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

a reply to: Riffrafter
Well well...mr my black hole theory was wrong is making another theory huh? Mmm that was HAWKWARD. Excuse me if i do not hold my breath on this one.

a reply to: Riffrafter

you're welcome

a reply to: Annee

you all have a chance to stop breeding, go for it.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Annee

you all have a chance to stop breeding, go for it.

That's a subject I could derail the thread on.

a reply to: Jdennis10

You already know.

Bow bow.....chika chika.....

Good.

I've been awaiting my nuclear war surviving cockroach friends rise to sentience.

ARISE!



# just got real.

originally posted by: Azureblue
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

What part of the article did you find odd - or maybe more accurately which scientist? They quoted a few...

Thanks.

originally posted by: TucsonOne
On the A.I. Note:

Weaponizing is the wrong direction to get off this rock.

Imagine a transformer shrikval killing machine.
(If anyone makes that movie I'll take 1% for the idea)

Our true downfall to space travel is the lack of medical
assistance. Look at the medbots in syfi movies.

I would go under the knife of a A.I. Bot with all the
database knowledge from cell biology, pharmaceuticals,
etc. Precision surgical skills and a little molusk glue
will go along way.

Or A.I. Might become the most efficient medical killing
Machine man has ever known. Think electron therapy
for ageing ie: microwaved with magnatron

I agree totally.

And you might be surprised that many in the military feel the same way.

AI is usually used in ways that aren't related to finding the best way to "kill" something or someone(s). Rather it is used primarily for many of the other systems that are required in a "weapons" system. I'm struggling to be more specific here for a variety of reasons to help make this clearer.

OK, let's think of a missile hypothetically. That missile has a very specific purpose. But, once activated - how many thousands of little decisions and adjustments does it need to make to successfully fulfill it's purpose? Any one of these little decisions can have a huge impact on whether or not it is successful. And these "decisions" need to be made lightning fast.

I know that's a little weak, but that's about as specific as I can be.

As far as medical applications - absolutely! There is much nascent "true AI" going on in that field. Some of it is pretty impressive too, and it continues to get better.

Or worse I guess depending on where you stand on this issue...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Annee

you all have a chance to stop breeding, go for it.

That's a subject I could derail the thread on.

HaHa!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Annee

you all have a chance to stop breeding, go for it.

Thats how the idiocracy thing happened, iirc. someone has to provide a counterweight to all the idiots reproducing like bunnies. my solution is a super volcanic eruption, but that's inhumane im told.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Maybe you misjudged my not wanting to spend ???hours looking it up as being lazy/incompetent...?

But i assure it has zero to do with that. I read a few interesting papers from better universities and just to even things out "crackpot theories"

There's a lot of info out there and a few nuggets from you would have saved me time into looking for more specific information.

Maybe i am not eloquent enough or technically understanding of the subject in the writings of my posts. And maybe even if we've evolved from apes you might think i carry a monkey brain in my head.

But let me assure you and others in the future that whatever you say will be accepted as the diamond that it is. But it is my job to polish it and give it even more value.

I think we would have had an interesting if not speculative conversation.
Examples of thoughts i had.
Even though when Johnny 5 became alive (aware) there was no Internet at the time so he learned mostly through reading very quickly and if memory serves me correctly watching television and listening to music and general interaction.

So if we had a robot companion even though forbidden to learn things through program commands and hardware limitations what if it's curiosity through interacting with even one owner who is shut in it breaks protocol? What if by using the code it has and knowledge it self writes new commands allowing it to break free?

Why would hardware (utilizing word in a non specific sense) would prevent that from happening? What if it decided to physically remove it?

Please avoid any comments about Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of robotics. I think that when becoming self aware they will be seen as an interference at best.
And so much more fun doom and gloom stuff!

I'll admit i was miffed at the lack of reply on your part but i will technically let it slide because you did mention if you can but obviously you cannot for whatever reason?!?!
Take care. I will try to private message in a few minutes if i am allowed.

a reply to: SPHARAOH

Huh?!?

What makes you think I don't want to have a conversation? I clearly said I would welcome it.

I'll review your post and respond very shortly.

Have a cocktail my friend - you seem a little on edge.

[smile]

a reply to: SPHARAOH

So if we had a robot companion even though forbidden to learn things through program commands and hardware limitations what if it's curiosity through interacting with even one owner who is shut in it breaks protocol? What if by using the code it has and knowledge it self writes new commands allowing it to break free?

A Robot is different than an AI system running on some platform somewhere - which is where the majority of the "real" work is being done. With that said, since the robot has the ability to move and interact with it's environment there is nothing to prevent it from doing what you say.

Please avoid any comments about Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of robotics. I think that when becoming self aware they will be seen as an interference at best. And so much more fun doom and gloom stuff!

I've never mentioned Asimov or the 3 laws, have I? But I will say he was very prescient in many ways.

I'll admit i was miffed at the lack of reply on your part but i will technically let it slide because you did mention if you can but obviously you cannot for whatever reason?!?!

I can't talk about many things because they are classified. But I can speak in generalities or talk about things that have become public knowledge one way or another.

Hope that helps.

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.

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.

We have until Christmas.

The Apocalypse is upon all.

I hope you all chose well?

Scary. I hope he is wrong.

a reply to: Riffrafter

If I weren't getting poon tang I'd be all doom and gloom too.

Can we just put Hawking in a closet?

originally posted by: Miracula2
a reply to: Riffrafter

If I weren't getting poon tang I'd be all doom and gloom too.

Can we just put Hawking in a closet?

I'm gonna take a wild guess.

He's on a higher intelligent level then you.

originally posted by: Miracula2
a reply to: Riffrafter

If I weren't getting poon tang I'd be all doom and gloom too.

Can we just put Hawking in a closet?

See, idiocracy is already here.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Riffrafter

So Hawking advises that instead of cleaning up our mess here, we should simply find the next most habitable planet and leave our mess there? Amirite? Makes a lot of sense.

I'm sure he'd advise us to remedy these matters, but his statement is a prediction based upon the current state of things, not a piece of advice.

He's a scientist, not a politician or evangelist.