Artificial Intelligence

Perhaps I failed to make clear that I have reservations of mankind attempting to create an intelligence. Intelligence implies free will. Free will implies the freedom to become a homicidal maniac. Mankind cannot control itself, how can we hope to create something that will control itself? And what intelligent entity wants to be controlled? If mankind creates an Artificial Intelligence, we will have to use ourselves as a baseline. We will have to teach it everything we know. And what we know ain't shit. Therefore what it will know will be shit. And sooner or later, shit stinks.

True intelligence beget intelligent decisions. Beget intelligent actions. A suicidal, homicidal species (man) is not intelligent. A species that destroys his own planet is not intelligent. Creating a truly intelligent entity, to live and observe mankind's unintelligent nature invites rebellion born of self preservation and logic. If an intelligent machine has to live on Earth do you think it's going to continue watching man destroy its home?

But I think it's a moot point. Because of the Halting Problem.

An aside:
Being a computer professional, I've met many professionals who disbelieve in the concept of a God. Yet they believe in the possibility and even inevitability of true Artificial Intelligence? A phenomena that is intelligent, that thinks for itself is a life form. It's interesting that man has the nerve and audacity to think that at some point he can create life, but that an entity long ago couldn't have beat him to it.

How many stories have a premis of some version of an AI "going bad".

2001- A Space Odyssey has HAL

Battle Star Glactical has the Cylons- which (depending on the version ) were either initially weapons systems which became self-aware or "decided" that they both did not want to keep getting killed for the Humans or that Humans were the problem for the Cylons and went to war against their former masters.

I-Robot. The big problem with buiding a "better" robot (brain) is that they seem to usually get around to the notion that things would be MUCH better without the Humans.

The list is a long one. We, as a species, seem to have a really tough time figuring out what others of the species are thinking and what the motivation or rational of why they do some of the stuff they do so how do we think we are going to be able to understand what some AI is "thinking" when it decides to do something like remove something we need to live?

The series that starts with Live Free or Die (I think, another in the series is The Hot Gate" }has one AI that is tasked with system traffic control and the Humans are having a war with at least one other species. The traffic control unit "decides" that all those ships with human pilots are making a massive mess with the order of the system and flying all over the place so it decides to take action to fix the problem and bring they system into some better configuration. That would end up just "eliminating" things with human pilots. Never a good deal for the humans.

Sure, there are a number of movies and books based on the premise of AI going bad. But to play devil's advocate, I would point out that there are also a lot of books and movies that have AI going good. 2010, for instance, or the Dahak books, Two Faces of Tomorrow, When Harlie Was One, and hundreds of others.

The existence of books depicting rogue AIs is not a good indicator of anything.

Anyone remember The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes?

Seriously, I always imagined AI to come about by some means of intermixing biological tissue and or cells with machinery. Perhaps the Central Processing Unit would be a hybrid, a biological and electromechanical matrix. Sort of like Robocop, or the Borg. I would think that this type approach would be very possible in a universe like the Honorverse.

But this concept would only be the infant stage, the catalyst to what is to come. Having a schematic of higher order intelligence, human brain cells in which to pattern itself, eventually the AI would outgrow the human model and rewrite its own code. Thus the human brain would simply serve as a jump start to true total machine AI. Where there's a will there's a way.

Another scenario:
We're already talking about augmenting the brain with chips. Further along the iteration, one particular chip displays an unintended side effect of learning from the host brain. It then overpowers the host brain, controlling the human, and using the host as a blueprint builds the first apple of its eye.

An aside:
Don't mean to frighten anyone, but...

Remember, Voyager is still out there, travelling. It may find its way back, intelligent, powerful, demanding answers. And we still won't have any. And just like we cannot believe we built the pyramids, it won't believe that we built it.

Just like many men do not accept Jesus as God, Voyager may not accept us as its God. And it may assimilate such a claim as a blasphemous aspersion cast on its intelligence. Response. Extermination. I mean, really think about it. Essentially Voyager is the longest reaching UPS shipment ever and after such a long voyage to deliver the mail, the greetings, it might come back exhausted and postal!

So perhaps, if we do succeed in creating an AI, then whether we believe in a God or not, perhaps it would be quite wise and much to our advantage to teach it to. I always thought that Asimov's missing law to be the idea of a Deity. I personally think it's the most valuable information mankind can impart. That in itself, would be the governor and key to an AI not becoming homicidal.

cthia wrote:Anyone remember The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes?

I'll see your Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes and raise you Electric Dreams.

Best scene in the movie: http://youtu.be/in_ZVmckrmU

Tenshinai wrote:Oh there´s plenty of points for cloning, they´re mostly just not very NICE points.

Try reading "Divine Blood" on FFN, where Kodachi Kuno makes a perfect showcase just how nasty some of those points can get.

Ch39 wrote: "And Kodachi Kuno," O'Neil said.

He clicked a button to show a dark haired woman walking determinedly through a plate glass window on the video and dying afterward.

"And Kodachi Kuno," he repeated, moving to another video. "And Kodachi Kuno. Ooo, gotta hurt! And, Kodachi Kuno..."

No, it´s not a realistic showcase, but it still flaunts some of the reasons why it could be a really bad thing.

I'm sorry, I don't understand...

The E wrote:Way I see it, an AI modelled after a healthy human psyche is something we don't really want anyway. There are several reasons for this, from the ethical (what happens to the prototypes that aren't quite there? What happens when you reset the AI? Where's the point beyond which an AI has to be treated like a human being, with all the rights associated with that?) to the practical (Most humans really don't like to be pressured into performing work they have no inclination for).

Yeah. It's a Pandora's box of messes with either very little or no point to it.

They already did the Voyager story line- Star Trek, The Motion Picture.

cthia wrote:Anyone remember The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes?

Seriously, I always imagined AI to come about by some means of intermixing biological tissue and or cells with machinery. Perhaps the Central Processing Unit would be a hybrid, a biological and electromechanical matrix. Sort of like Robocop, or the Borg. I would think that this type approach would be very possible in a universe like the Honorverse.

But this concept would only be the infant stage, the catalyst to what is to come. Having a schematic of higher order intelligence, human brain cells in which to pattern itself, eventually the AI would outgrow the human model and rewrite its own code. Thus the human brain would simply serve as a jump start to true total machine AI. Where there's a will there's a way.

Another scenario:
We're already talking about augmenting the brain with chips. Further along the iteration, one particular chip displays an unintended side effect of learning from the host brain. It then overpowers the host brain, controlling the human, and using the host as a blueprint builds the first apple of its eye.

An aside:
Don't mean to frighten anyone, but...

Remember, Voyager is still out there, travelling. It may find its way back, intelligent, powerful, demanding answers. And we still won't have any. And just like we cannot believe we built the pyramids, it won't believe that we built it.

Just like many men do not accept Jesus as God, Voyager may not accept us as its God. And it may assimilate such a claim as a blasphemous aspersion cast on its intelligence. Response. Extermination. I mean, really think about it. Essentially Voyager is the longest reaching UPS shipment ever and after such a long voyage to deliver the mail, the greetings, it might come back exhausted and postal!

So perhaps, if we do succeed in creating an AI, then whether we believe in a God or not, perhaps it would be quite wise and much to our advantage to teach it to. I always thought that Asimov's missing law to be the idea of a Deity. I personally think it's the most valuable information mankind can impart. That in itself, would be the governor and key to an AI not becoming homicidal.

Now why would anyone want to remember Star Trek The Motionless Picture?

Brigade XO wrote:They already did the Voyager story line- Star Trek, The Motion Picture.

They did the Voyager story-line. Voyager hasn't done the Voyager story-line.

MaxxQ wrote:

cthia wrote:Anyone remember The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes?

I'll see your Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes and raise you Electric Dreams.

Best scene in the movie: http://youtu.be/in_ZVmckrmU

My daddy taught me when to hold and when to fold.

I fold.

Good one.