Stephen Hawking visionary or Fearmonger

a reply to: yorkshirelad

I think the military already has AI. They are decades-advanced. Think about the SR-71. It was built in the early 60's, but it has the look of something built recently. That's a 50 year difference. The military is sitting on a lot of tech that we don't know about.

I vote heal no!
If someone puts a destruct button on me, being self aware, I am going to disable it as quickly as possible.
Im not convinced a self aware AI would't do the same.
If they were actually self aware and getting smarter by say increasing their knowledge or "brain" size, then wouldn't it be safe to say they wouldn't want to cease to exist, or no longer be held back, then neutralize the threat/us?

a reply to: ecossiepossie
I'm not sure how this could make him a visionary as this has been the topic of God knows how many different books, films, tv series' etc. for decades. Does Hawking say it make it 'more true'? Not really any more than anyone else saying it from what I can see, no disrespect for the man, just a bit surprised this got quite a section on the UK news and Newsnight yesterday.

the thing about stephen hawking is that he is able to truly appreciate the odds of unfavorable outcomes much more clearly than we are. and that means if a scenario doesnt bode well, he knows exactly how well it doesnt bode. so theres a reason that he might be a voice of fear. if you are a visionary and your scope is limited to only optimistic possibilities then you are a naive visionary which kind of works against itself. with that said, stephen is not an idiot or a con man so that only leaves sincerity and intellect. if he is fearmongering then there is something to be afraid of.

Professor Hawking is simply someone with perspective and an opinion.

His opinions may not always be "The Truth" of any given issue, but at least he approaches it from a learned and intelligent perspective.

Although, it should be pointed out even learned people could have opinions that end up being incorrect.

Someone doubted earlier that there is enough power to produce these large AI machine things or to get to the stars, yet we most probably already have back-engineered craft with power supplies better than nuclear. We suspect that NASA have AI algorithms which detect certain shapes and modify images. We know that Mars robots currently can make decisions for themselves based on their surroundings since it takes too long for the transmission to get there from Earth to stop a disasterous accident to the robot.

Who says what kind of features any AI device would need? As soon as decisions are being made, it will have an effect on a life either direct as in killing or indirectly as in taking jobs away or denying credit. Either way it is not a good road to run down but I do not think that those in power will want to stop gaining more power and control.

This AI thing is probably the way most civilisations and planets go. They get to a certain point in their development and shoot themselves in the foot.

In my opinion, we are developing a monster even worse than ourselves.

Any public figure is influential to some people as there will always be those who regard their opinion more authoratative. Dr Hawking is clever, he knows more about the current state of physics than most of us, so ignoring or dismissing what he says it is rather like ignoring the building surveyors report on your intended house purchase. Take his opinion and decide if it is worthwhile in your life if not, then ignore it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Although, it should be pointed out even learned people could have opinions that end up being incorrect.

Quite so.

As we already know, people can be both brilliant and extremely ignorant at the same time.

I've met people who have what can only be described as ability bordering on genius in their specialised areas of expertise, but are at best ignorant, or at worst complete idiots in many other areas of endeavour that many of us non-genius types find to be perfectly simple and only require a modicum of lateral thinking or application of common sense to achieve.

There's a lesson to us all in there, especially pertinent when we are trying to make up our minds whether or not to rely or act on information given by someone concerning subjects outside of their specialised and successful area of study for which they are mostly known.

This applies to pretty much every area of life, not just the sciences.

Personally, i think we ought to be much more alarmed by things our respective leaders and their various agencies get up to on the worlds stage than what a hypothetical, self aware AI might or might not unleash if or when such a thing ever came into being.

IMO, next to natural disasters of cataclysmic proportions, Human beings (although most of us have almost no control over it personally) are the most destructive force against Humanity, against our flora and fauna and we ourselves are ironically the single biggest threat to our future than a potential psychopathic rogue AI would be.

We'd be pretty naive anyway if we were to hook up any sentient AI to any system that could bring about a real danger to us as a species, systems such as defence and WMD networks ought to be a definite no-no to avoid potential 'war games' or 'terminator' type scenarios or similar nightmarish dystopian happenings, and of course systems like energy distribution networks, where the same rogue AI could conceivably create havoc or even destroy all essential energy network infrastructure, such as transformers, generating stations and so on, which would also result in dire consequences for Humanity for at least a decade or so, if not longer.

a reply to: ecossiepossie

I disagree with Hawkins.

Evolution springs from our contact with an unknown.

What is the alternative? Ignore the civilisations of the stars (assuming they exist, of course), and be unprepared when they finally decide to get to Earth?

Our solar system, with its 8 planets and its wobbling Sun, is not exactly stealth... They are bound to find it.

Perhaps the most logical course of action is to get to them first (to avoid life loss I would suggest a drone, perhaps a drone disguised as a rock) so that the surprise is on them. Gather intelligence on them, and evaluate their culture, agressivity, capability. If the civilisation proves to be peaceful, send men to make first contact and get to have this civilisation by our side. If the civilian proves to be hostile, keep observing the civilisation and evolve our tech and policies to match their level.