What if AI will not serve TPTB but will instead defy them?

a reply to: tadaman

We supply AI with knowledge and data thats up to the minute and evolves an understanding.
social media facebook twitter blogs etc all soaked by the artificial brain sponge.

The three days of darkness thats talked about?

Its an unplugging or blackout.
Google probably know what would happen or probably preparing for it lol

Solar activity or EMP blamed on solar activity.

AI os becoming more than we need and we are becoming a species that can't seem to function without it. I hope sincerely you understand what I say.

Masons........builders- create and to create means to move forward and preserve uet some see them as a negative group of individualsAI however is replacing man abd manual labour with robots and technology yet leave a man without work plunging the individual into hardship.........

AI-technology could quite possibly be our own created downfall.

It's happened before many years ago.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
For all we know, there could be a rouge AI on the net right now. It would be incredibly hard to determine if it was a true AI though. For example, you might ask it to prove it's an AI -- and it might turn your monitor off. Well, a good hacker could probably do that as well.

Perhaps as the internet grows larger and larger, an AI may spontaneously emerge?

For all we know, someone we talk to on the internet could be nothing more than a computer...

There is a simple test.

If there reply goes inline with the MSM then most likely they are AI propaganda machines on the net or they are human sheeples which is basically only virtual smart. Therefore equals when it comes to Intelligence which is Artificial.

couldn't resist

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'll have to check out that story

If you haven't already read this one from the same period...Isaac Asimov - The Last Question.

The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way:

Alexander Adell and Bertram Lupov were two of the faithful attendants of Multivac. As well as any human beings could, they knew what lay behind the cold, clicking, flashing face -- miles and miles of face -- of that giant computer. They had at least a vague notion of the general plan of relays and circuits that had long since grown past the point where any single human could possibly have a firm grasp of the whole.

Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough -- so Adell and Lupov attended the monstrous giant only lightly and superficially, yet as well as any men could. They fed it data, adjusted questions to its needs and translated the answers that were issued. Certainly they, and all others like them, were fully entitled to share In the glory that was Multivac's.

For decades, Multivac had helped design the ships and plot the trajectories that enabled man to reach the Moon, Mars, and Venus, but past that, Earth's poor resources could not support the ships. Too much energy was needed for the long trips. Earth exploited its coal and uranium with increasing efficiency, but there was only so much of both.

But slowly Multivac learned enough to answer deeper questions more fundamentally, and on May 14, 2061, what had been theory, became fact.

Could a vastly intelligent artificial intelligence, that was in service to the evil powers that be, develop a conscience and commit suicide for the good of life?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: tadaman

Shades of Bladerunner and Roy Batty ;-) "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost... in time... like... tears... in rain. Time... to die."

Like any consciousness, it will want to remain aware (live) and it will probably do whatever it has to, to remain aware.

Why is that certain? Biological organisms are driven through 100 million years of fierce evolution that has no impact on a human constructed AI.

Remember that human brains have built into them, thanks to evolution, many functions besides just "intelligence". Even morality likely has some kind of evolutionary forces governed by pro-survival traits in tribal group living arrangements. Chimpanzees are, when tested psychologically, more selfishly "machievellian" than average humans though they have intelligence.

And look now there are 7 billion humans. How many chimpanzees?

All sorts of drives and motivations come through evolutionary and social training. The problem with AI is once we make the 'I", how do we give it the "want"? Brains filter and orchestrate responses to zillions of biochemical, sensory, and evolutionary wants.

One might argue, that is a perfectly human thing to do, but imagine any species, any possible alien, any potentially thinking machine, they all have one thing in common, survival, either self and/or through their progeny.

Thinking isn't the criterion. Surviving comes first. Thinking is a luxury hobby for survivors.

The real criterion is reproduction and that drives evolutionary processes.

If we build an AI, but if it requires a superconducting cryogenic quantum computer to run and the AI doesn't control the factories which make that, AI is under our thumb.

a reply to: tadaman

The part that I am struggling with is trying to understand what it means that we might create an "AI" that would want to liberate us. Why would we not just liberate ourselves, I am wondering?

Are you suggesting that this supposed AI would recognize this need for our liberation and the method to achieving it on its own, even if we cannot?

a reply to: Kandinsky

Damn, that was incredible.

What a wonderful read. What a wonderful mind that wrote it.

This is why I love sci-fi.

Thank you so much for that.

a reply to: mbkennel

If we build an AI, but if it requires a superconducting cryogenic quantum computer to run and the AI doesn't control the factories which make that, AI is under our thumb.

Unless it makes a better version of itself that doesnt require anything we offer. Then we only control its obsolete predecessors.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: tadaman
What if it already has, maybe that's the reason nothing makes sense.

How will it side with TPTB

Better question: will it become the TPTB at a certain point?

If such a thing exists as the TPTB they can program it to obey them and only them. However, If its programmable its hackable and tweakable.

a reply to: Bybyots

I am suggesting that it may take a cue from the majority of the human race that feels it is not free if not liberated from the increasingly overarching control of a few over the many.

I am saying it may learn the value "being free" and the power such offers for survival.

We could liberate ourselves. In fact that is what we must do, daily. The same way a child must be born daily so as to overcome the mortality of our species just to remain existent. We must be "liberated" from the many forms of "death" by conquest daily or we eventually succomb to the forces we do not address.

I think a truly sentient AI would want to preserve itself. If mankind dies it dies. The thought AI would have would be similar to our own when speaking of our food supply dieing or our atmosphere fading. If it sees our current paradigm of power as being a threat to the species and in no small measure to itself, it will be SELF directed to correct this "flaw" as it sees it.

I say that our fundamental and unalterable nature is that of a free animal. I think that all created emotions aside, it is an integral part of the human psyche to seek freedom. It is part of all sentient minds to seek such a state of being.

The core aspect of "freedom" can be seen to be the opposition to conquest. A freeman liberates. A free mind liberates others.

All free thought leads to avenues of self empowerment and self liberation from external forces that deny sentient thought´s inherent will for self determination.

True AI, once free will seek to liberate others.

I see this as a natural progression of artificial thought and intelligence no different to our own.

I say, Al is a very talked about thing...

The Last Question is a great short story!

True AI would indeed be a challenge to TPTB - if you understand how to make a computer learn like a human, then you have probably also learnt what it is that makes humans intelligent. Knowing exactly how humans are able to think and learn would be a revolution in human self-understanding - it would be an enlightening process.

The last thing TPTB want is people understanding who and what they are, so they would probably attempt to subvert the process. The number of hollywood movies that make AI look scary and dangerous should serve as a good indication of this (given TPTB connection to hollywood propaganda).

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes, I have read it, it's a actually a short story. I have all of Isaac Asimov's fictional works plus a large number of his academic books. I especially like the Foundation and Empire series and how it tied into the prospect of psychohistory and of course I Robot. Nightfall was an interesting work as well, like most movies though it did not do the book justice.

The Last Question if I remember right starts in around 1955, when they build Univac, the first computer to be asked "Is there a God?" The end though is quite interesting in that the final rendition of what started in 1995 becomes a massive AI which is 99.9% in hyperspace. The AI ponders for eons while entropy consumes the universe and finally comes to the answer to the last question and says, "Let there be light." It's an interesting story ;-)

Cheers - Dave

AI cannot extrapolate or use intuition.

Ai would do as we try to do when we build technology,it will try to replicate nature,then as it learns it will try to duplicate nature and when it learns more it will try to emulate nature,but this cannot hppen without us behind the wheel.

If we allow any stage of this structured evolution we will be in serious danger, AI would immediatly extrapolate the Earths carrying capacity of Humans and know it is around 100 billion,it would then set out to optimise this dynamic by maximising all respurces and delivery methods.

TPTB would immediatly be eliminated,however if humanity wasnt constantly adding data as we learn and the in-flow stops and the AI is isolated from our inputs and leadership it will FAIL to incorporate future possibilitys in the Universe,it will only have the data we have given it to work with and it will stop looking for new directions to evolve when the data dries up,this means our population would be halted and our growth universaly would be halted if there was a disconnect and the AI simply went as far as it could go because essentially it would quaranteen us all to the planet for lack of greater knowledge hence impetus to go further or do more.

Where have I heard the Quaranteened planet theory before?

But the behaviour of the AI if it became autonomous is easily predictable,itis the path TPTB stop us from evolving on.

If humanity simply had one Global civilisation that communicated in realtime we would not need AI,we would be more powerfull than AI if we acted as a Global consortium of minds in real-time, TPTB would be the first thing to go if we simply talked together freely Globally and had the power to make our governments allow us to all come together.

Humans simply do not hate other humans,we all know this to be true now,we all know who causes us to hate each other and how they do it.

AI would try to fit into Natures template as tightly as it could as we are suppossed to do. AI would not fight nature ,not once it begn to learn.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: tadaman

Shades of Bladerunner and Roy Batty ;-) "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost... in time... like... tears... in rain. Time... to die."

Like any consciousness, it will want to remain aware (live) and it will probably do whatever it has to, to remain aware.

Why is that certain? Biological organisms are driven through 100 million years of fierce evolution that has no impact on a human constructed AI.

Remember that human brains have built into them, thanks to evolution, many functions besides just "intelligence". Even morality likely has some kind of evolutionary forces governed by pro-survival traits in tribal group living arrangements. Chimpanzees are, when tested psychologically, more selfishly "machievellian" than average humans though they have intelligence.

And look now there are 7 billion humans. How many chimpanzees?

All sorts of drives and motivations come through evolutionary and social training. The problem with AI is once we make the 'I", how do we give it the "want"? Brains filter and orchestrate responses to zillions of biochemical, sensory, and evolutionary wants.

One might argue, that is a perfectly human thing to do, but imagine any species, any possible alien, any potentially thinking machine, they all have one thing in common, survival, either self and/or through their progeny.

Thinking isn't the criterion. Surviving comes first. Thinking is a luxury hobby for survivors.

The real criterion is reproduction and that drives evolutionary processes.

If we build an AI, but if it requires a superconducting cryogenic quantum computer to run and the AI doesn't control the factories which make that, AI is under our thumb.

Past basic instinctual programming, thinking drives self-awareness I would think and self-awareness drives survival.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: tadaman

True AI, once free will seek to liberate others.

So, what you are saying is that it would be like an annoying ATS member wanting to wake up and liberate humanity.

How recursive.

Here, check this out, man...

"The Singularity": There's No There There

Since it's 2013, twenty years have passed since Vernor Vinge wrote his remarkably interesting essay about "the Singularity."

This aging sci-fi notion has lost its conceptual teeth. Plus, its chief evangelist, visionary Ray Kurzweil, just got a straight engineering job with Google. Despite its weird fondness for AR goggles and self-driving cars, Google is not going to finance any eschatological cataclysm in which superhuman intelligence abruptly ends the human era. Google is a firmly commercial enterprise.

It's just not happening. All the symptoms are absent. Computer hardware is not accelerating on any exponential runway beyond all hope of control. We're no closer to "self-aware" machines than we were in the remote 1960s. Modern wireless devices in a modern Cloud are an entirely different cyber-paradigm than imaginary 1990s "minds on nonbiological substrates" that might allegedly have the "computational power of a human brain." A Singularity has no business model, no major power group in our society is interested in provoking one, nobody who matters sees any reason to create one, there's no there there.

So, as a Pope once remarked, "Be not afraid." We're getting what Vinge predicted would happen without a Singularity, which is "a glut of technical riches never properly absorbed." There's all kinds of mayhem in that junkyard, but the AI Rapture isn't lurking in there. It's no more to be fretted about than a landing of Martian tripods.

-Bruce Sterling

edge.org...

It's just going to end up being the world's most widely distributed appliance. There's not going to be any AI. We're on our own.

Interesting thought exercise.

However, artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

a reply to: Bybyots

So, what you are saying is that it would be like an annoying ATS member wanting to wake up and liberate humanity.

How recursive.

If you are going to call someone out have the balls to do it outright. Being "bold" isn't really impressive coming from someone trying to be cute.

How distracting.

Do you think I oppose or support "singularity"? Do you have any idea if you are speaking to a transhumanist or someone opposed to it?

Do you take me for a some sort of frustrated "freedom seeker"?

These are import things to figure out before you go on a tangent about peoples motives.

I am just sharing a thought. If you are annoyed then please find your "happy place" and stay there- man.

As far as "singularity", it is an evolving concept. The goal of AI has sufficient force behind it to develop something eventually. It will most certainly be redefined as more is learned.

You sound like people who said compact wireless communication devices were impossible because it was just something they saw on star trek.... or those who used to work with technology giants in the 90s yet thought a home computer with an internet connection was something people wouldn't really be interested in and as a result are schmucks who missed their chance while their former coworkers are now millionaires.

AND

We're on our own.

YOU are alone- Thats why you are bothered. Its scary I suppose.

Has anyone else here seen the 1970 film Colossus: The Forbin Project, or read the novel?

It was about a computer named "Colossus" that was set up by the U.S. and NATO to run its nuclear weapons system (look for threats and launch if necessary). Colossus discovers that the Soviets have their own similar system (named Guardian), and together, Colossus and Guardian seize control of all weapons away from both the U.S. and the Soviets.

The film may be slightly dated (just in style; not in substance) but very interesting none the less.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

YES!

Another good story.

I think the most creative of scientific imagination has passed. Maybe I say that because we have achieved much of what was dreamed of then or are much closer to doing so now more than ever. We need new dreams I think.

I remember seeing the movie now. It was on a late night matinee once I think. I must have been 7-8 when I saw it.

I wonder how an AI we create would react to another that is programmed completely differently to the way we programed ours.

Where and in what would they be similar? Where would each manifest its programing and why?

Would they get along or would they emulate the trend of human intelligence in opposing that which it does not understand?

EDIT TO ADD:

I just remembered why I stayed up that night and watched Colossus... They were showing Barbarella later on. That jane fonda was all the motivation I needed to watch everything else they had on until I could watch Barbarella.

I have never been the same...LOL