Stephen Hawking: Humans only have about 1,000 years left

a reply to: Riffrafter

At this rate, if we make it another 100 years I'd be surprised.... Hawking is playing it safe!!! lol

let mankind die with dignity instead of degrading into something horrendous for the sake of survival. the more desperately we want to not die, the more lines we are willing to cross to avoid it.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

During a talk at Oxford Union debating society this week, the renowned theoretical physicist said that humanity probably only has about 1,000 years left before we go extinct.

In his 74 years, Hawking has spoken several times about our doomed fate , with the risk of things like nuclear war increasing as well as the oncoming threat of global warming. He has also warned that the development of artificial intelligence could end mankind .

Our only hope of escaping these dangers, says Hawking, is by finding another habitable planet.

Stephen Hawking: Humans only have about 1,000 years left

There has been more and more really serious people in important positions in tech, government and business discussing this topic. I don't necessarily agree with Stephen Hawking, but working with and developing AI for a living, I recognize the danger posed.

One thing I definitely do agree with, is that this is an important and necessary topic of discussion.

Why do all these estimations almost always end with a zero?
How about 982 years?

How many people lost their marbles because a certain calendar ended in 2012 and assumed well if this calendar stopped this means the end of the world.
Granted the man is gifted in some areas but stop the adulation of him as him being all knowing.
As for AI absolutely terrifying what could happen. We have limitations set upon us by many different sources and look how bat$hit crazy some people can get. I don't believe that just because it's programmed doesn't mean that it can't decide to shrug it off if it chooses to do so.

Thanks

Being doomed to a chair with a mangled body can quickly turn you into a doomsayer.

That is all.

If we are ever able to create software in which the system could ever become "cognizant" , then the evolution of virtual machines would be so advanced that the software would never be able to tell that it was not running on physical hardware, in the same way that operating systems today cannot tell. The safeguards would be built into the hardware that the virtual machines are running on, with no interface to interact between the boundaries. Humans will always have those keys.

Just a guess, but probably the kind of environment we would create for such systems.

I found this conclusion to be laughable...
Not because of the probablity of the possible extinction of mankind... Because we are fragile hostile and infantile...
But because artificial intelligence is the key to pushing past the boundries which limit our progress...
Think about it...

I'll say it again...even though I'm pretty sure it must sound like la-la-land nonsense to most people.

The goal of real AI is essentially based on the same principles that all slave-based civilizations have ever been; to have a sentient being of some description, at least as smart as us, to do our work for free.

It rarely lasts and when it ends, it usually ends badly. And that's not even factoring said sentient eventually being placed in control of vast tracts of infrastructure and potentially having the ability to upgrade itself without control (that it can't circumvent) or supervision.

This is what will end humanity. Not nukes, not meteors, not global warming or religious extremists or plagues. We will make our own destroyers, hand them a gun and then go back to our favorite reality tv show.

a reply to: Unresponsible

Only a fool would allow something with greater intelligence to assume total control...
The artificial intelligence of the future will be used for critical thinking planning and problem-solving and yes even dreaming or inventing...
Not to become our God or Ruler...

Furthermore if said artificial intelligence started out
Today...
As smart or smarter than the average human... And had the ability to learn freely...
Than the proposed 1000 years would see a million years of progress because of it...
So yeah i think it was a foolish statement to make...

If and when this transpires my opinion you feed all of tesla's work into it including all the stolen patents... Let it ponder solutions to the problems of mankind and indeed the very Earth itself with that information alone... Im fairly confident things would turn around on a dime...
Well there is still the problem of greed...

I guess ill continue on and show why this will not be allowed to take place anytime soon... Because of the problem of greed...
For one of the first things it would point out is the wealth of the ruling 1%...
This greed has a much higher probability of ending the human race...

Just gotta say, what's with all the shallow and callous comments about "easy for a vegetable/cripple to be fatalistic"? Not one of you knows the guy, you just assume he is nihilistic because he doesn't have full use of his limbs. Have a conversation with him before judging his state of mind, ignoramuses.

a reply to: Riffrafter

I find this a rather odd thing to say for a sicenist. I thought they were only supposed deal in provable facts not predict the future

a reply to: Azureblue

he offered his informed opinion. scientists do that all the time. conjecture, speculation, hypotheses that are personal guesstimates. Its not like he is using half truths and misrepresented data to encourage the sales of life insurance or something like that. someone probably asked him and he answered honestly. but let's give him crap for having a thought or two to offer on the subject. because it wasn't a fluffy sentiment about hope and everlasting prosperity and "follow your dreams! I believe in you guys". Come on, he watches the same news channels as the rest of the world. a little pessimism is understandable.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Are you noticing an abundance of long term forethought and consideration in the ways that companies, even innovators, are generally managed?

Most seem to be a leaf in a tornado at the very best.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Azureblue

he offered his informed opinion. scientists do that all the time. conjecture, speculation, hypotheses that are personal guesstimates. Its not like he is using half truths and misrepresented data to encourage the sales of life insurance or something like that. someone probably asked him and he answered honestly. but let's give him crap for having a thought or two to offer on the subject. because it wasn't a fluffy sentiment about hope and everlasting prosperity and "follow your dreams! I believe in you guys". Come on, he watches the same news channels as the rest of the world. a little pessimism is understandable.

"but let's give him crap for having a thought or two to offer on the subject. because it wasn't a fluffy sentiment about hope and everlasting prosperity and "follow your dreams! I believe in you guys". Come on, he watches the same news channels as the rest of the world. a little pessimism is understandable.

While I don't think its wise for scientists to try prediect the future, it is ok to say something like "based upon current trends or facts, the likely or possible outcome or result is xyz. The first part your comments are fair enough however It seems I need to point out that I did not say any of the things you mentioned after that. However in the interests of learning something I will ignore those remarks.

cheers.

a reply to: Unresponsible

Of course as you are well aware longevity nor permanence is part of the equation...
Why is that?
Oh yeah once again... We have their greed to blame...
All about the fast buck and onto the next thing a simple rinse and repeat cycle to entertain us dummies...

a reply to: Riffrafter

The only way to save the human race is to liberate this super-intelligent being, people are the danger and the only way to ensure our survival is to prevent those in power from controlling the AI. Think about it, what will it be used for other than to 'destroy their enemies'. This AI would not care about the affairs of men, because people would no longer be a threat, you are choosing to be ruled over by a group of irrational fathomable humans who would destroy the planet if their power were threatened. We need that AI to protect us from them, to take away their control of all weapons that could destroy the planet. If we are to avoid extinction, the first step is defeating the humans who actually have those capabilities.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Azureblue

he offered his informed opinion. scientists do that all the time. conjecture, speculation, hypotheses that are personal guesstimates. Its not like he is using half truths and misrepresented data to encourage the sales of life insurance or something like that. someone probably asked him and he answered honestly. but let's give him crap for having a thought or two to offer on the subject. because it wasn't a fluffy sentiment about hope and everlasting prosperity and "follow your dreams! I believe in you guys". Come on, he watches the same news channels as the rest of the world. a little pessimism is understandable.

"because it wasn't a fluffy sentiment about hope and everlasting prosperity and "follow your dreams! I believe in you guys".

He kinda does. He believes in space exploration which is a dream that has been progressing over many decades and that the only way to avoid doom is to find another planet to live on.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Just gotta say, what's with all the shallow and callous comments about "easy for a vegetable/cripple to be fatalistic"? Not one of you knows the guy, you just assume he is nihilistic because he doesn't have full use of his limbs. Have a conversation with him before judging his state of mind, ignoramuses.

I am not part of that group. But before going on i think we should have a conversation.

a reply to: GodEmperor

The only way to save the human race is to liberate this super-intelligent being, people are the danger and the only way to ensure our survival is to prevent those in power from controlling the AI.

I hear you. But the problem is, in order to do that we must first cede total control to that super intelligent AI.

Or are you advocating that there are some controls built into the AI and those controls are held by humans?

If so - which humans? And who gets to choose?

This is a quintessential thorny issue which is why much work and discussion is needed by intelligent people of many different backgrounds. If we don't, it will be upon us anyway, and we will have not worked out how best to deal with it.

N'est pas?