Willful Machines: Is AI a Threat to Humanity?

[Nous]

Make sure you hardwire (unalterable non software programming) the three laws of robotics into it first, or a very close approximation that removes some errors that might occur from sticking to the three laws inflexibly as Asimov reveals as plot lines in his sci fi books about robots, of which there are a few.

''1.A robot may not injure a human being [or other animal] or, through inaction, allow a human being [or other animal] to come to harm.

2.A robot must obey orders given 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.''

 

[Nous]

Why would an immensely powerful thinking machine stand idly by while lesser entities destroy its habitat?

The question of the thread is whether any such hypothetical "immensely powerful thinking[?] machine" could decide on its own to act contrary to its program.

On a brighter note, there's always the off button.

Yeah, when have we ever been so stupid as to build a machine without an OFF button?

 

[Nous]

According to Scientology, yes sorry Scientology but for the sake of an interesting story.

Consciousness, life, beings before had robotic bodies. They wanted to find a way to develop organically grown bodies. So they developed the science of organic reproduction. This was so economic and successful they eventually abandoned the use of robotic bodies.

This of course assumes that consciousness has the ability to invest itself into any physical form.

So robots take over, decide they want feelings and emotions and stuff. Create a physical form that allows for this and we're back to human beings in a never ending cycle.

This is a real Scientology story?

 

[Nous]

I just question the ability to give them conscious will to rebel against what man has programmed them to do.

I question that also.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Then humans would be free to make a living by sitting around and debating--like we do here. Or perhaps some of us would enjoy the freedom to go express our nuturing instincts toward animals and plants.

I agree.

How does one create a will out of electrical circuitry, or whatever? Has any experiment ever demonstrated that?

No.

 

[Nakosis]

This is a real Scientology story?

This is from L Ron Hubbard's "Have You Lived Before"

Apparently we were all issued with similar type prototype bodies about five feet tall and by this time were all so thoroughly hypnotised that I thought I was the only being present – but discovered on running the incident that there was a being with each body and that we were all completely and thoroughly enslaved to the beings who ran the robots. Their story was that we were in different ways to help form bones and organs inside these bodies – by different types of experiments – which I did; but others were used to develop the mechanical ability of these bodies. There were two types of being running the robots – orthodox and progressive. Orthodox wanted to retain robot bodies but progressives wanted these new-type ones developed and, as our powers were greater than theirs, they enticed us to do the work for them – so we were really entrapped.

 

[Corvus]

Nous, why is (or other animal) a necessary addition in your view?

 

[Corvus]

I question that also.

Humans are partly programmed and partly able to make decisions that go against nature and instinct.

 

[Augustus]

In the past, automation taking over jobs led to new avenues of employment (and, of course, people utilized the new technology in order to produce fewer children). I'm unsure why automation in the future should be different.

Why would it be different? Because of the scale and range of jobs that will be affected, and the limited room for new, labour intensive industries to rise up. New jobs will appear of course, it is certainly not a given that they will appear in equal numbers though.

Major historical employment changes:

agriculture - production - service

New, labour intensive, industries took up the slack. Tech companies are not labour intensive and can't take up the slack. A company like Amazon could have automated warehousing and delivery in the not too distant future, and will be the worlds largest retailer with a few hundred staff who will be making probably millions of people unemployed worldwide.

There probably isn't massive growth in service industries, which would be needed to simply 'break even' with job losses from AI.

Where do you see the new jobs coming from?

Why not?

They won't have human emotions and the inbuilt biases and irrationalities that we evolved with.

If humans create a machine too complex for us or the machine to predict the output given an input, perhaps we could build another machine to analyze the first machine.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on the technology and this hasn't been invented yet.

 

[David1967]

If a machine were to deduce that humans are an "unnecessary risk to the world," it would only be because the machine had been programmed to make such a deduction. There has to be lots of other assumptions before one can consider such a deduction made by a machine threatening to humanity.

True, but I was looking past "programming" to a hypothetical time when they become self aware and therefore go beyond programming to thinking for themselves. Check out the ( I believe it was) discovery channel series 'Year Million'. This series explores this very subject.

 

[Nous]

How does one create a will out of electrical circuitry, or whatever? Has any experiment ever demonstrated that?

No.

Digital computers are so different architecturally from brains I am highly skeptical that the former will ever exhibit anything akin to consciousness or free will--even if it were true that brains produce consciousness and free will.

 

[Nous]

This is from L Ron Hubbard's "Have You Lived Before"

Apparently we were all issued with similar type prototype bodies about five feet tall and by this time were all so thoroughly hypnotised that I thought I was the only being present – but discovered on running the incident that there was a being with each body and that we were all completely and thoroughly enslaved to the beings who ran the robots. Their story was that we were in different ways to help form bones and organs inside these bodies – by different types of experiments – which I did; but others were used to develop the mechanical ability of these bodies. There were two types of being running the robots – orthodox and progressive. Orthodox wanted to retain robot bodies but progressives wanted these new-type ones developed and, as our powers were greater than theirs, they enticed us to do the work for them – so we were really entrapped.

That is just amazing. Even more amazing is that there is a whole group of adherents to such ideas.

 

[Nous]

Nous, why is (or other animal) a necessary addition in your view?

So what? Restate, please.

 

[Nous]

Humans are partly programmed and partly able to make decisions that go against nature and instinct.

I wonder how that "partly able to make decisions and go against nature and instinct" happens. I wonder how anyone imagines a machine having the ability to do something it hasn't been programmed to do--which seems to me would be necessary in order for AI to threaten the existence of human civilization, as Musk seems to fear.

 

[Nous]

Why would it be different? Because of the scale and range of jobs that will be affected, and the limited room for new, labour intensive industries to rise up. New jobs will appear of course, it is certainly not a given that they will appear in equal numbers though.

Major historical employment changes:

agriculture - production - service

New, labour intensive, industries took up the slack. Tech companies are not labour intensive and can't take up the slack. A company like Amazon could have automated warehousing and delivery in the not too distant future, and will be the worlds largest retailer with a few hundred staff who will be making probably millions of people unemployed worldwide.

There probably isn't massive growth in service industries, which would be needed to simply 'break even' with job losses from AI.

Where do you see the new jobs coming from?

I assure you my visions of the distant future have little basis in reality. Like I said, I imagine humans somwhow being able to make a living by sitting around and debating online.

Nevertheless, if making a living in the future entails some kind of productive work and making products, then we can't have a world where all production is automated because no one would be able to afford to buy the products. E.g., in order for there to be self-flying planes, some number of people are going to have to be doing something to make enough money in order to buy tickets.

They won't have human emotions and the inbuilt biases and irrationalities that we evolved with.

Emotions and inbuilt biases and irrationalities do not create free will, does it?

 

[Nakosis]

​

​

humanity’s time on Earth is nothing more than a brief transitional phase between primordial organic life and the era of the machines - which he’s dubbed a ‘post-human’ future.

So according to this guy, organic life becomes obsolete at some point.

Robots will wipe out humans and take over in 'just a few centuries' warns Royal astronomer

 

[Nous]

True, but I was looking past "programming" to a hypothetical time when they become self aware and therefore go beyond programming to thinking for themselves. Check out the ( I believe it was) discovery channel series 'Year Million'. This series explores this very subject.

I will check it out. As I said, I am skeptical of conscious digital machines and (even more so) of willful machines.

 

[Nous]

​

humanity’s time on Earth is nothing more than a brief transitional phase between primordial organic life and the era of the machines - which he’s dubbed a ‘post-human’ future.

So according to this guy, organic life becomes obsolete at some point.

Robots will wipe out humans and take over in 'just a few centuries' warns Royal astronomer

My first question about that proposition is: Why haven't machines already taken over and made organic life obsolete? I mean, surely there are intelligent organic beings who are many, many times older and more evolved than humans. Why haven't they ushered in this change to a machine-based universe?

 

[Yerda]

I don't find the scenario of a paperclip-making machine using up all the matter in the solar system plausible at all. It's a B-grade movie plot.

Neither do I. I do find the general argument underlying it to be plausible though not so plausible that I'm worried about it.

 

[Corvus]

So what? Restate, please.

What? Nevermind. I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.