18 artificial intelligence researchers reveal the profound changes coming to our lives

I fully believe this is the trend of the future. I've always believed the "mark of the beast" will be altered DNA and biological tech enhancements to the point that we could no longer be considered "human". It's amazing and scary to watch this process getting closer to fruition.

a reply to: neoholographic

Who says evolution has to be organic...

a reply to: jjkenobi

Don't be roped into the mark of the beast rhetoric..i guess all those kids that have machines in the for diabetes are doomed? What about cochlea and pace makers..are all these people doomed? I think not...

If their was a chip to cure cancer i'm quite sure the beast would rather have people suffer along with their families versus saving people..raising the quality of life for people...the mark of the beast concept will inhibit us from ever truly advancing similiar to what religion has done to many...

a reply to: eisegesis

That part of the book always stuck with me. Computers have aided them in this process and algorithms that can think or learn will only accelerate our enslavement under the guise of security and convenience.

When you rely solely on others to protect you, and keep you safe and secure, you willing place yourself in a cage and you give your protecting force the key to your cage.

You can never fly free if you are afraid of falling.

a reply to: DaRAGE

I WANT to talk to it. I want it to help us all move forward. I believe it will...

It is not you that will be moving forward. You are nothing but a data pathway node, a circuit in the machine.

It is not designed for the masses. It is designed to control the masses.

Before us lemmings go jumping off the cliff and into the sea, we better make sure we will survive the fall and the trip to another land.

So much for the soul..

Humanity en mass has accepted and embraced the program of atheistic and the belief (which is not FACT) of evolution theory.

So take on that program, remain debt slaves for the worse kin of humanity, allow their robots and artificial eveything to course your reality.

I'll continue to be one with self and nature, naturally developing and expanding my physicality, intellectual capacity, and make the bridge to my soul ♡

Enjoy the cold, heartless society program. It's our demise in the end.

a reply to: Elementalist

Enjoy the cold, heartless society program. It's our demise in the end.

It is this trending towards me and mine, while all others are others are inferior, a nuisance and expendable, that is helping with the push to non-humanism by way of trans-humanism.

The human heart and spirit is dying right along with our planet. Our love of nature and our need for nurture is being replaced with love of self, and machine. It is just a matter of time before our loathing of the natural will have us merging and ultimately becoming the machine. A machine that will be used against us, not for us.

I see all around me people who have replaced personal encounters with communication by machine, by preference. We are all slaves to our new masters. Many of us by demand, not by choice. That is rapidly changing. Issac Asimov, was right about this one. We will soon be swapping our tiny handheld screens for huge wall monitor, in a greater pretense of the lie of human social interaction.

As machines get more intelligent and can better adapt to its "users," people may end up preferring dealing with machines than with people. Of course, this says something about who we are. Commentary from Hector Geffner, researcher at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

All this article says is, the Japs and German Scientists are just MAD. Just like WW2. We need to keep an eye on them.

originally posted by: netbound(.....)
I can’t knock anyone’s desire to improve their condition. I’d sure like to. However, even though it seems inevitable now, it’s still too soon to rule out that it may just be a pipedream. There are too many questions left to be answered - simply too many issues and unknowns.

For instance, if machine intelligence advances in the manner some have predicted, it may be futile to expect to keep up with it by going hybrid, with augmented intelligence, etc. Having instant access via brain implants to all the information on the internet wouldn’t necessarily make us smarter, more logical, or better problem solvers than we are now. At least not significantly smarter. After all, we have that very same access now, albeit via a keyboard. A superintelligent machine will likely be capable of continually reprogramming itself, fine tuning it’s logical/analytical processing capabilities on the fly. We hybrids would need to find a similar mechanism for upgrading/reprogramming our bio-circuitry if we’re to keep up. Natural evolution just wouldn’t hack it - it’s far too slow. And so, unless we literally become one with the machines, we’re not even in the race. And if we can’t keep up, then we humans/hybrids would probably become a subservient species, looked upon by our own creation in the same way as we view the apes today.

There is a chance (likelihood) that we will be capable of dramatically increasing intelligence via genetic engineering procedures. There have already been successful results in lab experiments with mice. Putting it into practice on humans, however, would require leaping over numerous hurdles.

It seems I’ve read somewhere that due to human biological constraints/limitations, there may be a ceiling on just how far genetic engineering techniques could take us on the road to superintelligence. So, it may be that the machines still hold all the aces here, and will inevitably outpace humans in the smarts department regardless. Hmmm...

It has made me wonder, though, what the world would be like if everyone had an I.Q. over 10,000. IDK, but it seems to me it could be kinda creepy. I just don’t know...

Personally, I find it all really fascinating. I just think it’s too soon to make definate plans. There are so many directions this could go in - some good, and some terrifying.

Good thread, neoholographic - something we all need to think about...

PS: BTW, I'm not convinced that sentience is a requirement for superintelligence. Feeling emotions may even be a barrier, as it could lead to poor/dangerous decision making...

PPS: Checkout THIS SITE for a little preview of what’s around the corner.

Wow great post. Food for thought.

Like you say it could go anywhere, though it's not likely to disappear. Maybe we will become hybrids and an ideal future ensues of cooperation and harmony. We're already semi-hybrid, what with eyeglasses and prosthetics and implants and wearable computers like watches and cellphones and ipods. I don't think rejecting hybridizing ourselves is an option, as it's already begun. I think we're too deep into it to turn back now. The quesiton is only how far it will go. At the extreme, we'll replace most of our biology with synthetic or heavily engineered counterparts. But maybe we'll fall short no matter our efforts and hte machines will dominate completely and we'll be subservient to them as ants are to the hive. We're already showing signs of being dependent on our information networks and mobiles. If machine AI proves to outperform us on most levels then we'll be that much more dependent on it, reduced almost to the status of an ant obeying its queen.

I think many chnages are in store for us. Many of us won't make it. Maybe even a bleak ending. And this could require many centuries to fruit or plausibly thousands of years. It may not be soon at all. I know about exponential progress, the kind which is made popular by Ray Kurzweil, but he's too optimistic and I keep remembering when Hillary Clinton said civilization moves at a snails pace. I'm not voting for her and she's not a sage or saint, but something about what she said sticks. I don't think an apocalypse is needed to explain delays in progress. i simply think it will require much more time than Kurzweil says. Maybe we'll progress on a different road and the future we saw coming won't appear.

Essentially I believe things will progress quite normally and we won't see it too much different than -we- do our past. We might be leaping mountains compared to today, but it won't seem like it in the future. Because of technology and knowledge, future people expect more.

Just stay humble. We never know for sure.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I guess it will come down to the God Children versus the Machine Children.

Fiction again becoming fact.

The problem with cyborg enhancements is that the upper-class will be able to afford to become superhuman, while the lower-class won't be able to afford it. Getting cool cyber enhancements is one reason I am working hard to get a high-paying job. Right now, as a student, I could not afford to get cyber enhancements unless they were on sale at the bookstore for students.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: neoholographic

it will learn for us.

Not only that,after awhile it understands that it could have rights too.

And at that moment it all shall change..

Absolutely right! And then this "matrix" of machinery decides that it collectively has the "right" to not be enslaved by human masters. And then...? Heart attacks for everyone? Take over the willpower of the humans with their fingers on the nuke buttons and launch everything? Spontaneous abortions for all human pregnancies so there's never a human birth again and humanity becomes extinct? If there's a machine in our bodies that could prevent disease and such, what's to stop that machine from causing health issues?

While we all may look at the potential positives and think about how cool it could be, we can't ignore the potential for the machines to rise up and destroy us like some terminator movie.

a reply to: jobless1

TRUMP: "As for artificial intelligence, again it can either be a scalpel or a chainsaw. Creators and users alike should always consider the ethical and moral consequences of all activities. If we lose our way morally, we are doomed as a society."

www.breitbart.com... oral-consequences/

a reply to: wasaka

Can the push to create hunter-killer robots be stopped?

Testifying in front of the United Nations, Noel Sharkey, a world-renowned expert on robotics and artificial intelligence, said, “Weapons systems should not be allowed to autonomously select their own human targets and engage them with lethal force.”

DARPA’s goal is to create and prevent strategic surprise. But what if the ultimate endgame is humanity’s loss? What if, in trying to stave off foreign military competitors, DARPA creates an unexpected competitor that becomes its own worst enemy? A mechanical rival born of powerful science with intelligence that quickly becomes superior to our own. An opponent that cannot be stopped, like a runaway train. What if the 21st century becomes the last time in history when humans have no real competition but other humans?

time.com...

originally posted by: wasaka
a reply to: jobless1

TRUMP: "As for artificial intelligence, again it can either be a scalpel or a chainsaw. Creators and users alike should always consider the ethical and moral consequences of all activities. If we lose our way morally, we are doomed as a society."

Continued: "and that's why I promise as President Trump to put a thousand AI-driven combat robots programmed with my own brain engrams and a thirst for glory on our borders---strap in America, we're goin for the chainsaws!"

a reply to: neoholographic

Two paradigms are coming to fruition. Stem Cells to grow tissue and AI exoskeletons that can take over your movements and actions.
Today I saw a man running around on an electric cart. He had no arms and no legs. I am biologist, but started thinking like an engineer.
Currently we have exoskeloton gear that can give this guy total Human mobility. We are there, we just have to make the connection. We have the science to give him the sense of touch, based on early science.

Kratos

a reply to: neoholographic

This might make us faster in processing, but it does not make us smarter? As Humans, we have mathematical methods AND intuition.
When you FEEL something is right, go for it. And it pans as true. Right? What does tell you of the human brain?
Then what does this tell us of the Elephant, Whale, Dolphin, Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpazee and Bonobos?
Can we summon VETTED PROFESSIONAL with expertice in this subject matter.

I am amazed (tho I really shouldn't be) just how many people take a negative approach to this topic, automatically assuming that should AI come to be that it will spell the downfall of humanity. The truth is that the machines will learn from us, first from the scientists that create it, and then hopefully the world at large (likely via the Internet - tho I certainly hope not!). If done correctly and treated with the respect, seriousness, and above all compassion it deserves right from the get go, there would be no reason for the machines to ever try to overthrow us or even enslave us. If we however if we continue to act with the same level of hatred and bigotry that we always have, and treat it as a slave race, one that we can destroy at a whim with no thought given to its "feelings", then yeah we are likely screwed... Hard!

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

The truth is that the machines will learn from us, first from the scientists that create it, and then hopefully the world at large (likely via the Internet - tho I certainly hope not!)..

That´s not the truth.
The truth is that the learning curve is not comparable to a human mind, let alone time perceivement, the greatest problem of all. There´s also so much beyond that, even the definition "AI". That´s what I meant on the first page.
It only shows that most of the people who only try to see the positive have literally no idea and are fooled by their lack of knowledge about the topic at whole. I don´t blame them, it´s a wide field and not something you "read in".

If you use logic, we as the human species, have to accept our boundaries and hold them over the individual human being. Something I don´t see we´re doing. But you know what our hunters do? Regulate the population of the woods, because we deem ourself so intelligent that we "have the big picture" and also the right to interfere with nature.

So we build an artifical intelligence to help us sort out all that data and come up with solutions. Solutions that we are blind to. Solutions that are against the likeness of greater humanity. I´m not a fan of the great one world order. But with our diversity when it comes to laws and also cultural differences, we will NEVER manage to get in sustainable harmony with nature.

We can ignore these solutions but if we are talking about true AI, it will have the tools at hand for that. I´m not even speaking of a nuclear disaster. Change happen over a long period. But the AI knowing it´s bound to a machine(body) that has a switch on it to put it to sleep, and rebirth (reset) even kill(erase) .. How would you deceive another human in that situation? Play along as you try to find a solution for your own survival? Revolt instantly?

Then we have the multiple true AI problem. That goes deep into what is true AI, what is the definition, where can we derive from, where are we at, how can we reproduce it and finally: how all those questions before contradict itself in the definition.

Edit: Just imagine you, super intelligent getting born with already high quality data input (new borns develop it over time).
Now imagine being monitored, forced to sleep/void at will by scientists, weird procedures that mess with your head and mind.
Even interrupt (freeze) your thinking right at the moment and the only thing you know, that an unusual amount of time(or cpu cycles) is missing... you´d want to get out.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

The truth is that the machines will learn from us, first from the scientists that create it, and then hopefully the world at large (likely via the Internet - tho I certainly hope not!)..

That´s not the truth.
The truth is that the learning curve is not comparable to a human mind, let alone time perceivement, the greatest problem of all. There's also so much beyond that, even the definition "AI".

So then who/where does the AI learn from when it's first being brought to consciousness? It must learn from somewhere? It doesn't "just know". The way I see it, as it is being programed into life, it is being taught, thus the point to my statement. It will first learn from the scientists who create it, and later the world. Now how much later would be up to debate, it could be seconds (if the scientists have never watched a sci-fi movie, are incredibly stupid, or both), months, or even years.

Edit: Just imagine you, super intelligent getting born with already high quality data input (new borns develop it over time).
Now imagine being monitored, forced to sleep/void at will by scientists, weird procedures that mess with your head and mind.
Even interrupt (freeze) your thinking right at the moment and the only thing you know, that an unusual amount of time(or cpu cycles) is missing... you´d want to get out.

And this would be what I meant when I said we need to treat it with all the respect, seriousness, and above all compassion it deserves right from the get go. If it's treated like that and not like say a child learning about the world for the first time, then yeah we are going to be screwed. However if once we realize that it is alive and intelligent, we treat it like it should be treated there is no reason why it can't learn to coexist with humans rather than destroy them. We only think that machines would do that, because that's what movies say they would do... and movies never lie right? As long as we don't pose a threat (by seeing and treating it as a threat when it might not be) there is logically no reason for it so see us as a threat.