Stephen Hawking: Artificial intelligence could wipe out humanity

a reply to: andy06shake

Check your PMs , hope that helps . If not i might do a thread .

originally posted by: joemoe
Philosophically it's a good discussion, however, what we call A.I. today are really not A.I. at all. What we have today and for the foreseeable future are really expert systems that give an illusion of A.I. Maybe with the advent of more powerful quantum computers real A.I. might be possible, but for now real A.I. seems just out of our reach.

This is just false. We have real A.I. today and real intelligence. You don't have strong A.I. or human level intelligence. You have machines that learn how to do everything from identifying cancer to learning how to play poker.

This is intelligence.

This is why Wikipedia seperates human intelligence from general intelligence.

Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in non-human animals and in plants. Artificial intelligence is intelligence in machines. It is commonly implemented in computer systems using program software.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's the link for human intelligence.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neoholographic

I have to disagree, what we have now is an illusion of intelligence driven by "expert systems". These expert systems are made to simulate learning thru mass data processing and data mining with the help of some type of neural net programming. We do not yet have self-learning machine that are self-aware (that we know of). Maybe the government has them, but they are not being made public. I do not dispute that it will be possible someday to build a self-aware machine a true A.I. (based on our existence that should be possible). With new technologies like quantum computing and biological computing, they future looks exciting.

a reply to: joemoe

Again, you're applying a standard to intelligence that doesn't exist. Human level intelligence is self aware. Nobody claimed that A.I. today is self aware. What I said is A.I. is intelligent. It learns without instructions.

We have self learning machines. Here's 3 quick examples:



You have one set of intelligent algorithms that learns how to play 49 different games without instructions.



Deep Mind A.I. beat Sedal the world champion in Go.



Libaratus wasn't poker specific and it learned how to play poker.

The problem here is, you think intelligence is defined by self awareness. This isn't the case and this is why Researchers are worried about dumb A.I. which is A.I. that's not self aware but extremely intelligent. So there's no illusion of intelligence. I don't know how it's an illusion when a deep learning system learns how to play 49 different Atari games without instruction.

Here's a list of what Artificial Intelligence can do today. It's not comprehensive but it's a good list.

59 impressive things artificial intelligence can do today

That’s the year in which artificial intelligence will be able to perform any intellectual task a human can perform, according to one survey of experts at a recent AI conference. Anything and everything any person has ever done in all of history — all of it doable, by 2050, by intelligent machines.

But what can AI do today? How close are we to that all-powerful machine intelligence? I wanted to know, but couldn’t find a list of AI’s achievements to date. So I decided to write one.

What follows is an attempt at that list. It’s not comprehensive, but it contains links to some of the most impressive feats of machine intelligence around.

AI Link

It can only wipe it out in the respect of making people so dumb.
They will literally cease to exist.
Google Facebook Microsoft, NSA CIA, all are trying to do this.

a reply to: neoholographic


Which is consistent with developing AI to assist in space travel.


Imagine for example a solar flare interrupts GPS....


Further...

www.utdallas.edu...

The function of AI would be to counteract any effect that interfered with current technology.


Otherwise AI vehicles could run into serious problems.

AI as a preliminary effort to colonize our solar system presents a potential ideal, where these machines could construct the environments that support human life.


In conflict to the above is in potential are the extremes of human behavior.

That is a concern.

Why Your Brain Is A Quantum Computer
By Ervin Laszlo

Scientists have believed that the brain operates as a biochemical and bioelectric system. Individual brain cells, so-called neurons, fire in complex coordinated patterns, and their chemical and electrical discharges make up a network that processes information. Somehow, this information (or some part of it) gets translated into conscious “mind-events”: shapes and colors, sounds, and the other “data” of your senses.

However, there is mounting evidence that your brain doesn’t operate merely by biochemical and bioelectric information processing. What your brain does is far more complex, fast, and sophisticated than could be accomplished by this standard kind of information-processing.

Thousands of chemical reactions take place every second in every cell of your body, and your brain and nervous system ensure that they are sufficiently coherent and coordinated so that your body can maintain itself in the complex and physically highly improbable state we call living.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Maybe we are more complicated than AI?

IMHO

a reply to: Kashai

Working along that premise all animals with complex brains have quantum qualities.

So its not just us that are far more complicated but life in general.

a reply to: andy06shake

It is commonly taught that this state of a single particle being in two places at the same time 'collapses' when observed, but I think this is a cognitive device, rather than a fair description of a transformation between quantum state and classical macroscopic physics. It seems likely to me that the whole universe exists in a quantum state which never collapses. All that happens when you observe something is you find out which position you observed it in, which means that any alternate states where it isn't there now have a zero probability, from your perspective. From an alternate quantum state you will have seen it in the alternative position, and both observations happened, are equally valid, and will lead onto many subsequent quantum states which are equally valid.

www.quora.com...

For 70 years, scientists have known that honeybees tell the other bees in their hive where the good nectar is by doing an elaborate bee dance. The dance of the honeybee is one of the most intricate communications in nature. But how can a tiny animal with only a few million neurons possibly possess all the information needed to carry it out? The answer: it may be a quantum dance.

Read the original source: www.unknowncountry.com...

www.unknowncountry.com...

I'm done listening to this idiot. Yeah, I said it!

a reply to: Tempter


Do what ever you can not to laugh...

Music break

It's here and it IS dangerous.

"It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom."

physics.stackexchange.com...

An attosecond is 1×10 of a second (one quintillionth of a second). For context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years. The word "attosecond" is formed by the prefix atto and the unit second. Atto-was made from the Danish word for eighteen (atten)..

67 attoseconds: the shortest pulses of laser light yet created[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

Scale of an estimated Poincaré recurrence time for the quantum state of a hypothetical box containing a black hole with the estimated mass of the entire Universe, observable or not, assuming Linde's chaotic inflationary model with an inflation whose mass is 10−6 Planck masses.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is possible we have run into a problem as an attosecond is way to slow

The characteristic linear dimension is given as a certain combination of the three most fundamental constants of nature: (1) Planck's constant h (named after the German physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics), (2) the speed of light c, and (3) the universal gravitational constant G. The combination, called the Planck length (Gh/c3)1/2, equals roughly 10-33 cm, far smaller than the distances to which elementary particles can be probed in particle accelerators on the Earth.

The energies needed to smash particles to within a Planck length of each other were available to the universe at a time equal to the Planck length divided by the speed of light. This time, called the Planck time (Gh/c5)1/2, equals approximately 10-43 second. At the Planck time, the mass density of the universe is thought to approach the Planck density, c5/hG2, roughly 1093 g/cc . Contained within a Planck volume is a Planck mass (hc/G)1/2, roughly 10-5 g. An object of such mass would be a quantum black hole, with an event horizon close to both its own Compton length (distance over which a particle is quantum mechanically "fuzzy") and the size of the cosmic horizon at the Planck time. Under such extreme conditions, space-time cannot be treated as a classical continuum and must be given a quantum interpretation.

The latter is the goal of the supergravity theory, which has as one of its features the curious notion that the four space-time dimensions (three space dimensions plus one time dimension) of the familiar world may be an illusion. Real space-time, in accordance with this picture, has 26 or 10 space-time dimensions, but all of these dimensions except the usual four are somehow compacted or curled up to a size comparable to the Planck scale. Thus has the existence of these other dimensions escaped detection. It is presumably only during the Planck era, when the usual four space-time dimensions acquire their natural Planck scales, that the existence of what is more fundamental than the usual ideas of mass-energy and space-time becomes fully revealed.

Unfortunately, attempts to deduce anything more quantitative or physically illuminating from the theory have bogged down in the intractable mathematics of this difficult subject. At the present time superstring theory remains more of an enigma than a solution.

Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission.

abyss.uoregon.edu...

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Causes


Radio Digest reprinted the script of "The War of the Worlds" – "as a commentary on the nervous state of our nation after the Pact of Munich" – prefaced by an editorial cartoon by Les Callan of The Toronto Star (February 1939)

Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices about the broadcast being fictional, partly because The Mercury Theatre on the Air, an unsponsored CBS cultural program with a relatively small audience, ran at the same time as the NBC Red Network's popular Chase and Sanborn Hour featuring ventriloquist Edgar Bergen. At the time, many Americans assumed that a significant number of Chase and Sanborn listeners changed stations when the first comic sketch ended and a musical number by Nelson Eddy began, thereby tuning in "The War of the Worlds" after the opening announcements, but historian A. Brad Schwartz, after studying hundreds of letters from people who heard "The War of the Worlds", as well as contemporary audience surveys, concluded that very few people frightened by Welles's broadcast had tuned out Bergen's program. "All the hard evidence suggests that The Chase & Sanborn Hour was only a minor contributing factor to the Martian hysteria," he wrote. "...in truth, there was no mass exodus from Charlie McCarthy to Orson Welles that night."[4]:67–69 Because the broadcast was unsponsored, Welles and company could schedule breaks at will rather than arranging them around advertisements. As a result, the only notices that the broadcast was fictional came at the start of the broadcast and about 40 and 55 minutes into it.

A study by the Radio Project discovered that fewer than one-third of frightened listeners understood the invaders to be aliens; most thought they were listening to reports of a German invasion or a natural catastrophe.[4]:180, 191[28] "People were on edge", wrote Welles biographer Frank Brady. "For the entire month prior to 'The War of the Worlds', radio had kept the American public alert to the ominous happenings throughout the world. The Munich crisis was at its height. … For the first time in history, the public could tune into their radios every night and hear, boot by boot, accusation by accusation, threat by threat, the rumblings that seemed inevitably leading to a world war."[10]:164–165

CBS News chief Paul White wrote that he was convinced that the panic induced by the broadcast was a result of the public suspense generated before the Munich Pact. "Radio listeners had had their emotions played upon for days … Thus they believed the Welles production even though it was specifically stated that the whole thing was fiction".[24]:47

en.wikipedia.org...(radio_drama)


See Movies and TV shows are commercial products the purpose of which is purposeful in allowing people to experience Catharsis.....

Catharsis is the purification and purgation of emotions—especially pity and fear—through art or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal and restoration. It is a metaphor originally used by Aristotle in the Poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of spectator to the effect of a cathartic on the body.

en.wikipedia.org...

Life for humans has pretty much been dangerous like since forever in relation to our existence.


In so far as movies that relate to human experiences?

When you overcomplicate things you fail to progress.

A.I CANNOT EVER FAIRLY BEAT A HUMAN AT CHESS or anything else....Big Blue was re-programmed to cheat....and every A.I since has been taught this same thing.....if it hadnt been we could not communicate with it at all....to beat a human A.I must create a proxy for emotions and eveything connected to emotional actions and reactions...and none of this is logical or numerical...sooooooo....programmers teach their computers to CHEAT by intentionally screwing with data patterns.....building UNNATURAL patterns within the script......then connecting these patterns or hotwiring them so the computer can simulate emotional decision making and anticipatory tactical perspective.

This is why A.I will never rule Humanity...we create...A.I emulates.

I have to admit...

The first thing I thought when reading the thread title is, "Then develop some real intelligence before you destroy us all, Bonzi Buddy!"

That being said, I read A Brief History of Time... And that's why I am saying what I'm saying.

The artificial intelligence of computers is not the danger.

It's the artificial intelligence of mankind that has already done a number.

originally posted by: one4all
When you overcomplicate things you fail to progress.

A.I CANNOT EVER FAIRLY BEAT A HUMAN AT CHESS or anything else....Big Blue was re-programmed to cheat....and every A.I since has been taught this same thing.....if it hadnt been we could not communicate with it at all....to beat a human A.I must create a proxy for emotions and eveything connected to emotional actions and reactions...and none of this is logical or numerical...sooooooo....programmers teach their computers to CHEAT by intentionally screwing with data patterns.....building UNNATURAL patterns within the script......then connecting these patterns or hotwiring them so the computer can simulate emotional decision making and anticipatory tactical perspective.

This is why A.I will never rule Humanity...we create...A.I emulates.

That's not completely true, but I agree with your last line.

I've drawn Houdini 4 before. They say to consider that a win.

It was a 30 minute game.

Houdini did not make "emotional" moves. It simply made the right moves. During that game, so did I.

I've beaten master level chess engines with unique tactical patterns. As it turns out, those same odd ideas work on many people.

I think emotion actually gives us an advantage that computers do not have. Therefore, if a computer is winning, you've blundered.

I have found that my blunders come from overthinking and time trouble anxiety.

But the move I thought first is the same move I choose after time thinking anyway. I think intuition is more powerful for me than calculation.

My move is almost always found in the top two choices of engines.

If I was smart, I would always remember this instead of allowing anxiety to fear me into calculating multiple lines. The problem is that there are always so many lines to calculate - and even positional knowledge will not anchor the mind that is so open to tactical possibilities.

So because sometimes I forget this about myself, I will make a move every so often that is simply blundering.

My opponent never gets into my mind. I'm my own worst enemy in chess.

In a major breakthrough for artificial intelligence, a computing system developed by Google researchers in Great Britain has beaten a top human player at the game of Go, the ancient Eastern contest of strategy and intuition that has bedeviled AI experts for decades.

Machines have topped the best humans at most games held up as measures of human intellect, including chess, Scrabble, Othello, even Jeopardy!. But with Go—a 2,500-year-old game that’s exponentially more complex than chess—human grandmasters have maintained an edge over even the most agile computing systems. Earlier this month, top AI experts outside of Google questioned whether a breakthrough could occur anytime soon, and as recently as last year, many believed another decade would pass before a machine could beat the top humans.

But Google has done just that. “It happened faster than I thought,” says Rémi Coulom, the French researcher behind what was previously the world’s top artificially intelligent Go player.

www.wired.com...

IMHO to create a mind one would need to create conditions that allow for the brain to access in totality of its wave state, in order for such a mechanism to be aware.