the new AI will likely have the ability to improve its own algorithms, the explosion to superintelligence could then happen in days, hours, or even seconds. The resulting entity, Bostrom asserts, will be "smart in the sense that an average human being is smart compared with a beetle or a worm." At computer processing speeds a million-fold faster than human brains, Machine Intelligence Research Institute maven Eliezer Yudkowsky notes, an AI could do a year's worth of thinking every 31 seconds.
I dont believe this paragraph. Sounds fake to me.
I cant imagine smart computer scientists saying bs like that. The human brain is so much more powerful to any processor of today that its beyond a simple linear scale. You would need to develope a completely new kind of processor system before you could even attempt anything like that.
As long as no major breakthrough happens this is impossible. And major breakthroughs happen at random, so giving a time period is completely made up.
 

Hatebreeder

So many apples
Reaction score
381
I dont believe this paragraph. Sounds fake to me.
I cant imagine smart computer scientists saying bs like that. The human brain is so much more powerful to any processor of today that its beyond a simple linear scale. You would need to develope a completely new kind of processor system before you could even attempt anything like that.
As long as no major breakthrough happens this is impossible. And major breakthroughs happen at random, so giving a time period is completely made up.
I agree. Though, processors are still much faster at logic tasks than a human could be. I'm not talking about making the decision on a certain topic based off of our understanding of morality, I'm talking about Math, Physics and generally everything that has one or more operations involved and of course rudimentary tasks. The brain at large may be a stronger and better "processor" but we're not capable of using it's full potential. I think I heard something around 1% of our brain is utilized.
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
I agree. Though, processors are still much faster at logic tasks than a human could be. I'm not talking about making the decision on a certain topic based off of our understanding of morality, I'm talking about Math, Physics and generally everything that has one or more operations involved and of course rudimentary tasks.
No. Absolutely not. Do you know how much math your brain needs to do for every single step you take? That you dont fall over? And get where you want?
Or to calculate the direction from where a sound was coming that you just heard?
Or to automatically fill in the blanks in a fast moving picture, or to correctly guess the shape and look of a partially hidden 3D object?

Those are all very demanding tasks, a lot of work for a computer. Our brains do that 24 / 7 without any problems. And they do it all at once. And to top it off you are still able to develope a personality and make your own decisions.
Computers are shit in comparison. But they focus all their work on a single well defined task.

The brain at large may be a stronger and better "processor" but we're not capable of using it's full potential. I think I heard something around 1% of our brain is utilized.
Its a hoax that stupid people like to repeat. You use all of your brain, maybe not at the same time because some parts sometimes have to be powered down to relax, but everything is used at some point.
Its the machines that are not fully utilized, most of the junk in your computer is used to create an outer shell around the important components, or for cooling, or to shelter it against interference. These are all problems that our brains dont have because they are better designed.
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
The video is not quite right. There are many errors in it, but its not supposed to be correct, its supposed to be viewed by people who dont know the difference.

Edit: As an answer to the video: War. Its the perfect solution.
 
Last edited:

Hatebreeder

So many apples
Reaction score
381
No. Absolutely not. Do you know how much math your brain needs to do for every single step you take? That you dont fall over? And get where you want?
Or to calculate the direction from where a sound was coming that you just heard?
Or to automatically fill in the blanks in a fast moving picture, or to correctly guess the shape and look of a partially hidden 3D object?

Those are all very demanding tasks, a lot of work for a computer. Our brains do that 24 / 7 without any problems. And they do it all at once. And to top it off you are still able to develope a personality and make your own decisions.
Computers are shit in comparison. But they focus all their work on a single well defined task.


Its a hoax that stupid people like to repeat. You use all of your brain, maybe not at the same time because some parts sometimes have to be powered down to relax, but everything is used at some point.
Its the machines that are not fully utilized, most of the junk in your computer is used to create an outer shell around the important components, or for cooling, or to shelter it against interference. These are all problems that our brains dont have because they are better designed.

You're talking about the Brain calculating every little thing we do, but you don't know what the fuck you're processing. Or can you I/O all your processes in a console or something? I'm not a brain scientist or anything in that direction, but I'm quite convinced that the brain doesn't calculate every little thing it does. I'm certain it's been written in early ages when one has been learning. All it's doing after the learning process is somewhat complete, is read the written and calling it with different parameters.
Computers may not be able to do as much simultaneously and also not over such a long time period like the brain, but as you said and like I meant, it can do single, defined tasks better than brains.

It makes sense, that it can't be true that the brain only utilizes a certain percentage. So I'll put it differently: compare size and weight from the brain to the processor. Obviously we're comparing apples to pairs, but theoretically, if it were correct to assume that the performance would exponentially rise with size and weight, it'd perform probably just as well or even better than the brain, leaving out issues like cooling.
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
Wrong on so many levels.
Of course these are computations. The brain has to do them on a regular basis, what do you think how you can tell the direction a sound was coming from? Your direction identifying genes tingling?

By the way, processor can not become any bigger. Did you not notice how processor never became any faster for last couple of years? That is because they cant make them faster. There is a physical limit on how much energy can flow through metal without it bursting into flames. And even if heat was not a problem, there is still the speed of light which limits how fast electrons can travel through our cables.
Instead of becoming more powerful we switch to multi-processor systems, but these have problems all their own.
How about you just read up on these things?
 

Hatebreeder

So many apples
Reaction score
381
Wrong on so many levels.
Of course these are computations. The brain has to do them on a regular basis, what do you think how you can tell the direction a sound was coming from? Your direction identifying genes tingling?

By the way, processor can not become any bigger. Did you not notice how processor never became any faster for last couple of years? That is because they cant make them faster. There is a physical limit on how much energy can flow through metal without it bursting into flames. And even if heat was not a problem, there is still the speed of light which limits how fast electrons can travel through our cables.
Instead of becoming more powerful we switch to multi-processor systems, but these have problems all their own.
How about you just read up on these things?

Your brain is not responsible for picking up sound. It gets prepared signals about frequency, altitude, pressure and what not from the ears. The amazing thing the brain does is that it compares the information from both ears simultaneously and locates the sound origin based on that information. What the fuck are you trying to tell me? A processor that gets prepared information could do that as well.
If you were able to read, you'd have realized that I'm not talking facts about processor size and weight. Heck, all I'm saying is, that it's stupid comparing the two.
Sure, I'll read up on some tech, no problem. But you really need to step up your syntax skills. It's tiring having to explain everything over and over again.
 

Slapshot136

Divide et impera
Reaction score
471
By the way, processor can not become any bigger. Did you not notice how processor never became any faster for last couple of years? That is because they cant make them faster. There is a physical limit on how much energy can flow through metal without it bursting into flames. And even if heat was not a problem, there is still the speed of light which limits how fast electrons can travel through our cables.

what about cost as a limiting factor instead? see this
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.

      The Helper Discord

      Members online

      No members online now.

      Affiliates

      Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

      Network Sponsors

      Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
      Top