It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Quite simply, intelligence is the information our nation’s leaders need to keep our country safe.
Current – looking at day-to-day events.
Estimative – looking at what might be or what might happen.
Warning – giving notice to our policymakers of urgent matters that may require immediate attention.
Research – providing an in-depth study of an issue.
Scientific and Technical – providing information on foreign technologies.
My position is that AI will not just *poof* and appear.
I'll continue with my points that anything programmed by humans will be useful to them. Being able to use a tool, for example, to say change the battery in your car, is a benefit. To use a programming language, not just yourself, but a worldwide collaboration of people working on a project, would be beneficial as well to the ultimate solution of the AI mystery.
By the mid-21st century, people will evolve into “software-based humans” who will “live out on the Web, projecting bodies whenever they need or want them, including holographically projected bodies, foglet-projected bodies, and physical bodies comprising nanobot swarms.”
‘First off, very good debate from both sides. Finding a clear winner from the outset was going to be tough.
I have to say that Druid’s openness and use of the smartphone as a benevolent compatriot gave him the opener initially, but then Hefficide came back with the system of apathy. He made a very strong case based on the way we view lesser animals, and how AI may view us as something similar. He then compunded this by using the example of the unlimited potential AI has compared to the limits of humanity.
By a close margin, first round to Hefficide.
The second round proved even more difficult to deduce a clear cut winner. Druid presented a very strong case of both how AI could collectively be our next step in evolution, and a very plausible way of how it could also come about (energy).
Hefficide countered well with the use of the passion of life as opposed to nature of simple creation, as evidenced in Frankenstein and Pinnocchio, and how man doesn’t understand this concept of himself, much less how to pass it on to an artificial system.
By the tiniest margin I give the second round to Druid42 for a more in depth explanation of his points and counters.
The final round was essentially an expansion of the points raised by both debaters in round two, but again both raised very strong points that stood well against one another. Druid’s points about how AI would a progressive development, much like the way we nurture and teach our own children was his strongest point, and he made that very believable and plausible.
Hefficide’s counter was equally as strong though, and in closing, this statement in particular;
In my minds eye I see a programmer, or maybe even a hardware guru, having a moment of insight into trying something new out. Viola', plug it in, push the button, and AI is born. It may notice us before we even notice it. I mean, after all? If the goal is to fake thought - then actual thought would, at first at least, simply seem like a resounding success. Imagine their shock when the program finally says or does something that defies their instruction - proving that it's making its own decisions and developing its own "moral code".
Really opens up the reality of what AI is and what it should be. And that of course, is independent thought, different and unique from what it’s creators would think.
I give this round and the match to Hefficide by the slimmest of margins.’
In this final debate, I think that both fighters began to show a bit of wear around the edges -- in a series where one argues, essentially, both sides of the same issue, it's tough to keep coming up with solid points.
In the first round, I think that Druid42 gave himself a handicap by spending far too much time on non-relevant topics, then finished strong with noting that our current "pseudo-intelligent" systems are all designed specifically to be helpful, a point that is fairly hard to refute. However, Hefficide comes right back with a much more powerful point -- that the very essence of artificial intelligence is independence, so to assume that a sentient species, even an artificial one, would remain at the beck and call of its originators, is not a valid assumption.
Round one to Hefficide.
I'll admit that I got lost in round two. Druid42 had an extensive essay, parts of which seemed to refute Hefficide's opening, but I really couldn't sort out why he assumed that a gradual AI would necessarily evolve morals towards its creator and the majority seemed a bit off topic. Hefficide responds with a statement that is even further off topic and doesn't do anything to further his excellent opening.
Round two goes to Druid42.
So we go to the final round for the victory in this debate, and the series. In his closing, Druid42 builds on the conclusion that artificial intelligence is simply a silicone based human intelligence, and I don't think that can be assumed -- there's no telling what a being that has little, if anything, in common with its creator would do. He phrased his points well, though, and if the debate ended there, the judgement would be for him. However, Hefficide gets back on track with his very strong argument from the first round -- that AI is not a predictable thing, so there is no way of just assuming that it would act at our behest and in our benefit.
As the subject of the debate is "AI will be beenficial to mankind?" I think that Hefficide has demonstrated that this is not something which can be assumed to be true (though, as both point out, it is all speculation at this time.) In my judgement, Hefficide wins the debate on the strength of his opening and closing statements.
Excellent debate, I enjoyed the statements of both sides!