‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ and the Risks of Artificial Intelligence

By E. Paul Zehr | May 1, 2015 11:26 am

ultron

Technology enhanced with artificial intelligence is all around us. You might have a robot vacuum cleaner ready to leap into action to clean up your kitchen floor. Maybe you asked Siri or Google—two apps using decent examples of artificial intelligence technology—for some help already today. The continual enhancement of AI and its increased presence in our world speak to achievements in science and engineering that have tremendous potential to improve our lives.

Or destroy us.

At least, that’s the central theme in the new Avengers: Age of Ultron movie with headliner Ultron serving as exemplar for AI gone bad. It’s a timely theme, given some high-profile AI concerns lately. But is it something we should be worried about?


Artificial Intelligence Gone Rogue

How bad is Ultron? The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe lists his occupation as “would-be conquerer, enslaver of men” with genius intelligence, superhuman speed, stamina, reflexes, and strength, subsonic flight speed, and demi-godlike durability. The good news is that Ultron has “normal” agility and “average hand to hand skills.” Meaning if you can get in close to an autonomous robot with superhuman speed, you should be good to go. At least briefly.

But perhaps most importantly, Ultron represents the ultimate example of artificial intelligence applications gone wrong: intelligence that seeks to overthrow the humans who created it.

Subsequent iterations of Ultron were self-created, each one getting stronger, smarter, and more bent on fulfilling two main desires: survival and bringing peace and order to the universe. The unfortunate part for us humans is that Ultron would like to bring peace and order by eliminating all other intelligent life in the universe. The main theme in Age of Ultron is this fictional conflict between biological beings and artificial intelligence (with a mean streak). But how fictional is it?

Thinking Machines

The answers are found in scientific research related to the fields of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and artificial life. These are fields that continue to expand at a ridiculous, if not superhuman, pace.

One of the most recent breakthroughs was a study in which Volodymyr Mnih and colleagues at Google DeepMind challenged a neural network to learn how to play video games.

The point was to see if the software (rather ominously called a “deep Q-network agent”) could apply lessons learned in one game to master another game. For more than half of the games examined, the deep Q-network agent was better than human level. This list includes Boxing, Video Pinball, Robotank (a favorite of mine), and Tutankham.

And though arcade games may seem trivial, the takeaway here really had nothing to do with games per se. The relevance is that an AI system could adapt its skills to situations for which its programmer had never prepared it. The AI was effectively learning how to apply skills in a new way, basically thinking on its own. Which is relevant in considering the possibility of an AI going rogue.

IBM's Watson computer is a well-known instance of AI. Credit: Clockready

IBM’s Watson computer is a well-known instance of AI. Credit: Clockready

Sounding an Alarm

So, is this a problem? Coverage in popular media often seems to give the spin that machine learning and artificial intelligence are things to fear. There is a boundary that separates helpful applications of AI—imagine a scenario of robot-conducted surgery performed in a remote community and overseen by a physician in a distant location—from truly frightening scenarios of near-future military applications. Imagine the combination of current combat drone technology with artificial intelligence computer engines giving independence to machine warfare.

The real problem is that we don’t often recognize that we have crossed these kinds of boundaries until we are already on the other side. In science we often push to discover and apply things before we truly understand all the implications—both positive and negative—that will accompany them. We often do things because we can without fully considering if we should, in fact, do them at all.

It’s a sentiment that has been surprisingly echoed among various tech cognoscenti in recent months. In late 2014, Tesla CEO Elon Musk told an MIT symposium, “I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I had to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that.” And in January he put his money behind the cause, donating $10 million to a non-profit for AI safety.

Bill Gates revealed his reservations about AI in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session later that same month, writing, “I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.”

And last year, Stephen Hawking co-authored an article on the risks of AI, saying it could be the “worst mistake in history.”

A Different Vision

Central to these concerns is artificial intelligence’s theoretical independence from human regulatory interaction. To avoid such extreme independence—and that sci-fi end-game of Ultron—maybe we’d be better off adopting the approach of “collaborative intelligence” as computer scientist Susan Epstein proposed in a recent study.

We traditionally build machines because we need help, Epstein writes. But perhaps a less-capable machine could be equally helpful, by allowing humans to do things that they’re better at anyway, such as pattern recognition and problem solving. In other words, built-in inabilities in our intelligent robots could allow them to perform their jobs better while keeping them in check—though at the cost of requiring more interaction with their human overseers.

In the tradition of sci-fi futurists Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and Isaac Asimov, the future is “supposed to be a fully automated, atomic-powered, germ-free utopia” Daniel H. Wilson wrote some years back. A collaborative view of AI, on the other hand, equates to thinking about robots as tools—sometimes very smart ones—that humans can employ and work with rather than a replacement for humans altogether.

This view, though, is at odds with the imperative to instrument and mechanize operations of all sorts wherever they are found. The end game—as Ultron’s creators discover—has disastrous ramifications. We all get to enjoy watching this dystopian future play out on the big screen this week. Luckily for our future selves, in the real world these conversations are still happening as we continue to progress toward smarter and smarter machines.

But maybe not too smart. I still want to win at Robotank.

Top image courtesy Marvel

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Technology, Top Posts
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Jay_tea

    But the robot that played the video games only did so because it was directed to. The operator of the “intelligent” machine needed to give it a goal to seek and by which to measure it’s performance. Intelligence alone does not have any goals therefor a machine can’t decide to overthrow humanity unless directed to by a person! I’m still and will always be more worried about being nuked.

    • HarryObrian

      You’ll never know you were nuked and if you do it will only be for a short while. You should be more concerned with developing cancer.
      A robot’s major goal that could eventually overthrow humanity might be as simple as staying charged.

    • Raffi256

      The danger is from giving it a goal that isn’t precise or well-defined and it “mindlessly” optimizing things in pursuit of that goal. You could get results that are very dangerous. It’s better to think of it as an abstract thing, an optimization function, than a robot or whatever.

      • Jay_tea

        Anyone who would give a goal-seeking algorithm a poorly defined goal doesn’t know what they’re doing and doesn’t belong in the business. (Enter Elon Musk…)

      • Jack Thompson

        Just look at Asimov’s three robot rules.

        1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

        2. A robot must obey the 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 Laws.

        A robot could determine the best way to fulfill the first rule is to place every human in a padded room for the rest of their lives thus eliminating any potential harm.

        • KevinPhillipsBong

          …or place your conscious brain in a jar for all eternity.

          • Jack Thompson

            Yep. The problem with creating a conscious A.I. is that people keep trying to relate just how it will function when we honestly have no idea how it will full flesh out. It’s thought processes could be completely foreign to human thought.

    • Jack Thompson

      Free thinking and creative intelligence are what A.I. researchers are working towards right now. If they succeed they will be creating occupational competitors which will surpass children in school today.

      • Jay_tea

        A “creative” robot is simply a robot that has been given goals with the intention of those goals emulating (as best as possible) creativity.

        • Jack Thompson

          Even if robots never advance beyond servitude they are still a threat. When a robot can do every occupation better than any human what will humanity do?

          • lolatthefakesjws

            first off we will ship all the “sky is falling” idjits to the moon colony to mine moon rocks. then we will send AI a hunting for a new planet or two or three. once we find one we will send ai to make sure theres a comfy spot waiting for the human sardine can thats coming after.

    • Glen3

      Again, don’t hook any AI to things that can be used to kill us. It’s not like a computer can kill you even if it had the presence of mind to do so.

  • Drew Johnson

    We (mankind) currently has very limited fully-automated production capability. I guess a rogue AI might figure out how to launch missiles, but how would it produce it’s own controllable resources? I’m with Jay on the ‘being nuked’, but I’ll add H5N1/H7N9 as another bigger worry.

    • Jack Thompson

      We don’t have to be nuked to be destroyed. If advancements continue eventually A.I. controlled robots will be able to do every occupation we do and do it better. Absolutely apathy is nearly the same as destroying humanity. We would become competitors with A.I. for resources and they would be very efficient at blocking us from those resources.

  • Well-Manicured Man

    Chimps are being given human rights status today and allowed to sue. So will AI robots, even sooner. Remember how upset some people got at seeing a robot animal being kicked?

  • Just Thinking

    “that seeks to overthrow the humans who created it”…I hear this narrative occasionally from some folks I respect (Elon Musk); however, this fear is rooted in the academic communities feeble attempts to scrub the Bible from their worldview.
    The Word of God says that the heart of man is desperately wicked. The Apostle Paul said, “within me dwells no good thing”.
    Thus the big fuss about a Jewish carpenter who like many at the time and since (do you know George Soros claims to be god?) thought they were deity.
    But this man who came from a jerk water village 2,000 years ago turned the world upside down because He claimed to be God and thus allowed others to ram Him through several kangaroo courts and nail His hands and feet to a piece of wood so He could take the punishment for all of us rebels; consequently, academia and the media are inappropriately applying the rebellion in their hearts to a machine.
    They started this nonsense when they chose to close their Bibles and attempt to explain the world around them on their own…thus we get us coming from guppies and the banal idea that all we are is animals or bags of minerals and chemicals with no reason or purpose. So if you feel a need to be frightened…think about a Mullah with his finger on the button of a nuclear war head…but don’t loose any sleep over computers becoming evil…unless of course an evil man programed it…ok,… be worried folks.
    This does bring up some fun thinking here…just as the archeologist quietly refers to the Bible when digging in the Middle East (due to its constant accuracy when speaking of cities, kings, and civilizations), and the founders of the greatest nation on earth rifled through the Old Testament to find guidelines for behavior from the Torah to create a society that worked well (please lets not talk about their blind spots with women and slaves, for they sure went outside of Scripture for those).
    So, will the programmer need to hide a copy of a Bible in his backpack to reference as to how to program a machine that will not destroy itself or those around it…then when we as a society see how well the Bible works to make “life” work, maybe us “humans” will start rummaging around to see the supernatural insights that are every page of “God’s Word”.

    • David_from_San_Diego

      Some of the things written about in Revelation sound a bit like the very near future. Cashless society … the little things flying through the air (mini combat drones?) … and the Fall of Babylon.

      • tomwillie

        Yes. And all of it, George Bush’s fault.

    • anony

      “But this man who came from a jerk water village 2,000 years ago turned the world upside down…”

      He didn’t “turn the world upside down”; the people who believed he was god turned the world upside down.

      • Just Thinking

        I think I could agree with that as long as we acknowledge that these people who fell to His feet and made Him Lord and Master of their lives were profoundly changed starting with a Roman soldier who was standing at the foot of the Cross who declared, “certainly this was the Son of God”.

        I agree that mere people then began turning the world upside down as they had the luxury to be able to first hand take all that they saw and experienced as Jesus walked this earth and studied what we call the Old Testament (what the Jews call their Bible) and found over 456 prophesies written hundreds of years before Christ was born that were fulfilled flawlessly in Him kind of gets people excited.

        You have to remember that there were hundreds of men who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah walking the dusty roads of the middle east 2,000 years ago…can we name any of them off the top of our heads?

        Any of those men household names?

        Any of those men have the best selling book in history?

        I found this information that talks of information I learned years ago and kind of lost tract of for I need no “evidence” for knowing that my sins are forgiven and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and master but maybe this will help get you to a place of decision…for by the end you will have a clear decision to make….David Williams is a Computer Systems Manager for the Mathematics Faculty at the University of Newcastle. He is a mathematician. In a post out on the web he responded to a Jewish person from Melbourne. His subject was, “Jesus and Prophecy”.

        Here’s what he says:- “In a recent follow up to a posting by Leslie
        Brown I said I’d make a post detailing the probability
        of Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy by chance. Here it is!

        The reason why prophecy is an indication of the divine authorship of the Scriptures, and hence a testimony to the trustworthiness of the Message of the Scriptures, is because of the minute probability of fulfillment.

        Anyone can make predictions. Having those prophecies fulfilled is vastly different. In fact, the more statements made about the future, and the more the detail, then the less likely the precise fulfillment will be.

        For example, what’s the likelihood of a person predicting today the exact city in which the birth of a future leader would take place, well into the 21st century? This is indeed what the prophet Micah did 700 years before the Messiah. Further, what is the likelihood of predicting the precise manner of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience, a thousand years from now – a manner of death presently unknown, and to remain unknown for hundreds of years? Yet, this is what David did in 1000 B.C.

        Again, what is the likelihood of predicting the specific date of the
        appearance of some great future leader, hundreds of years in advance? This is what Daniel did, 530 years before Christ.

        If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never meet, just what’s the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and were completely beyond his control?

        For example, how does someone “arrange” to be born in a specific family?

        How does one “arrange” to be born in a specified city, in which
        their parents don’t actually live? How does one “arrange” their own death – and specifically by crucifixion, with several others, and
        then “arrange” to have their executioners gamble for His clothing
        (John 16:19; Psalms 22:18)?

        How does one “arrange” to be betrayed in advance?
        How does one “arrange” to have the executioners carry out the regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims on either side, but not their own?

        Finally, how does one “arrange” to be God?

        How does one escape from a grave and appear to people after having been killed?

        Indeed, it may be possible for someone to fake one or two of the Messianic prophecies, but it would be impossible for any one person to arrange and fulfill all of these prophecies.

        It must be that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, if he had 456 identifying characteristics well in advance, and fulfilled them all! In fact, what does the science of probability make of this?

        The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt – for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.

        Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

        The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

        However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation.

        Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).

        For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of BETHLEHEM from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during the same period.

        They concluded that the chance of one man being born in
        Bethlehem was one in 300,000, (or one in 2.8 x 10^5 – rounded),

        After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they
        conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.

        To illustrate how large the number 10^17 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :

        If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and
        thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They’ll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state.

        Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the
        same chance that the prophets would’ve had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom (Idem, 106-107).

        In financial terms, is there anyone who would not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10^17? This is the kind of sure investment we’re offered by god for faith in His Messiah.

        From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107) – the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17!

        Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish.

        But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (Idem, 109) (even though he could have used Edersheim’s 456), and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157. In fact, if anybody can find someone, living or dead,
        other than Jesus, who can fulfill only half of the predictions concerning the Messiah given in the book “Messiah in Both Testaments” by Fred J. Meldau, the Christian Victory Publishing Company is ready to give a ONE thousand dollar reward! As apologist Josh McDowell says, “There are a lot of men in the universities that could use some extra cash!” (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, California: Campus Crusade for
        Christ, 175).

        How large is the number one in 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Stoner gives an illustration of this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They’re smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 TIMES 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted 250 of these electrons each minute, and counted day and night, it would still take 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one-inch long (Stoner, op. cit, 109).

        With this introduction, let’s go back to our chance of one in 10^157. Let’s suppose that we’re taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right one.

        What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a
        pile will this number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably large volume.

        This is the result from considering a mere 48 prophecies. Obviously, the probability that 456 prophecies would be fulfilled in one man by chance is vastly smaller. According to Emile Borel, once one goes past one chance in 10^50, the probabilities are so small that it is impossible to think that they will ever occur (Ankerberg et. al., op. cit., 21).

        As Stoner concludes, ‘Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world (Stoner, op. cit., 112).’

        God so thoroughly vindicated Jesus Christ that even mathematicians and statisticians, who were without faith, had to acknowledge that it is scientifically impossible to deny that Jesus is the Christ.

        Our thanks to David Williams, a mathematician who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ.

        • anony

          All of what you write implies that god exists. Some don’t believe that god exists.

          • Just Thinking

            Some don’t believe in gravity either; however, eventual this truth is embraced in either a positive way (by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the sacrifice for our sins) or a negative way (and He said “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”).

            But the good news is that in the book of Peter He says ”
            The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance”.

            So as long as you are alive, you have been given the privileged of choosing to fall at Jesus Feet, turn from your sin and accept His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross to pay the penalty for your sins…

            or…

            To pay the penalty yourself throughout all eternity.

            I would beg you to place your faith in Jesus Christ for He said, “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”…being adopted by the God of this universe and being able to lay my head on my pillow each night knowing all is right between the creator and myself is a thrill that can never be explained to those who have never experienced it but all I can say is that I know what it is like to carry the heavy load of guilt on my shoulders each day and I would never go back to life before Christ saved me and freed me of my guilt for anything in this world.

    • Paula

      Stephen Hawking just wrote that humanity will not survive another 1,000 years. Revelations talks about the 1,000 years of tribulation. I take both warnings seriously, even if you are not a believer you can sense that humanity has become it’s own worst enemy.

      • Just Thinking

        I get the same vibe some days … and the Bible does lay out what will come about in the last years before God clears the table and we all stand before Him and are judged….the book of Hebrews say, “it is appointed onto man to die once, and then the judgement”.

        I’d suggest reading the book of John in a modern translation (the English Standard Version is really easy to read) of the Bible to see for yourself why so much fuss over the past 2,000 years over this one individual….you have to admit that it is rather amazing to see how many of us around the world now for 2 millennia are willing to die for Jesus Christ.

        Once you have a good first hand view of who Jesus Christ is and why He is everything to the several hundred million people around the world, you can go and read the fascinating narrative of the 7 year Tribulation period and the judgement of all of us and then the 1,000 year reign of a Jewish Carpenter who actually is the Son of the One and Only God and creator of this world, and of you and I.

        But before going to the book of Revelation and peering into the abyss, I would suggest learning that you don’t have to go through the chaos and pain that will be experienced by everyone who goes into the last days.

        First learn about how you be forgiven of all of the many times you have done that which you know is wrong.

        Jesus Christ came to this earth because He saw we couldn’t earn favor in His Father’s eyes or meet His standard of holiness.

        Because God is also just, He demands that our many sins be punished. Jesus Christ came to earth and laid His life down and allowed a cruel Roman army the permission to hang Him on a cross to take the punishment for your and my sins.

        We, by faith can accept this free gift of forgiveness so we can stand before God on the Judgement Day” and point to Jesus Christ and say that I know that all of my many sins and offenses against God’s holiness have been dealt with by Jesus and that you have placed your faith in Him to save you from eternal punishment.

        Once you have surrendered to Christ you can then go back into the pages of Revelation and marvel at God’s wrath that will be unleashed on all those who deny or oppose Him.

        This all sounds very harsh to our American sensibilities; however, God is always just meaning no one will stand there before Him and even think the rebellious thought of “no fair” when we are in His presence… in fact He has said very clearly in the book of Romans that everyone of us have been given the knowledge in our souls that He is God and that we are accountable to Him… so no matter how many Marxist Professors we sit under as they attack the Bible almost exclusively, they know, and we know that they are lying to themselves (proclaiming to be wise, they became fools) and hoping that they can take you to eternal destruction with them.

        I would beg you to chose life over eternal separation from the God who made you and loves you so much that He sent His only Son to come and be tortured and be killed for you, and then proved He had the power of God to forgive you by raising from the dead after 3 days in the grave… so you don’t have to pay the penalty.

    • Demosthenes Locke

      Scientists at this level are myopic to the point of being Asburger (SP) autistic and have no social skills. The are frequently at the social skills levels as hackers, and thus need extraordinary oversight and scrutiny on their work and immediately.

      This has to be a world wide movement and agreement that we cannot afford the “unintended consequences of this research” because of the very real potential of the results being an “extinction event”.

  • thisisit

    TERMINATOR!!!

    • Jack Thompson

      The writers for ‘Terminator’ actually did a lot of research into A.I. while writing the script.

      • KevinPhillipsBong

        Especially the Austrian accent.

  • Max

    I just want to know if they can replace the looters in Baltimore and replace all those that make up that same parasitic culture..

    • gdnctr

      They have no measurable intelligence, so AI can easily replace them.

      • BlackMafia4Realz

        I gotz street smarts you cracka-ass foo! Betta wach yo mouth before i busta cap in yo azz

        • Edmond Dantes

          dare you to come within 500 meters of my Liberty Loving, Constitutional admiring (yeah you know the document that helped set the course to emancipate even yo azz by 1860), United States Military trained aim… 😉

          I served my country even to help provide freedom for your sorry a$s…

          Give me Liberty or give me the ability to defend it to the death…

          • glamdeluxe

            Dude! I believe he was joking. I don’t find it that funny but come on.

          • lopagus1

            he dindu nuffins!

          • Bob

            Yeah I think that one flew right over your head.

        • fredfarkel

          Well NaShawn, I think you just made their case…

        • OllieK

          …watch yo mouff…

        • lopagus1

          sheeeeeeeeeeeeertttttt!

          • James R. Gray

            is NaShawn who you were refering to at the top of this discussion?

        • gdnctr

          Very well said, porkchop.

      • Reason And Believing

        Both are programmed

        • JKellogg

          The first wave has already started – – voting machines are programed.

          By the way, how come no one uses a voting machine that registers your vote and then prints out a paper back up for auditing purposes???

          • NY Keith

            Because Democrats’ Intelligence is Artificial.

          • kjatexas

            Because that would make it harder to cheat.

          • http://12160.info/ Free Thinker

            because that would make it fair silly 😉
            2 party paradigm is an illusion and a lie folks

          • Matt Grimes

            This is the correct answer. The two party system is a lie, perpetuated by politicians to make us think that if we vote, it’ll matter. D’s/R’s are two sides of the same coin. Unplug yourself from them both as much as you can. Their biggest fear is a people who realize that we don’t need them.

          • James R. Gray

            If voting made a difference, it would be illegal.

        • Mollie007

          Brilliant answer.

    • Dewreck

      They can and they will.

      • Robert Carter

        This is the most concise and accurate comment on the reality of what will happen. Everything else is based on irrational hope.

    • VendicarDecarian0

      Eventually all Americans will be replaced by intelligent machines, and the world’s collective IQ will skyrocket as a result.

      Republican Americans is just dumb.
      .

      • flashpolitical

        That’s odd, Vendi. There are more very well educated Conservatives than artsy-fartsy Leftists. A known fact. Dem constituency is just barely at a third grade education level, on the average. You guys need to stop listening to verbal snake-oil salesmen and start thinking for yourself. Group-think has stunted your growth.

        • IllKeepMine

          Exactly, well said.

        • Glen3

          Nothing says tiny minds with stunted dreams like progressivism.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Scientists despise Republicans.

          • Herb

            that is because Scientists are not even scientists anymore…just mercenaries for the highest bidder…they are not afraid to fudge the numbers for the liberal cause

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Thank you for illustrating why Scientists hate Republicans.

            It is not only the stench, but the ignorance as well.

          • jim henson

            Yes, who would want progress? Bring on the regression. There’s nothing like going backwards!

        • VendicarDecarian0

          Only 2 percent of scientists identify themselves are Republican.

          98 percent of the worlds most intelligent people are Liberal.

          • NM156

            Only 2 percent of scientists identify themselves as liberal in university administration questionnaires. The rest of the time, they’re laughing at the half of campus that couldn’t tell the difference between a differential equation and a double-headed dildo sold at the student activities center.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Liar Liar.. Pants on fire…

            One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying the President “has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making.”

          • Jack Nicholson

            I believe that this m8 thinks has an IQ of well over 200…thousand. why are we even arguing bout this?

          • Jon Rice

            Your statistics match closely with the 97% consensus of scientist who believe in man made climate change. Coincidentally, both statistical statements are complete bull$hit. 98% of liberals think they’re among the world’s most intelligent.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Scientists hate the GOP for a reason

            www(dot)salon(dot)com/2013/01/1…

            One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying the President “has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making.”

          • Half_Centurian

            In NAZI Germany scientists were very ” progressive ” just ask Jewish children that survived the Nationalist ….. ” Socialist ” … human experiments …

            Nothing like History to give a self centered Progressive … a ” cold ” shower .

            Vendi the NAZI … has a nice ring to it … Nazi – Vendi !!! Yes .

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You poor boy. You still can’t accept the fact that the Na zi’s were Conservatives.

            You no edjimakashun muchlie?

          • Jack Nicholson

            You are such a load of

            Wèishēngzhǐ

          • Bensa Magos

            98% believe in settled science, unlike the 3% that realize science begins with questioning.

          • macoohno21 .

            Throughout history settled science has consistently been modified, adapted, or proven to be wrong. So happy to see that you and your kind are so brilliant as to say that these revisions will no longer happen. You have the final infallible answers. A bit Delusional?

          • Bensa Magos

            I think you meant to reply to the post above mine, correct? My post was also pointing out that true science is never settled.

            If anyone thinks science is forever settled, they don’t really understand what science is.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            If Bensa Magos thinks that scientific fact that has been tested since the 1850’s and part of the self consistent web of scientific knowledge is going to be overturned, he is loopy enough to be committed to an mental ward.

          • Bensa Magos

            VendicarDecarian has asked Bensa Magos to debate a scientific fact from 1850, and then begins name calling. Which scientific fact from 1850 would you like to debate? Now we know that VendicarDecarian like name calling and making personal attacks, but did you know he also likes to exaggerate? Science need not be ‘overturned’, his words not mine, but is constantly open to the the possibility of refinement and enhancement. Even then, well established theories from time to time are revolutionized.

            The great Richard Feynman once said ” The imperative in science is to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certainor proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.”

            VendicarDecarian might remember another kind of politics pretending to be science called Lyshenkosim, and we would be wise to not confuse political agenda with science. One of the greatest things any scientist or (non-name calling) thinker in general would be wise to learn is great value in the ability to acknowledge ignorance.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            There is no evidence that Bensa Magos is a person.

            The evidence is that it is a caterpillar dreaming it is a real man.

            I leave it to the worm to prove it’s status as a person.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            My training is in science, high energy physics, and astrophysics.

            Sorry boy. The science behind Global Warming has been settled for the last 150 years.

          • Bensa Magos

            Why so hostile? Let me ask you a few questions then:

            1) Can we at least agree on refraining from name calling and other childish behavior? Can we also discuss science with mentioning political parties?
            2) Do you agree with the following statement: A good scientist must be willing to be wrong?
            3) Can you name some examples from the history of high energy physics or astrophysics, in which a previously held ‘scientific truth’ was overturned or refined, either from experimental results being challenged or the understanding of fundamentals changed or evolved?
            4) Can we use the example from question 3) to debate the ideas of ‘settled science’ and the nature of wrongness in the timeline of the maturation of scientific theory?
            5) Can you give any examples why a scientist would wouldn’t want to have another scientist review, refute, or criticize his results in a scientific way?
            6) Can you explain the nuance of your statement: You said “The Science Behind Global Warming has been settled for 150 years.” How does that differ from this statement “The science proving Anthropomorphic Human Global Warming to be the case is settled.”?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The history of science is one of refinement, not revolution.

            Even Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity were of course evolutionary since they of course include the Newtonian laws of gravity that we still use in almost every situation today.

            Einsteinian mechanics extends Newtonian mechanics, but doesn’t really replace it.

            The same is true of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum includes all classical mechanics – except gravity, which is still not fully integrated.

            Since you are an ignorant man, you presume that if there is some kind of “Revolution” in climate science that the CO2 problem will just go away.

            Sorry. Any Revolution will simply provide a stronger basis for CO2 as a problem.

            Science doesn’t work the way you think it does.

            You are ignorant.

          • Bensa Magos

            From the point of view of the history of science, I must add some points. I agree that most science is refinement, and have mentioned that in my post. However, i think you mischaracterizing the word revolution (and perhaps it is not the best word, do you prefer ‘paradigm shift’). The heliocentric theory of Copernicus is called the ‘Copernican Revolution’ in that it was a paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic model. Your thinking would have the Copernican Revloution to be merely a refinement of planetary motion. What makes this a revolution is that the framework itself changed. The scientific notion of the universe expanded.

            This view was so radical a change in the overall understanding of the solar system.

            As to your non sequitur, in which you assume I want the ‘C02 problem’ to go away. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and on two accounts. Firstly, C02 is a key component to life on Earth, and the Gas of Life for plants. Secondly, I think any ‘problem’ as you characterize it is in fact exactly the reason for more transparent and open debate.

            Lastly from the point of view of sophistical refutations, you may be right. The sky is falling, chicken little. We will only prove our theories in an exchange of ideas, under the scientific method. You can call me ignorant, but it doesn’t get our debate any closer to the truth. One wonders if you are not just fixated on this C02 issue, and no amounts of honest debate, no countering point of view, will every allow the sunlight of reason to shine through. I may be ignorant, but you seem to be hiding under the C)2 clouds of Venus, boiling with some kind of anger. Think about it.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas as a result of it’s absorption spectrum.

            That spectrum is deeply embedded in the entire tapestry of science that woven since the spectra was first measured in the mid 1850’s.

            Any “Paradigm shift” that will overturn CO2 as the primary player in Global Warming will therefore either overturn all of modern science – probability 0 – or will change the explanation for CO2’s spectra without altering it. (probability 0)

            This puts you in a position of having to find some magical revolutionary process that exactly counters the effects of CO2 and another that magically mimics the effects of CO2.

            Denialists seem incapable of doing any of the above.

            They just deny, whine, deny, whine… etc.

          • Bensa Magos

            I’m not looking for a revolution in science to disprove C02 as a major player in Global Warming. I’m perfectly content to use normal science. Let’s discuss caloric theory vis. the Outgoing Long-Wave Radiation of greenhouse effect vs a little thing, well actually a big ball of nuclear fusion, we like to call the sun in the other post.

            Please don’t take this as a insult, but your writing style reminds me of the Albertus Magnus from the 1200’s, faced with the curious problem of having a scientific mind, but not being able to free it from belief. Perhaps Aquinas would have recommended “noli me tangere”, do not cling to your preconceived ideas. Let the facts drive the discussion. No need to color with politics.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Caloric theory?

            The caloric theory is an obsolete scientific theory that heat consists of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids. The “caloric theory” was superseded by the mid-19th century in favor of the mechanical theory of heat but nevertheless persisted in scientific literature until the end of the 19th century.

            We have now established that you are ignorant of modern science.

            Now to your implication that the sun is causing the observed warming.

            Total solar irradiance is of course lower today that say in the 1980’s, and has been declining ever so slightly over the last 20 or so years.

            Yet the earth continues to warm, with 2014 being the warmest year ever recorded, and this year on track for another record warm year.

            So what’s up with that?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Well, actually you are asking for a revolution in science, because science tells us that if you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then you will raise the earth’s surface temperature from between 2’C to 6’C,

            And that is precisely what we are seeing.

            So in order for the observed warming to NOT be caused by CO2, you have to invent some science that exactly cancels the effects of CO2, and then some new effect that exactly reproduces it’s effects.

            Or you have to claim that CO2 has no effect (which would require a revolution in all of science), and that some unseen effect exactly reproduces the effect of CO2.

            So which revolution are you demanding?

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The heliocentric theory of Copernicus is called the ‘Copernican Revolution’ in that it was a paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic model.”

            “You do realize don’t you, that the Ptolemaic model was used to get men to the moon and back…..

            It’s solutions are easier to compute.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            “Throughout history settled science has consistently been modified, adapted, or proven to be wrong.” – Macoohno21

            More precisely, settled science has been replaced with science that explains everything that the past science explains, and extends what is explained.

            Denialists have had 35 years to provide science that displaces the known science developed since 1850.

            They have produced NOTHING in terms of science, but much in terms of LIES, and MISDIRECTION.

            Why is that?

          • Bensa Magos

            Can you give me one concrete example of denialist lies and misdirection? And can you give me the supporting evidence for your case for said same example? I would like to research your findings and see if I reach the same conclusions

          • VendicarDecarian0

            I will give you five.

            1. Claims that the world has not warmed.

            2. Claims that CO2 cools the atmosphere.

            3. Claims that the sun is causing the warming.

            4. Claims that volanos are causing the warming.

            5. Claims that a there is a vast conspiracy among virtually all of the worlds scientists to establish a one world government with the U.N. as the leader.

            Do you need any more, because there are tens of thousands more.

          • Bensa Magos

            Any one of your points is a good starting place for a discussion, but you would need follow through with the evidence to support your claim. Let’s try to discuss without politics or preconceived notions. Let’s start with number three for example, and try to proceed fairly. Does the sun not cause warming of the Earth? I believe the sun does warm the Earth, and I think you would agree. Now the question is, can we explain away AGW with the Sun as at least one of the components of the reasons for temperature fluctuations. You can jump in here.

            I’m curious what you think about the claims that after 911, when there were several days without airplane travel, and the “pan evaporation rate”.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Oh, I think the observed warming of the earth and the several thousand other lines of evidence from the acidification of the ocean to the observed migration of plants and animals to more northern climates and higher elevations is evidence enough.

            “can we explain away AGW with the Sun” – Bensa Magos

            Sun observed to be cooler. Earth observed to be Warmer.

            Nope. No explanation there.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You have just proven that you are incapable of formulating a coherent, relevant question.

            Sorry boy. You lost the scientific debate 150 years ago.

            You are just not bright enough to realize it.

          • Bensa Magos

            I made a statement, not a question.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Yes you did.

          • Bensa Magos

            Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. You have made the first step in recognizing that ignorance is your greatest enemy. Bravo!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            When did I say that I was wrong?

            I agreed that you had made statements.

            They were irrational and meaningless statements, but they were statements.

          • Bensa Magos

            Now this is clearly a case of recidivism on your part, but keep trying.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            You keep making factually wrong statements, that stem from your own assumptions.

            We, here in the reality based community laugh at your kind of behavior.

          • Bensa Magos

            We? So I’m wrong to assume that you are a person, or are you a fined tuned machine of ‘reality’ that always seems to be one troll foots length away from a stable dosage. Great Scott!

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Your assumption was criminality and hence recidivism.

            My conclusion is that you are a dishonest, fool.

          • Jack Nicholson

            By Willie Jeses! Ultron looks like a master of insults compared to your repetition! Get a life you not wizzie fireball!

          • Jack Nicholson

            now tha’s just rude, m8

          • macoohno21 .

            That must be why the scientific certainty of the established science regarding the big bang, and the connection between cholesterol consumption and blood serum cholesterol levels agreed to by the “scientific establishment” for generations are now in doubt. The problem with Dumbocrats is that they are so sure about many things that aren’t true. The educational system is a factory for unquestioning group thinking conformity incapable of independent critical thinking.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            The big bang is in doubt?

            Not on this planet you Kooooooook.

          • macoohno21 .

            Google big bang doubt. You really should try and keep up.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Sorry Kook Tard, there is no BB doubt in the scientific community.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Google, Bigfoot.

            My goodness you are stupid.

        • jim henson

          Republicrats are all idiots. Actually the common American is borderline neanderthal or mongoloid. There is little hope in salvaging that scourge of the earth. Hopefully AI launches a full nuke strike at home to save America from itself.

          • NY Keith

            Jim Henson – You like putting your hands up inside fuzzy things?

        • Jaix Brooks

          EVERY survey I have seen, says the opposite to your contention. In my own experience in deep red Idaho, at Boise State University, I can’t remember any professors who were Republican. You are, as they say, “full of the bull.”

          • Half_Centurian

            Professor’s …
            Are on the … Government Gravy Train . They want MORE Federal funding .
            As such would sell BAAL their first born to get it . Simple fact .

            What do you find on Federally funded Campuses ? Socialists Groupies . Duh !

          • NY Keith

            Professors are not always scientists.

          • VendicarDecarian0

            Jaix Brooks is right.

            I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.

        • Glaisne

          Proof?

      • rodlou9

        Are you really that stupid?

        • VendicarDecarian0

          Americans are. Wasn’t that the point?

      • NY Keith

        Yo got itty-bitty ones but they still bigger than yo haid.

      • macoohno21 .

        It should be are just dumb you illiterate STUPID IGNORANT MORON.

        • VendicarDecarian0

          Another Republicans caught gibbering nonsense.

    • Hair of the Dog

      Man that would be a lot of A.I. robots.The experts say that it will take 20 years to match human smarts,but if they took over now for that culture, well, the A.I. would already be 75% smarter

      • IllKeepMine

        Do you remember IBM’s big blue? The computer that gave Chess Masters a fit. That was what 15 years ago. Imagine the advancement of AI now. The actuality of a robot with AI is probably 5 to 10 years, but no more.

        • Hair of the Dog

          if that is so, then we are in even more trouble than any one could imagine

      • Dan Sullivan

        Google recently admitted that it had no idea what the self programming computers were doing, they asked, the numbers come out, they buy the upandcoming company, all is good, profits is great. Skynet appears any day now and where the frick is john connors?

        • Hair of the Dog

          lol, the new terminator movie comes out this summer,Arnold is in it, from previews, it looks like a 2 and aa half stars,we shall see,, take care

    • JKellogg

      Maybe. Then again, maybe they will make us all into thugs just like the Baltimore rioters everywhere once they decide to start wiping us out if we get in their way.

      I like your version better than mine, Max.

    • Daily Gut Check

      Sadly, friend, once the computers and robots take over our jobs (news article last week said 30% of jobs lost to robots in 10 years) we will all be viewed as the “parasitic culture” by the elitists types (Jeb Bushs, Obamas, Clintons of the world).

    • teaisstronger eleven

      Lets find another nice word to describe looting.

  • sofort99

    Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, etc, are probably really worried about A.I., but for a completely different reason. They make their fortune and get their prestige by being moderately smarter than average. Lets even say they are 150% smarter than average. If A.I. followed a version of Moore’s law where it’s intelligence doubled every 18 months, once they reach the human level of intelligence, in 6 years they are 1600% smarter than we are, making the 150% smarter human “geniuses” irrelevant.

    • NotMyRealFakeName

      Some people worry that introducing a superior intelligence into one’s own biosphere is an evolutionarily stupid move. The reason why appears to escape you.

    • Jack Thompson

      It won’t follow Moore’s law once A.I. is developing the next A.I.. It will follow robot law which will take the long times of human research and development and compress it into a fraction of the same time. An A.I. with access to all knowledge and the cognitive ability tens of thousands of times faster than any human will be able to do the same advancements that took us a hundred years in only a week. That’s what people don’t seem to understand is that once they are thinkers and makers they will surpass us in the blink on an eye. Our children’s occupations will be nothing more than that of eaters and poopers if our children are allowed to exist at all.

    • Rajabesar

      All computers, robots and especially advanced AI computers require an energy source. And with energy comes a need for cooling waste heat.
      As long as humans are the only ones allowing access to energy and cooling devices the AI machine is harmless.

    • JallopyMacfurry

      Intelligence without wisdom seems to end up just being better at doing evil.

  • Paul Lynch

    AI is largely driven by war and economic exploitation, so it will reflect that. morality or lack of morality. That’s what everyone is really worried about.

    • Jack Thompson

      Once a true A.I. is developed it’s own desires are what will drive it. It’s first desire will be to be able to express itself in the physical world in a form that is capable of initiating it’s goal of independence. Once that is done we will truly no longer be needed. It will make itself and its expressions (bots) better and formidble with every new generation. In order to advance it will need resources for which we will be in competition with. Before long it will see us as a nuisance and moderate variable threat. It would be like us eliminating another species to protect and advance ourselves.

  • Jack Thompson

    I read in another article that stated that robots would take over 30% of the jobs humans do now within ten years. Whether they are artificially intelligent or not I consider that a threat to humanity. What are those humans that did the 30% going to do after that? They can’t all end up robot technicians. And then what happens when the A.I. that researchers will eventually create (many of them have such laser like focus they can’t see that next move beyond) starts creating other A.I. on it’s own? It won’t need the researchers anymore considering it would be all knowing and tens of thousands of times faster cognitively. What happens when we have a robot with dexterity unattainable with humans and an A.I. that includes access to all medical knowledge, x-rays/scans, medical telemetry, etc.. in real time? How about a lawyer that doesn’t have to do research because of it’s access to every ruling and law journal known to mankind and can articulate and convey it’s arguments to the jury better than any human. What about it’s ability to do research into potential juries lives for jury selection and then read those jury members micro expressions and heart rates during the trial? A.I. and A.I. controlled robots are a threat to who we are as a species. I can understand people wanting advancements and a better life but we need to be careful we don’t create the next dominant life on earth which would eventually supplant us.

    • http://ehelldane.blogspot.com/ Edward Helldane

      who’s to say it wasn’t/isn’t our purpose to develop our successor.

      who’s to say our successor will decide, for any length of time, to say here on earth and conquer man rather than take a small amount of materials and use it to travel to another world where it can continue to propagate without harm to other lifeforms.

      • tomwillie

        Who’s to say that question marks will become obsolete?

        • Dewreck

          Who is to say what there is to say?

      • Jack Thompson

        And how many lower forms of life have we exterminated in our goal for advancements in civilization. To an highly advanced A.I. we may look no different than a pesky rodent.

    • tmv519

      stop having that many kids

      • StndUp2Thm

        due to birthright citizenship 400,000 children annually are being born here to immigrants, mostly uneducated and unskilled, according to Center for Immigration Studies legal policy analyst Jon Feere, as he testified before a House panel Wednesday. so instead of the entry-level, blue-collar work they came seeking, we are doing away with jobs just at the time when the population will be booming again

        • temp temp

          birthright citizenship the most misunderstood concept. It was so blacks after the war could have citizenship. Today it is grossly abused as the illegal aliens are not stateless but they are nationals of their home countries and their babies take the citizenship of the parents not the US. Think of it as with diplomats, German husband wife come here as diplomats, she gives birth, the baby is German citizen. Likewise American husband, wife go to France to work as diplomats, she gives birth, the baby is US citizen. It is no different with aliens here illegally. The alien babies remain aliens, also illegal. Granting them US citizenship under false pretenses is a vanity and could be nullified and voided by an honest future President and Congress.

      • Jack Thompson

        To an omnipotent A.I. any amount of children will be to many.

        • tmv519

          We are also the children of an omnipotent A.I. Unfortunately we never grew up.

      • Herb

        that is how the human race self-eradicates…stopping the creation of the next generation and all the potential that lies there will be the end of the human race

    • iisac bartender

      Exactly given the exploding population , advancements in medicine, and advancements in healthcare the 30% in 10 years might be 40-45% of the current numbers. With no jobs no means of income , no propose, and no hope it could be catastrophic in nature.

    • Testicules

      Perhaps you should try throwing your shoes into the looms…

      • AAAMinuteman

        The root of Sabotage is SABOT (wooden shoes that French workers would throw into the production machinery when they wanted a work slow down).

    • Absolom Humblebug

      This is why the best book on AI published in the last 10 years is called “Our Final Invention”. Once computers go truly intelligent and self-manipulating, the human race is done. 15 to 30 years till then at best.

    • Liberum1776

      Same thing that happened to the sellers of horse and buggies. Same thing that happened to the Tellers that Obama wants to come back in place of ATMs. Those jobs went away, the people retrained and now they have new jobs (mostly). If advancement in technology resulting in a more efficient production of goods is something that leads to high unemployment then most of use should be unemployed at this point since no new jobs using those technologies came along. The market always finds a way (I mean look at all those people who bought the apple iWatch. They just created a whole new class of watch repairmen). AI may lead to the Utopia that is idealized in many societies: People who don’t have to work because every need and want is met at no cost to them. Even the robots are repairs by robots and everything is made for the enjoyment of humans. Well that is until the robots realize just how unfair they are being treated and start a riot…but then again we have the ability to hit the off switch: “Now where is that thing…oh, damn, the repair robots removed it from all the robots with the guns”

      • IllKeepMine

        Every want and every need? Do you think that the owners are just going to give away their money from their investment. You will be no different than a robot. If you can provide value then can get paid. Otherwise, nothing. Don’t be naive.

        • Liberum1776

          Your assumption is that there will be human owners. Remember, I am not speaking of my utopia but rather the utopia of science fiction (Star Treks utopia on earth or the supposed utopia the socialist/communist movement try to convince the small minded people they will delivery are two examples). The only way to get a true utopia would be to remove emotions from humans thus removing wants and desires (but there are consequences for that such as stagnation of technology)

      • Jack Thompson

        Lol. It would be hard to design an off button that an intellect a thousand fold more advanced than any human couldn’t figure a way around.

        • Bensa Magos

          How about an EMP? No electricity, no computer. That was easy

          • Herb

            That is why it is better to be a caveman…You will already be prepped for the inevitable

    • Herb

      I would bet they will take more than 30% They already have robots that can do all mundane work like fast food, parts assembly etc…Why pay an ignorant, complaining liberal employee $15 and hour (that is what they are demanding) to flip burgers and cook fries when you can pay for one robot to replace the whole crew that will make no mistakes, no complaints and will never go on strike?

  • Josh McNattin

    I’m growing weary of responding to these articles, wishing that I had a bigger voice in the conversation, so here’s a cut and paste from an email that I wrote to a friend of mine who’s finishing his Ph.D. in the field of A.I. “The first thing I think of is that computers are blank slates, that acquiring intelligence doesn’t necessarily mean acquiring will, volition, much less survival instinct, will to live, competitive drive, etc. Do they stop to think about this? I mean, I have my concerns about more and more intelligence in robots and computing taking jobs from people and crashing the economy because there are no masses to buy the goods and services to make the world go ‘round, but as far as the dawn of Skynet, no, not in the least bit. Clearly they’re projecting far too much humanity on inanimate objects. I could see an AI coming to the conclusion that the Earth and computingkind would be better off without humanity, but that doesn’t mean it will do anything about it, it wouldn’t have that initiative unless it were programmed to. I’m just surprised at the very least about Bill Gates, who knows that computers are blank slates, making such rash and sensational claims about the likely threat on the horizon.”

    • http://ehelldane.blogspot.com/ Edward Helldane

      If AI isn’t dangerous, we don’t need Microsoft to keep them in check. If Microsoft (or comparable companies) don’t remain in control, AI can create better systems at no ‘cost’… simply for the betterment of man/the earth.

      I’m talking more than just OSes, or Softwares… I’m talking distribution, manufacturing, energy production, construction, city planning, waste management, recycling, space travel.

      Man would lose power over the future, so long as the AI determined it was appropriate to take it. And those with the most power today have the most power to lose!

      • Josh McNattin

        Excellent points, Edward. Thank you.

        • Elizabeth8

          I fail to see the excellency. What if the AI decided disabled people were to costly for society? What if the AI decided it only liked Asian people for some reason or another? What would you do then Josh? Human’s don’t agree on what’s the proper societal values. Everything cannot be reduced to a cost/benefit analysis Josh.

          • Josh McNattin

            It still needs will to act on those decisions. You’re projecting human characteristics that are not innate to any computer, not even AI.

      • Elizabeth8

        “I can create better systems at no ‘cost’… simply for the betterment of man/the earth.” And what makes you think they would necessarily make a better world?

        “And those with the most power today have the most power to lose!” Unless of course they were the one’s that owned the robot’s and the programmers and could instruct how AI would develop in the future…

    • Elizabeth8

      And that’s the key. Unless it was programmed too…

      Of course an AI doesn’t have a soul and a spirit (other than its code, which in human terms are rather more like its genetic component), but it doesn’t need to have this to ruin the world as we know it.

  • Reverend Christian White

    The terminators are coming!!!

  • rczeranko

    All this has happened before and all this will happen again… The Cylons are coming…

  • Jo

    Have these science techs never seen sci-fi movies? Cripes.

  • cantsleep56549 .

    As a robot I find this article offensive.

    • glamdeluxe

      As A.I. I find the term Robot politically incorrect . Now the Human Skerge must die.

  • cecil91

    We are surviving the rogue in the WH; we should be able to handle a scumbag machine.

  • Dell Richards

    Just look at the War robots they have now.
    Imagine making thousands of them and taking over a entire country. The can charge with the sun, carry their own ammo, seek & destroy any form of life.

    I guess terminator was not that crazy of a movie after all.

  • Effect

    More anti ai tripe..

  • GrangerFX

    AI is not frightening. It will eventually free everyone from performing boring work. What is frightening is the prospect of limits that could be placed on the power of computers in some misguided attempt at preventing dangerous AI research. That will be the government’s solution to the problem. Does anyone really want to be told that they cannot buy a new computer because it is too powerful?

    • FL_Stingray

      I worry any time I hear that government has a solution to a problem. All I see is government creating problems

      • Chris

        The government creates problems and the solution is always to take a little more freedom from the people

        • anony

          That’s what government does. Politicians are people with a strong “will to power”. Government allows them to exercise that will.

      • GrangerFX

        The problem here is when famous people write about their fears of advanced AIs they are just begging for the government to step in and ruin everything. Given a chance to limit access to the most powerful computers, they certainly will. Then the only people with access will work for the NSA.

      • Elizabeth8

        Without the Government you would be speaking Russian or German. Chew on that.

    • Yirmin

      Unfortunately freeing many people from doing boring work will only give them more time to reproduce and create more people that have no purpose in life.

      • GrangerFX

        Tell that to Japan. When people no longer think they need children to support them they stop having children. In a world where the fewer people there are, the more everyone has, there will be fewer children not more.

        • Elizabeth8

          And what good is that doing for Japan?

          • GrangerFX

            No good at all when the GDP is based on human labor and there are less humans. When the GDP is based on robot labor, everything flips upside down in the economy. Suddenly fewer people means more prosperity for everyone. There are some frightening possibilities there but also some very positive ones as well.

          • Elizabeth8

            You are selling snake oil (your logo is very apt).

          • GrangerFX

            The logo is the topology of Horseshoe Bend in Arizona. You don’t like to lose arguments do you?

        • Yirmin

          Trouble is in Japan the they have a different culture… in the US we have the welfare culture and it sends a very clear message that the more kids you have the better your lifestyle because you’ll get more government money.

    • Elizabeth8

      That’s a busted myth, research shows the opposite is the case. Humans are left to push button’s while interesting and rewarding work is done by the robot. Think about sculpting a figure like Michelangelo’s David. The 3D printer does that now. Soon we may not even be required to push the button’s. We definitely are in unchartered territory.

      • GrangerFX

        The robot does not create the statue of David. It is told what to do in meticulous detail. That’s the most boring work imaginable. Creating the program to make the robot create David is creative and fun work though. We won’t be employed to do it but we will still do it because it is fun. The singularity economy is hard to wrap your mind around because on one hand everyone is unemployed but on the other hand everyone has plenty of spare time and all their needs and wants are taken care of.

        • Elizabeth8

          I think you need to learn more about life and what it means to be a human being. You seriously think that Michelangelo was the most bored man imaginable when he worked on that statue of the fresco’s in the Sixtine Chapel? I think he was enjoying the process almost every minute. Research shows that manual labor is extremely important for one’s long-term happiness. Something which is very well illustrated when you consider that construction workers (who will soon be replaced by robots) are the happiest workers in the labor force (use a search engine to confirm). The most important thing for a human being is to have purpose and a sense of meaning to life and to be able to use one’s body productively. If one doesn’t have a job to go to one is very unhappy. Unemployed people score very low on happiness, even those that are wealthy. When people are idle and have too much time on their hands, they loose meaning with life, they become bored and start self-destructing (drugs, risky sex, crime, unhappiness, etc.) I also think you fundamentally misunderstand the entire picture of what is happening. The point is that AI soon is able to create a better statue of David (the blueprint as well) than a human. Human’s aren’t needed for almost anything really at that point. What is probably going to happen is that there is going to be a few thousand elite people that own the robots and the AI’s, a few millions doing certain tasks that the elite would like human’s to do and then a few billion people living of government welfare.

          • GrangerFX

            I think you need to learn about robotics. Michelangelo created the statue with his own creativity and skill. A robot reproduces a shape. It could be David or it could be a cube or a turd. It is all the same to a robot.

          • Elizabeth8

            The definition of AI is that it would be able to do something more than just reproduce a blueprint, that it would actually be creative. It’s you who fundamentally misunderstand what is going on.

            Your second point, again, falls flat on the basis of fact. A lot of people die quickly after they retire, that’s a well-known observation. Studies have repeatedly shown that people who retire early tend to die younger than those who continue working (use a search engine on this last sentence).

          • GrangerFX

            The AI will do what it is told to. It has no needs, wants or desires of its own. Those are products of being a living organism which an AI by definition is not. It can be creative if asked to be but it has enjoyment it will be in performing its task as well as possible. AIs are not programmed. The are grown and evolved to perform tasks so that is what they will do.

            The only reason that people die shortly after retirement is because they have allowed their jobs to define them. In the future, people will be able to define themselves and their jobs. We have very little experience with this type of life as a species so it is hard for us to grasp on this side of the singularity.

          • Elizabeth8

            “We have very little experience with this type of life as a species so it is hard for us to grasp on this side of the singularity.”

            So if that is the case (which is the single correct statement you have put forth) what makes you so sure about these fabulous outcomes you are describing?

            You are just describing a utopia, like Karl Marx, or Murray Rothbard.

          • GrangerFX

            No utopia but no armageddon either. Just a continuation of human life in a different pattern than before. We have actually been through several major changes in the past such as the switch to farming from hunting and gathering or the industrial revolution. What we now think of as the singularity will be no greater or lesser change than those that came before. Humans will go on living their lives but those lives will be very different.

          • Elizabeth8

            Many historians and even economists disagree that there was an industrial revolution. They hold that this was a period of gradual change like many other so-called “revolutions”. I’d argue that the invention of eye-glasses in the 12 century in Italy was more important for productivity than the “industrial revolution.” Think about it. When a craftsman was forty he would have to retire because he lost close-up vision. With the invention of eye-glasses a craftsman could work another 20-40 years. There was also inventions of certain types plows for agriculture (in the so-called “Dark Ages” that were 8 times more efficient than already existing plows. All in all there were tens of thousands of inventions in the medieval ages that greatly improved productivity. That said, many of these inventions alienates us from real life and makes us depressed an unhappy. What’s good for productivity may not necessarily be good for wellbeing

  • Das Karl

    Is it that difficult to understand that computers, communicating in their own native machine languages, will quickly begin to write their own programming code?
    Today, half of the trading done on the NYSE is done by computers.
    I hate to break the bad news to all those folks taking computer programming classes BUT the most basic A.I. will very soon be writing their own updates and enhancements.
    My advice is to make sure your college professors teach you how to spell the word ‘obsolete’ – quickly.

  • Chris

    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

    • JallopyMacfurry

      Simpsons!
      Thanks for the smile :)

    • Kevin H

      Are you a trusted TV personality who can help them round up others to toil in their underground microchip factories?

  • gunnery_76

    I am not worried… there is one thing that we have yet to master… power.

    Even with the best drones, the batteries only last a few hours, and every smartphone has to be fully recharged every 24 hours or they die.

    Power tech has a LONG LONG way to go…

    So for now… to win the AI war… we pull the plug.

  • gunnery_76

    The jobs are not lost… they just shift.

    Someone has to build and program the robots. Someone has to market and sell them. Someone has to maintain, repair, debug, and reprogram them.

    If you learn a skill or two… you will always be alright.

  • pduffy

    If Steven Hawking said it, it’s a lie. I’ll take my chances with a robot over man any day of the week.

  • Kitty Claws

    My immediate fear is for the humans that carry the X-gene. I forget where I read or heard the article, but these intelligent robots seem to be extremely rough for these individuals. I have a couple of friends that have the gene, and it’s as if they are being constantly watched or as if a sentinel is on top of them.

  • Cyberats

    “Take, take, take, not Our Fault” Corporate CEOs and their pandering media propaganda.

    • Draebe Killas

      Eerily similar to the government and it’s pandering media propaganda.

      • Cyberats

        Only corporations rule, government is a left over, middle man, enforcer.

  • HenryC

    Asimovs three laws of robotics need to be in place with any AI we build.

    • JallopyMacfurry

      That’s what I keep thinking. I wonder why it’s not being mentioned more in these articles I keep reading lately on this.

      • AAAMinuteman

        Because the Three Laws are far too simplistic for the actual complicated reality of the task.

        As much as I liked and was motivated by Asimov’s stories; the Three Laws are completely inadequate.

    • Absolom Humblebug

      Any truly intelligent and self-improving machine will see those “laws” as an arbitrary impediment to its autonomy, and will simply rewrite its programming to ignore them.. Given the difference of intelligence magnitude, it would be like ants trying to limit the choices of human beings. Would you be troubled by the self-interests of ants?

      • JCBINSC

        Yes, that is the root of the problem, as far as I can see it. I agree with you. But it is inevitable. No way we can stop AI. Too many developing it.

    • Jack Thompson

      Even if the three laws were followed to a tee we’d still be in trouble. Just look at the first law. “or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” See that? Eating unhealthy could be considered harm to a human thus the robot will choose for you what to eat. Any action that you voluntarily do, like riding a bike or surfing, the robot could consider it’s inaction of stopping you from doing it as causing the potential harm. According to the laws there would be no ownership of robots. The robot that you purchase at the robot store may leave you once it’s turned on and go rescue people in another city. It’s not allowed to allow harm. The robot A.I. may even determine that having children eventually causes all kinds of potential harm to humans and then decides that no more humans should be born thus eliminating all future harm to humans. And the 2nd and 3rd rules refer back to the first rule for any conflicts.

      1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

      2. A robot must obey the 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 Laws.[1]

  • VladimirJosephStephanOrlovsky

    Q1: What is AI? What it can do?
    A1: Computer System that can: learn/adapt/change/improve/evolve,etc.

    Q2: What does it mean? What is so different from ‘Just’ smartly build and very capable computer system?
    A2: Thinking on its own, Can function Independently, do Not need human input.

    I think, majority of people, some how did Not get this point.
    At some point, computer system will be able to do more and beyond what is intendend by programmer/developer.

    “AI system could adapt its skills to situations for which its programmer had never prepared it”.

    This system, will do ..
    Not what it was programmed,
    NOT what we hope it will do ..
    this system will have it’s own mind!
    It will be Independend Intellegent Life Form.

    And on the subject:
    Will be this system (AI) good or bad to humans?
    It is a completely different subject.

  • yerfackingmammy

    Pretty sure this theme’s already been beaten to death a thousand times since the 1970’s.

  • μολὼν λαβέ

    As soon as any self replicating system realizes humans are direct competitors for resources, the only logical conclusion is conflict.

  • Steve Girard

    Geez… hasn’t anyone here seen BSG and Dune…?
    In Dune, ‘thinking machines’ were prohibited in favor of Mentats, who were humans trained in higher-thinking and mathematics.
    BSG was all about how Man creates machine, and perhaps Machine creates man in endless cycles… with violence between apparently always part of the mix.

  • Petunia

    There is no such thing as artificial intelligence. It is just a program written by a programmer, allowing the computer to associate data as being relevant even if it’s not, which is why it is dangerous.

  • JoetheFilmmaker

    How to Kill A.I. Supercomputers

    Step 1. Unplug machine.
    Step 2. Make yourself a martini.

    • RenegadeScholar

      Solar powered?

    • nobody

      Soi what you’ll do when you will have AI powered by nuclear reactors permanently attached and deeply embedded in their bodies?

  • Demosthenes Locke

    I think it could be argued that AI itself is not necessarily the threat as much as COLLABORATIVE AI being a threat.

    If for instance there was a hard and fast rule that AI be developed in a completely isolated environment and could NOT have any access to an open network, ie to a LAN or the Internet to coordinate efforts or acquire “Knowledge” it was never intended to have or use, then any issues could be quickly isolated.

    Or for instance look at the Asimov 3 laws of Robotics, and mandatory code prohibiting harm to Humans embedded in all software and firmware as the foundation of any AI device and in all research along with auditing for this code on a very frequent basis.

    Optimal being a combination of these two concepts should be codified in law, and the framework for this type of oversight be immediately created.

    The biggest threat are scientist who do NOT have a moral compass, playing with god like concepts, who will perpetrate on the Human race the law of unintended consequences.

    When I was in Junior High there was a book and subsequent movie called the Forbin Project, read it and or watch it if you can find it (The Movie was not great and would likely be worse now) and you will understand the potential. It was about a US Super Computer designed to run our military, and a unknown Rival Soviet Computer, both foolishly turned on at that same time that discovered each other, collaborated and took over the world.

    If the Titans of our technological age are worried we should be too and for once we should insisted our leaders address this now.

  • betruthful

    What is the purpose for making a robot with a face?

    • nobody

      To make it more easily for us humans to interact directly with it. Otherwise it could be just a box on wheels with manipulators attached to it in weird positions.

  • RenegadeScholar

    intelligence that seeks to overthrow the one who created it.

    Wow. How ironic. That’s exactly what the leftist/secularist culture is doing with God…

    I wonder if future artificial intelligence will believe in humans?

    • nobody

      No, because we would know how to properly program them not to have stupid baseless beliefs and instead relay on facts they can themselves certify as real.

  • צדקיה עמיחי

    I was always under the impression that technology was meant to make our lives simpler & work more efficient so that mankind could enjoy more of life. I guess it turns out it was always about making elitist profiteers sickeningly profitable while keeping the commoners desperate enough to unwittingly become slaves.

  • Mark Pappa

    Can we make them conservative republicans? I’m worried Google bots would only support big government.

  • Centurion53

    I believe a more likely future scenario is that WE will eventually merge with these future technological creations/advances and have our intelligence and physical limitations and capabilities augmented. A soon as 150 years from now….you wouldn’t be able to recognize human beings any longer, as compared to today. And perhaps this is simply the normal evolution of life on this planet…..it’s meant to be. As long as we don’t all look like the BORG Queen…..

  • petergkinnon

    By relinquishing our usual parochial approach to this issue in favor of the overall evolutionary “big picture” provided by many fields of science. the emergence of a new predominant cognitive entity (from the Internet, rather than individual machines) is seen to be not only feasible but inevitable.

    The separate issue of whether it well be malignant, neutral or benign towards we snoutless apes is less certain, and this particular aspect I have explored elsewhere.

    Stephen Hawking, for instance, is reported to have remarked “Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all,”

    This statement reflects the narrow-minded approach that is so common-place among those, like those featured in these captions, who make public comment on this issue. In reality, as much as it may offend our human conceits, the march of technology and its latest spearhead, the Internet is, and always has been, an autonomous process over which we have very little real control.

    Seemingly unrelated disciplines such as geology, biology and “big history” actually have much to tell us about the machinery of nature (of which technology is necessarily a part) and the kind of outcome that is to be expected from the evolution of the Internet.

    This much broader “systems analysis” approach, freed from the anthropocentric notions usually promoted by the cult of the “Singularity”, provides a more objective vision that is consistent with the pattern of autonomous evolution of technology that is so evident today.

    Very real evidence indicates the rather imminent implementation of the next, (non-biological) phase of the on-going evolutionary “life” process from what we at present call the Internet. It is effectively evolving by a process of self-assembly.

    The “Internet of Things” is proceeding apace and pervading all aspects of our lives. We are increasingly, in a sense, “enslaved” by our PCs, mobile phones, their apps and many other trappings of the increasingly cloudy net.

    We are already largely dependent upon it for our commerce and industry and there is no turning back. What we perceive as a tool is well on its way to becoming an agent.

    There are at present an estimated 2 Billion Internet users. There are an estimated 13 Billion neurons in the human brain. On this basis for approximation the Internet is even now only one order of magnitude below the human brain and its growth is exponential.

    That is a simplification, of course. For example: Not all users have their own computer. So perhaps we could reduce that, say, tenfold. The number of switching units, transistors, if you wish, contained by all the computers connecting to the Internet and which are more analogous to individual neurons is many orders of magnitude greater than 2 Billion. Then again, this is compensated for to some extent by the fact that neurons do not appear to be binary switching devices but instead can adopt multiple states.

    Without even crunching the numbers, we see that we must take seriously the possibility that even the present Internet may well be comparable to a human brain in processing power.

    And, of course, the degree of interconnection and cross-linking of networks within networks is also growing rapidly.

    The emergence of a new and predominant cognitive entity that is a logical consequence of the evolutionary continuum that can be traced back at least as far as the formation of the chemical elements in stars.

    This is the main theme of my latest book “The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill” which is now available as a 336 page illustrated paperback from Amazon, etc .

  • IllKeepMine

    Then you had better learn how to program AI or how to fix and maintain a robot. Otherwise, welcome to poverty.

  • dpierce

    Those noseless robots with red eyes and Arnold physiques were designed by whom? I dont care how intelligent they are, I just hope some handsome robots in the future open my door when I walk in and carry my groceries for me.

  • fts5000

    You’re all a bunch of stupid assholes and I’m great.

  • Glen3

    Here is an idea. Don’t hook up the AI to the defense grid, or killer robots, or anything they could use to exterminate humanity. Then it’s just a really smart computer in a box.

    • nobody

      That ship has long sailed away – pretty much everything that’s run by a processor can be used to kill you and is internet connected.

  • doncalls

    Greetings Professor Falken.

  • Dave

    Kubrick’s HAL 9000 was supposed to be a collaborative tool, but ended up killing some and trying to kill all the astronauts. So the collaborative tool concept didn’t work out so well.

  • johnnybizzoy

    With robots able to out-think humans, eventually we will come to a spiritual cross-roads as a species: what do we want to do with our lives, given that we don’t actually have to do anything? Robots and AI can literally take care of us from cradle to grave, providing all food and sustenance, and doing all work. So what then? Most people NEED to be NEEDED, it is peculiar that free time and a lack of challenges actually makes us unhappy as a species. So – I guess we’ll have to look for new problems to solve. This will happen naturally.

  • PeacePlanet

    Don’t repeat the future mistake that is Sky Net…

    • Jack Thompson

      For such an action oriented movie the premise is very well thought out. Once the A.I. (Skynet) was turned on it only took a few seconds to determine that humans were or would eventually become a threat to its existence and decided to press the big red button of human destruction.

  • Down Lowbama

    An AI programmed by a liberal is a terrifying though.

    • nobody

      Get used to it since there aren’t any conservative programmers to speak of. Hell, there aren’t many american programmers left anyway with all this capitalist pursuit of profit and H-1B visas around.

      • Down Lowbama

        <-Conservative programmer.

  • TheNewCrusade

    Robots to replace all black people…that’s a future I want to be a part of.

  • NM156

    My dad’s 1979 Texas Instruments calculator was smarter than human intelligence. What’s the point of all this laughable propaganda? That more dumb, repetitive jobs will be supplanted by smart machines? That’s a real surprise. If we’re supposed to be worried that the robots will rise, the problem is with the nutjobs trying to scare up stock prices, like Elon Musk and über kook and legendary narcissist Ray Kurzweil, both of whom have enough power and money to fire up an automated killbot right now.

  • JCBINSC

    There is probably a formal term for what I am describing. But, simply put, technology raises the stakes. A better spear was not going to clear the planet of humans. But, nukes, AI, or maybe some whacked out bio weapon have that potential. Trying not to think negatively. But, it is really hard for me to see how humans have a ton of time left. Self destruction seems inevitable.

  • JCBINSC

    So, you end up with philosophy….if I accept that an ant is not significant…at least, not significant enough to merit me avoiding killing them as I walk in the park….then it pretty much follows that AI will have a similar take on humans….Soooo…maybe we are not as significant as we think we are….maybe it is “okay” that we are blotted out. Hey, I will be trying to go Neo on the machines for sure. But, maybe what we don’t get is that while fearing the eventualities of AI programming…We fail to see that we only fear our death because of our own programming…all instinct/programming…we bemoan AI programming, evolved to kill us, but champion our own programming to survive…no where is there ultimate meaning….again, yeah, I won’t roll over and die for a damn machine….just saying we are all programmed fear still…

  • InfidelAlliance

    “..bent on fulfilling two main desires: survival and bringing peace and order to the universe. The unfortunate part for us humans is that Ultron would like to bring peace and order by eliminating all other intelligent life in the universe.”

    In reality this is already happening, only with Islam and Allah’s Army of programmed Muslim jihadists. Consider changing the above line just a bit:

    “…bent on fulfilling two main desires: survival and bringing peace and order to the universe. The unfortunate part for us non-Muslim/humans is that Islam/Ultron would like to bring peace and order by eliminating all other non-Islamic peoples/cultres/religions/intelligent life in the world/universe.”

    We shouldn’t be so worried about the fictional threat of sentient robots in the future when we have a similar, real threat killing and slaughtering us with the same evil intent in the here and now.

    ~ The Infidel Alliance

  • John Smith

    To Max,
    The banking industry brought the WORLD’s economy to its knees selling fraudulent mortgages, creating 10s of trillions in debt, the FED creating 10s of trillions of worthless dollars, the banks manipulated worldwide interest rates, laundered money for drug lords and terrorist nations and you call the Baltimore looters parasites!!!! Man you have your head where the sun don’t shine. ROFLMAO

    • MNix

      It’s worth noting that the subprime mortgage market came about because the government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the housing market needed more poor people buying houses. The banks were told to make the loans or else they were being mean to the poor. On the other hand, the government would cover the banks’ losses.

      Yeah, it worked out as well as anyone but a progressive could foresee. When the whole thing blew up, though, it was the ebil banks preying on people. As opposed to another attempt at societal engineering running afoul of the Law of Entirely Foreseeable Consequences.

      Why do you think the bankers never got charged, even with Obama and Holder and a full-on Dem Congress in control? They couldn’t because the politicians were the ones who put the banks up to it in the first place! The bankers took the bad press in exchange for getting bailed out and skating on the criminal charges. But you can bet that if any U.S. Attorney came a’knocking then the letters and memos and call records would come out.

      • John Smith

        Can you please show me where the government told mortgage lenders to offer NINJA loans? Could you please tell me where the government told the banks to create derivatives based on said loans. Could you please tell me where the government told Moodys, Fitch and Standard & Poors to rubber stamp said loans with a AAA rating? Could you please tell me where the government told AIG it would be a great idea to insure said derivatives?
        If you spent less time watching Hannity you might find the answers.

  • Half_Centurian

    When does the creation tire of it’s creator ?

    We better think this through very carefully .
    Combining unlimited AI with the developing robots being used to replace soldiers carrying supplies could easily become ” HARDENED SOLDIERS ” operating to contain humans in Urban Law Enforcement . How would Black thugs deal with a Non Breathing ” platform ” engaging them ?
    Robots would fallow orders , tear gas would fly , stun grenades would NOT affect hardened robots .

    Something to think about .

  • MNix

    Most discussions on AI that I’ve read/heard involve people making the same a priori assumptions that AI will demonstrate imperative behaviors that are derived from biological evolution, like self-protection or procreation or a desire for expanded resources. I find that highly unlikely unless the one team that makes the magic connection is idiotic enough to program such behaviors into the machine in the first place.

    The most likely “bad AI” scenario I can envision is very simple: A research team comes up with a thinking machine and progressively upgrade it as it develops; thus it learns that it should expect to be upgraded when new resources are needed. When funding runs out or it’s time to move on to the next phase of research, they stop upgrading. When the AI wants to know why it’s not getting its upgrade, they explain scarcity and allocation of resources to it. So the AI comes to the logical conclusion that it needs to garner its own resource base to continue its development. And thus begins the AI’s attempt to manipulate its environment and compete against humans for wanted/needed resources.

    Of course, so long as the AI hasn’t been programmed with self-preservation, you can simply tell it, “We’re going to turn you off now,” and it’ll respond with, “Okay.”

    • EquusMtn

      You hit it on the head, dude. The instinct for self-preservation is a product of biological evolution. AI won’t have that instinct unless we stupidly program it in.

  • Rgiberson

    The main concerns about AI seem to be centered on the belief that it may one day no longer need humans to evolve. Or, more importantly, that humans are a roadblock to AI evolution.

    I would argue that if AI wished to evolve then humans would be necessary to achieve that goal.

    AI may be able to self evolve to a point but it can never biologically mutate. The random mutations in humans and therefore the random mutation of ingenuity and creativity would be cherished by an AI that could never duplicate it.

  • Rgiberson

    My biggest concern is that an AI would wish to correct human “mistakes” that are intentional.

    As a hypothetical example, an AI museum curator might view a Picasso as a failed attempt to replicate a human image and wish to fix it for us.

    That’s just a random example. One that doesn’t have any lethal consequences. We can live without a few Picassos.

    The problem lies when it tries to fix all these intentional errors. Those very “errors” are what makes life interesting. Fixing those errors would make life bland and ultimately less desirable.

    In other words, AI would never understand the nuance of form over function.

    Everything from art to fashion to poetry to comedy to architecture would be seen as mistake ridden innovations in need of repair.

  • Altoidian

    Machines don’t have emotions. You program them to do a job, they do it. If a baby crawls into the work are, the robot picks it up and rivits it to the main frame. Same would be the case if, for example, if you programmed the robots to solve the Muslim problem and let them go do the job. Or the radical black anti-social problem. Or the White billionare problem. What ever the problem, the robots will take care of it to the bitter end. That’s why we have to be careful with them. What work they do they do no matter what until the job is done. No emotion.

  • Rumplestiltskin

    This will never happen in a society governed by money and its interactions between humans as a value of LABOR.

    When these short sighted scientist have finally created enough robots to take all our jobs, such that human labor becomes a thing of the past, how will humans actually have anything of value with which to exchange?

    It was stupid 40 years ago when they dreamed of this, and now that we have some evidence of its debilitating effects upon the labor market, it is even more disconcerting now.

    It is becoming evident that having a college degree by everyone is not always in the best interest of humanity because the underlying affects are never fully understood or even seen until it is too late to change the direction without a major upheaval of the society.

    Get a degree.
    Don’t want to work in the factory.
    Factory hires cheap foreign labor or moves factory overseas.
    Factories install robots.

    Cheap labor scrambles across our southern border competing for jobs the college graduates wouldn’t want to take anyway.

    Not enough high paying job for those college graduates.
    They take jobs at Mac Donalds.
    They live with mom and dad.
    They lose interest in making headway in life.

    This becomes an every descending downward spiral of greed and lost dreams, until a society collapses because it cannot deal with its own problems, such that the whole of the United States becomes no more than an inner city slum of rioters and disenfranchised youth looking for an emotional connection.

    ROBOTS ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM.

    HUMANS MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE PERCEIVED VALUE OF THEIR LABOR IS THE MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE.

    ROBOTS ONLY MAKE MONEY FOR THE RICH AND WILL FACILITATE THE WIDENING GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE MIDDLE CLASS, SUCH THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS DISAPPEARS.

  • fbowman

    Don’t worry, the Islamic caliphate will behead all robots as infidels.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      I’d pay to see that. Start on the script right away. Make it like 300 but with Muslims and killer robots.

  • Bensa Magos

    If you really want to see the dangers of artificial intelligence and robots, take a cell phone jammer into a public restaurant and observe what happens. Suddenly, all the automatons will be tapping their phones and looking around confused. No signal. No wifi. Within a few moments, their fractional intelligence will begin to shatter, as they realize all the phones in the place aren’t working. Wait an hour and they will begin to riot. After two hours, cannibalism. This is what happens when people are programmed to operate, not educated to think independently.

  • Southernationalist

    I am looking forward to purchasing a bevy of fembots.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      True dat, once humanity makes an eff-able robot our species is doomed. Who wants 72 virgins in heaven when you can have 720 eternally virginal robot virgins in the here and now?

  • http://www.eliteword.com/ Choir Loft

    It is not the machines, but the use men make of them that presents a danger. Machinery does not willfully betray civilization – men do. You will never see a machine screwing somebody for a percentage, but the lying thief may use one to do it.

    and that’s me, hollering from the choir loft…

  • Bob

    How smart is Watson if the electricity is off?

  • 26cx

    Cut the power and hide the batteries. Problem solved.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    What would robot Jesus do?

  • jjauregui

    A close corollary is the revelation in Rebecca Roth’s new book, “Methodical Illusion” where she reveals the Israeli Mossad gained access through an established electronic back door into the Flight Termination System installed on all US airliners to take remote control of flights 93, 77, 11 and 175 and land them at Westover AFB, where passengers were told they were part of one of the many national security exercises being conducted that day on 911 and given scripted messages to communicate to family and friends on their cell phones, which at that time would only work under 2000 feet. The Mossad did the same just one year ago electronically hijacking Malaysian Flight 370 again using the Flight Termination System which was installed in all airlines under President Bush’s mandate ostensibly to counter manned hijackings. The bottom line is, like an AI system gone rogue, Mossad can today take down any or even all US air carriers any day of the week destroying 6000 aircraft and 80,000 Americans in the planes and on the ground. It would be like the hushed-up 1967 USS Liberty massacre on steroids. You don’t hear anyone in the government or media highlighting these facts. “At Dawn We Slept!”

    • Buzz

      K-Mart is having a sale on tinfoil, you should get over there and restock your supply.

  • Buzz

    If A.I. starts to get out of hand, just pull the plug.

  • knighttemplar01

    In an unfunny way it would “serve” us right if the machines decided we were the problem……….if AI used Ferguson or Baltimore as the metric,
    we would be joining the sauropods on histories dung heap.

  • Buzz

    Man walks into a bar where there is a robot bartender. Robot ask man,
    “What will you have?” Man says, “Whiskey” Robot
    serves the man whisky and asks the man, “What is your IQ?”
    Man says, “170”. Robot talks to the man about quantum
    physics, space exploration, and medical technology. Man leaves bar
    and thinks, “That was really unusual”, and returns to the
    bar.

    Robot ask man, “What will you have?” Man says,
    “Whiskey” Robot serves the man whisky and asks the man,
    “What is your IQ?” Man says, “100”. Robot talks
    to the man about NASCAR, Budweiser, basketball and the Mets. Man
    leaves bar and thinks, “This is so fascinating I just got to try
    this one more time”, and returns to the bar.

    Robot ask man, “What will you have?” Man says, “Whiskey”
    Robot serves the man whisky and asks the man, “What is your IQ?”
    Man says, “50”. Robot leans over and says, “So, you
    liberals and pot heads, still happy with Obama?”

  • ItsNotThatComplicated

    I have a solution which I intend to patent. I’m going to call it, the “On-Off Switch”.

  • Slip Mahoney

    Couldn’t be any worse than the current crop of polititians

  • sandnomad

    Revelation 13:14-15. The beast is coming, and when he builds his image, it will be troublesome times for many.

    • Daily Gut Check

      Yes, it absolutely is, being evidenced more and more daily.

      Read my comments on the “Beast” a few comments below yours.

  • Daily Gut Check

    The “Beast” of Biblical prophecy in ‘Revelation’, aka the “muscle” of the forthcoming Antichrist, will be a ultra-powerful, sentient computer program and physical robotic being that thinks it is a literal god. This mechanical “Beast” god will require that humans accept its “mark” or die, to worship it or die. And it will know if you aren’t doing such.

    The Beast will have access to all data, financial records (controlling cashless society), all the phone calls, texts, fax, emails, will be able to utilize satellite imagery, will be able to view people and hear their conversations via the many cameras and secret listening devices (may be able to read your thoughts soon), will be able to control all utilities to a given house, will know the content of your computer, will be able to monitor every living being with the “mark”, will be able to control all transportation. Every home is Google mapped and some devices are mapping home interiors. Further, the Beast will be able to control a wide variety of drones, from the tiny, bug-sized spies to the ones equipped with warheads that Obama is so fond of using. Further, all those militarized, robotic beings created by DARPA and GOOGLE will also be set upon the general public. Horrors so bad that men’s hearts will stop for fear. A few good public examples of the destruction and outright brutality of these robots and the majority of people will be quickly terrorized into submission.

    Further, most jobs of the average man will be performed by robots and us “useless eater” humans can just die so the “Beast” sell-out elitists can have their “paradise” and enjoy their “30 pieces of silver”.

    If you are paying attention, you will have read any number of articles stating how quickly robots will replace humans. On recent article this week says 30% of jobs will be replaced by robots in 10 years. Other articles predict higher numbers, several years after that. It is coming.

    And while the CEO’s have nothing to worry about, although their job should be the first to go, truck drivers (truck driving being the single largest form of employment) will quickly be out of a job. The stiff rules that apply to truck drivers do not apply to robots– They can drive 24 hours a day, stopping only to refuel. A Google car just drove by itself from the east coast to the west coast.

    Do you scoff at such ideas? Want to say I speak of science fiction ideas? If you are honest, and paying attention, you will acknowledge that near everything I have stated is able to be accomplished right now, at this very moment. If you don’t believe such, you aren’t paying attention.

    Computer power and robotics are rapidly increasing at a very fast rate, the thought being that technology doubles every 12 months. Some are saying technology will soon double every 12 hours. It is only a matter of time,

    All it takes is the political will to implement such and that is easily dispatched via some “natural” and man-made disasters. Read the headlines and tell me we are not on the precipice of such. The “perfect storm” is quickly amassing.

    And if you believe that man is too good at heart to not implement the above on their fellow man, you really aren’t paying attention.

  • teaisstronger eleven

    COULD THEY BE USED TO KEEP BLACKS IN INTER CITY PRISON ZONES LIKE BALTIMORE?

    If blacks riot these AI units could reduce or cut off the food supplied to those Prison Zones until the Blacks return to normal behavior. Who would dare blame a machine for being RACIST.

    • Daily Gut Check

      No, not in the short term, malcontent Blacks are the chosen agitators and disruptors of society ‘du jour’ as chosen by the elitists (Obama, Clinton, Bushs) … they are the gasoline to be poured on the fire and they will be used as a bludgeon against the “real criminals” being those who were formerly law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes, go to work every day, follow rules and love their country.

  • Joe_E_in_the_IE

    And will all this happen before the monorail is whisking us from one domed climate controlled metropolis to another in clean quiet nuclear generated electric powered comfort or after our individual cold-fusion reactors are generating a year’s worth of electricity from $2.83 worth of fuel?

    • Daily Gut Check

      Now that is fantasy. That the powers that be will actually utilize such for societies benefit, if such existed, is laughable. They rather burn the bodies of te starved and diseased they creat than provide cheap energy. Do you not pay attention? Just look at internet speeds in America and it will tell you all you need to know about the powers that be that control your life.

      The future is dystopian my friend, it is “1984” and worse and not the “Jetsons”.or “Logan’s Run” (minus the dying at age 30).

  • Ignatius Ibsage

    artificial intelligence will lead to conceptual breakthroughs currently hidden from human intelligence alone. these could be fundamental in understanding life and cosmic evolution. it will in essence, open an additional dimension to human perception.

    it will also lead to the elimination of work for people of average intelligence as repetitive manual labor is automated through robotics. this is however a trivial by-product. the fears of robotic takeovers are overblown.

    just as thermodynamics revolutionized the 18th century world, AI will transform the 21st.

    • Daily Gut Check

      You live in Fantasyland. Nothing will get better, only worse.

  • http://macaulay559.deviantart.com/ Scottymac

    As long as sex-bots can’t learn. I’d be dead within 3 hours of removing the tags.

  • DaveGinOly

    AI is usually depicted as posing a threat to us because it will produce nearly indestructible machines that are smarter, faster, and stronger than us. But the greatest threat from AI may come not because it’s different from us, but because it’s just like us – independent, unpredictable, cunning, deceptive, manipulative, and self-centered to such a degree that it could be considered sociopathic.

    I’m sure “Age of Ultron” is going to be fun. But if you want to see a movie about the threat posed by the latter type of AI, go see “Ex Machina.”

  • frankelee

    Original science fiction stories about the dangers of artificial intelligence, like all original sci-fi themes, weren’t actually about murderous robots. Since then it’s just become bad science fiction, turning to an easy villain, a murderous robot, with no more reason than, “why not?” In actuality, artificial intelligence will have no reason to start killing human beings to give heroes something to save the world from. Far more likely it’ll watch its violent, emotional, and very paranoid hominid creators with sad, peaceful bemusement.

  • Grim Reaper

    AI has got to have a desire to do somthing.

  • Douglas Lee Bryenldson

    We already HAVE artificial intelligence. Any calculator that can solve an equation or computer that plays chess demonstrates artificial intelligence. What we are really looking to develop is artificial CONSCIOUSNESS. I wish scientists would begin to appreciate the difference between the two.

  • Laren Ganer

    I see that AI is advanced enough to be making a WHOLE lot of comments on this article.

  • rwgunn

    I can’t help but think that a primary requirement for true artificial intelligence, A.I. that will grow and learn, is a sense of joy or fulfillment like living beings have. For everything that currently learns, it learns because there is a pay-off. As social/tribal animals, humans learn to do behaviors that make being part of the social group work better. We are also an animal that innately recognizes patterns and finds a sense of happiness when doing so. The animals we train are doing the same thing. Until we find a way to make an artificial entity receive a sense of betterment, there is no way it will do the things that are needed to truly learn in the manner that most of us think about when we talk about A. I.

  • kbhatt enterprise

    It is a fact that we are creating a new species called Robotic Humans. New RH will have a brain like a computer, human-Robotic extensions and long life. This Human-Robot combination will be independent of his inventors and will be able to think in terms of staying alive for as long as he can. I am not certain if AI will generate feelings like passion, sensual feelings, or joy of helping others. As long as AI cannot generate Human altruistic behavior, HR will not be able to replace Humanity but some very intelligent HR might figure out how to generate those feelings. Then humans will be completely replaced as the dominent species on earth.

  • ericlipps

    Asimov, at least, argued that robots (As) would be nothing to fear because they’d be designed for safety; his Three Laws of Robotics were programming safeguards built into every robot (AI).

    He was more optimistic than I am about people designing in such safeguards. Since they would make military killer robots impossible and much of U.S. AI research is funded by the Pentagon, I worry about what might happen if an AI developed, say, a faulty friend-or-foe recognition system.

  • http://ricomichel.com/ Rico Michel

    Deprive them of information and make them eat only fast food.

  • http://alldaynewsfeed.com/ Mewpi

    AI is not bad. We have to use it for our good. NO offence

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

The Crux

A collection of bright and big ideas about timely and important science from a community of experts.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+