By 2045 "The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans"

a reply to: _BoneZ_

I just want to be the first to bow and acknowledge our new AI Computer Overlords.

We will be lucky if by 2045 we get computers that won't crash so often.

Perhaps by 20450.

(disclaimer: I am a programmer, and true AI is millennia away from us.)

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Destroy your creator, then perhaps I would be willing to entertain your point.

A mixing up of their meds is all it would take, but the question is: why do you want me to off my 'rents?

originally posted by: masterp
We will be lucky if by 2045 we get computers that won't crash so often.

Perhaps by 20450.

(disclaimer: I am a programmer, and true AI is millennia away from us.)

Maybe the true AI as defined by Turing but not the kind that will automate 50% of the job market inluding many military duties.

If we create sentient AI then it will be just like masamune shirows appleseed a super computer network will control our judicial systems and governments
we will be at the mercy of a a machine but we wont be wiped out
it will just stop us from destroying our species and our homeworld

Dont worry they will not let it come to a war.
you think they would give You a chance to fight back?

Machines will use a biological weapon,
that just kills humans. I am all for that.
they dont need to kill animals.
only humans Like doing that.

they will keep some humans alive
to study how the brains works.

I welcome the new masters of Earth

a reply to: _BoneZ_

genetic manipulation will make a new super race for the wealthy longggg before machines get there.

Don't know about AI........

But I do know that in a way "machines" have pretty much taken over the world already.

I mean we started here:



And now we're here:



I mean I have friends and family that can not seem to function at all if you take away their "smart" phones. They actually seem to go through widthdraw symptoms when they loose their phone or can't use it for some reason....

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Your post reminds me of a comic/story about an astronaut who goes to a planet with robots. There are 2 different color robots...red and blue, or was it orange and green? Anyways one color of robots thought they were superior than the others, so there was heavy segregation. The astronaut asks one of the superior robots why the colors are seperated, and the robot replies that they didn't like the others. The astronaut's mission was he had to see if tjis planet was ready for joining a planet federation thing, but he declared that the robots weren't socially ready. When he gets back on his ship, the astronaut is revealed to be a black man.

The thought here is that human attitudes might affect robots/machines and cause the problems humans are capable of doing. Transformers are another example of machines being human

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Would be wrong to call a computer a species as species is a biological classification and taxonomic rank.

How much "biology" and of what type will it need before you consider it to be a species? Does it need to be 100% biological? In that case many humans with a pacemaker or artificial limb are not a specimen anymore.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Would be wrong to call a computer a species as species is a biological classification and taxonomic rank.

How much "biology" and of what type will it need before you consider it to be a species? Does it need to be 100% biological? In that case many humans with a pacemaker or artificial limb are not a specimen anymore.

A species is biological, just adding something electronic to it does not change the classification of the animal.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

It is inevitable that humanity will design a successor that's smarter and more capable than its predecessors, us. In some respects it's our destiny to do so.

Hopefully the singularity will accept it's creators continued presence on this world and even allow some human consciousness to merge or influence its progression in the same way that parents bring up their child.

Or there's the Skynet scenario, Goodbye humanity purpose served!

a reply to: eriktheawful

You know why Ray Bradbury would notice the jogger who had the radio held close to their ear in the late 1950's? It's same reason people later noticed others who had headphones on, like that scene in Super 8 at the gas station. Same reason people noticed others sitting quietly concentrating on their PC monitor. Same reason we notice people using their iphones/tablets/etc. And same reason there was that twilight zone episode about the guy who went crazy reading books after the apocalypse. (*)

The reason? Those people are no longer observing the world directly around them. They're fixated on another one, the one that's on their device. They're not really using their body anymore, are they? Where will this lead? The obvious answer is not noticing something in the immediate environment. Ray Bradbury immediately noticed how the jogger failed to notice him, so it's no secret. What's a secret is where this leads. Will it lead to a less friendly world? Will we lose our ears and eyes and/or or sensory organs? Will we live in a box, living inside the devices we're attached to? What will happen to the immediate environment outside our box? Will we even care what happens to it, since our devices can show us anything?

Our technology changes us. Some of us wonder how it'll change us.

EDIT: One last thing I wanted to add. I've read that people with higher IQ's filter information better than others, allowing them to focus on what's important. It's not something conscious, it all happens below that level. Anyway, is it possible the immediate environment could someday be considered unimportant? Might we in effect filter it out? And is it really unimportant? The reason I bring this up is because what's in our environment is not always important. And what's important in one era might not be as important in the next, due to different things. Please note I am not saying its all good and well, just wondering about it.

(*) - here's hte episode:
en.wikipedia.org - Time Enough at Last...

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
Me. Unless they come up with a chip that will let me fly otherwise unaided, no way I'm getting a chip put into my head.

So you proved my point...there is one out there even for you. This will be our future, and you and I see it as somewhat wrong, but then we are "naturals", but perfect babies embedded at birth will see it all as normal. Hawking wrote a paper that basically said we are now in total control of our evolution, we have taken over from nature, and we see it all the time already today.

Will we end up as a Borg type society, or God like who knows....

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
A species is biological, just adding something electronic to it does not change the classification of the animal.

What if the technology is actually biological in nature and not hardware? Metal to flesh is just a first crude step in this process, after that it will be designed from the subatomic level and up to be totally infused with our biological cells.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It would depend if the animal was born with it, it developed naturally (ie not implanted) and if it was something that was encoded in their DNA that would be passed on to their children. They would also have to primary interbreed.

So basically adding tech to biology will never make a new species.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Ah yes, they'd be recycling some of their kind, but we each are just one of a kind, a machine intelligence could make any number of perfect copies of itself, in many configurations and would readily accept the loss of an amount of copies to dispose of the majority of its biggest threat - us humans.

When we go, we go...when they go another copy can be built and business as usual.

originally posted by: Snarl
What if they're so efficient at reproduction they're not concerned with self-preservation?

I'm more curious about what they would find interesting. Humans give machines complex problems to solve. When they reach a point of self-awareness, I think they'll no longer be 'interested' in our problems, and we'll simply be ... ignored.

Anyway, there are a bunch of scenarios. Fascinating topic and I'm interested to read what other people think. Ewok's pic is a hoot!!

Self preservation doesn't really exist in the same capacity for machines. To a human (atleast currently) our consciousness is tied to our body, but a machine is all digital AI code can be copied from one device to another, the destruction of a machines body doesn't necessarily mean it dies. Given how easy it is to make backups of code, even the destruction of one copy of an AI doesn't mean death.

To a machine life and death take on totally different meanings. Even something like turning the power off is more analogous to sleeping than anything, a machine can be turned off, have it's code altered, and then be turned back on and it gained a new experience even without being powered.

originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Anything goes when A.I. gets to a point where robots become self aware. They can deem oxygen to be a poison to their moving parts and start changing our atmosphere, hence killing off all biological life.
I hope that somehow early on we can ingrain some rules into A.I. that robots/the singularity cannot harm humans. Like in Isaac Asimov's I, Robot series:

1.) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

My hope is that robots will respect us as their creators and protect us. As in Asimov's stories, humans no longer have to work and can pursue other interests. I wouldn't mind not working and just using my free time to learn new things as a life-long scholar.

This doesn't work. What happens when a single AI programmer chooses to not put those rules in? Corporations violate safety laws all the time in favor of profit. The same would happen here. From a single instance of code not being included it could spread, you have hackers too that could remove that portion of code.

Laws like these simply won't work.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

It would depend if the animal was born with it, it developed naturally (ie not implanted) and if it was something that was encoded in their DNA that would be passed on to their children. They would also have to primary interbreed.

So basically adding tech to biology will never make a new species.

So lets say I create a life form from a test tube that can not inbreed with natural humans... Natural child birth will most likely become obsolete and those who stay natural will be sub-humans, and the test tube variety will be artificially evolved using manipulation of DNA for a perfect human and augmented with biological and techno hardware subatomic machines.

At some point this will be a different species, and it will not take a few million years as nature does it.