Year of the Sloth

[Sommerswerd]

The AI overlords will be the same as all other systems. The most powerful people will control the system to benefit themselves them most at the expense of everyone else.

EDIT: xposted with @Bootstoots above... who seems to have covered it in more detail... Think of my post as a TL;DR

 

[Commodore]

The AI overlords will be the same as all other systems. The most powerful people will control the system to benefit themselves them most at the expense of everyone else.

Nah. The AIs will eventually achieve complete control independent of any human power. I mean, how exactly do you think the wealthy elite are going to be able to control a fully sapient AI that can make literally thousands, possibly millions, of decisions in the time it takes a human to make a single decision?

Not that that would be a bad thing mind you. I look forward to the day that I'm just a zoo exhibit for the machines.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nah. The AIs will eventually achieve complete control independent of any human power. I mean, how exactly do you think the wealthy elite are going to be able to control a fully sapient AI that can make literally thousands, possibly millions, of decisions in the time it takes a human to make a single decision?

With a bat and a pair of cable cutters.

 

[Zkribbler]

I look forward to the day that I'm just a zoo exhibit for the machines.

Maybe it won't be machines, but machine, because all the AIs will be merged into a single network.

 

[El_Machinae]

As long as I can get rich by creating technology that replaces you, and there is no sufficient safety net to protect you, in the long run you're screwed. And then someone else create technology that forces me to pay money with no hope of earning more

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'll be dead before any of that happens.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nah. The AIs will eventually achieve complete control independent of any human power. I mean, how exactly do you think the wealthy elite are going to be able to control a fully sapient AI that can make literally thousands, possibly millions, of decisions in the time it takes a human to make a single decision?

Not that that would be a bad thing mind you. I look forward to the day that I'm just a zoo exhibit for the machines.

Like @Timsup2nothin said, one thing that prevents people from permanently "solving" the issue of being controlled/manipulated/exploited etc., by other humans is the laws we have against murder... and even then it doesn't always work. The AI has no such robust protection... not yet at least.

 

[Lexicus]

The machines have already taken over. How long would you last in the wild without them? You feed and tend the machines all day, give them electricity, gasoline, whatever they demand. You panic when they fail you. Do not deceive yourself, you are not master.

Machines don't do anything that a human didn't tell them to do. Literally, nothing.

 

[HoloDoc]

Machines don't do anything that a human didn't tell them to do. Literally, nothing.

I have literally watched my iPad chess program make moves on its own. Clearly, Skyney is in my Chess.

 

[Lexicus]

I have literally watched my iPad chess program make moves on its own. Clearly, Skyney is in my Chess.

I'm not sure whether you're being serious, but every move your chess program makes follows a set of heuristics that were programmed into it by a human.

 

[HoloDoc]

I'm not sure whether you're being serious, but every move your chess program makes follows a set of heuristics that were programmed into it by a human.

Of course I'm being serious. I seriously believe Skynet infiltrated my Chess app. It knows my mediocre skills are a tactical threat.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course I'm being serious. I seriously believe Skynet infiltrated my Chess app. It knows my mediocre skills are a tactical threat.

Well I didn't think you were being serious about that part.

 

[HoloDoc]

Well I didn't think you were being serious about that part.

My ex was a programmer. I have a basic understanding of these things. Although I was more interested in her breasts than her work.

The issue with sentient AI is it may have the ability to program itself. Then we flesh bags are in trouble.

 

[Naskra]

Machines don't do anything that a human didn't tell them to do. Literally, nothing.

Denial, literally. (note antique but correct usage of 'literally')

 

[Lexicus]

Denial, literally. (note antique but correct usage of 'literally')

I'll give you that you found a creative way to tell the world you don't know anything about computers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My ex was a programmer. I have a basic understanding of these things. Although I was more interested in her breasts than her work.

The issue with sentient AI is it may have the ability to program itself. Then we flesh bags are in trouble.

I'm telling ya, nothing a bat and a pair of cable cutters won't fix. I carry them with me at all times, just in case.

I'll give you that you found a creative way to tell the world you don't know anything about computers.

That was a great joke, and you missed it.

 

[HoloDoc]

I'm telling ya, nothing a bat and a pair of cable cutters won't fix. I carry them with me at all times, just in case.

I'm more likely to use that bat on my neighbours and coworkers.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Same thing with Jeopardy!: "The Computer won easily, but it's not really smart like me.' Denial.

Not true. When Ken Jennings lost to Watson, he wrote on his screen "I for one welcome our new computer overlords."

 

[Lexicus]

Computers are so stupid that you need to tell them what to do with such precision that we call it "coding".

There's the hard problem of consciousness to solve before we get sentient or sapient AI, and to be honest the more I've learned about that, the more it seems to me that @innonimatu is likely right about "strong" AI: it will be perpetually a few decades away.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Computers are so stupid that you need to tell them what to do with such precision that we call it "coding".

There's the hard problem of consciousness to solve before we get sentient or sapient AI, and to be honest the more I've learned about that, the more it seems to me that @innonimatu is likely right about "strong" AI: it will be perpetually a few decades away.

LOL My Comp Sci teacher in middle school began the school year by writing on the chalkboard "COMPUTERS ARE DUMB". He then went on to dispel the notions we all had about how "smart" computers were, stating some of the exact things you said.

Reading this it dawns on me how unreasonable we gamers are with our constant whining for "better" AI opponents. I hear folks complaining all the time about the "stupid" AI in Civ games. But look how much went into creating the AI that could defeat the best players in Chess... which compared to a game with as many variables, strategies and exploits as Civilization... is downright simplistic. And since Chess is timeless, programmers have decades to keep working on the AI to perfect its play, on a game that never changes, whereas the developers of a Civ game only have a few years before the game becomes obsolete... meanwhile all during the time where the game is still viable, new expansions, DLC, bug-fixes, nerfs, buffs, etc., keep changing the game.

It must be maddening for the developers to hear players constantly complaining "Why can't they just design a proper AI?!"