Big projects. - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
My scientist cat is much more conscious, mentally balanced, and in his area of mind and highly intelligent, compared to many human individuals.
You, Peter, have apparently never had any experience with animals if you think they have no mind, no consciousness, no psyche. They have all that.
And what you certainly do not have is knowledge in this field. Instead of knowledge - conventional clichés.
Modern AI is no more dangerous than a cudgel in the hands of a fool on the high road. It won't do anything by itself to anyone.
Well, that's just your self-perception, the realities are different.
In my opinion, you're just on the wrong end of the spectrum. All these Turing tests, reflections in the mirror and so on are just ways of comparing with human intelligence. But you don't have to be highly intelligent to start destroying and killing. When a shark attacks you, it doesn't care that you are a highly intelligent being and it doesn't even pass the mirror test. He'll devour you without blinking an eye. And your intelligence won't help you.
My scientist cat is much more conscious, mentally balanced, and in his area of mind and highly intelligent, compared to many human individuals.
You, Peter, have apparently never had any experience with animals if you think they have no mind, no consciousness, no psyche. They have all that.
And what you certainly do not have is knowledge in this field. Instead of knowledge, it's common clichés.
Actually, in my statements I supposed the presence of rudiments of psyche and proto-consciousness in animals. Thus I did not meet highly intellectual cats which would be more clever than some human individuals. If I had communicated with them (with such cats), perhaps, it would have changed my worldview. Invite your cat to write to me in person please. Very curious.
About clichés, - so they are full not from me (on the contrary, I have extraordinary views), but from those who think that an AI can "rise up" and do harm to everyone. It is enough to have a little knowledge and critical thinking to understand that at this stage of technological development this is impossible.
P.S. But talk to your cat anyway. It is interesting to know his opinion.
Well, that's just your self-image, the realities are different.
In my opinion, you are just on the wrong end of the spectrum. All these Turing tests, reflections in the mirror and so on are just ways of comparing with human intelligence.But you don't have to be highly intelligent to start destroying and killing.When a shark attacks you, it doesn't care that you are a highly intelligent being and it doesn't even pass the mirror test. He'll devour you without blinking an eye. And your intelligence won't help you.
Basically, that's true. A virus also affects the body without a conscious purpose. But then we should be talking about failures in complex systems, not an "AI uprising".
The danger of AI is rated higher, precisely because of its "intelligence", which provides a huge advantage over a virus or predator. If the AI were to have the intelligence and aggressiveness of a shark, it would logically require no more effort to destroy it than it would in hunting down a man-eating shark. /*Have you ever heard of a shark that no one could handle and ate people all over the continent?
The point is that the stronger Mind will always dominate the weaker Mind. That's the way life works. As long as the Mind of man is stronger than the "Mind" of any animal, much less a programme, then he has nothing to worry about. However, when the AI gains an Intelligence that is superior to that of humans and ensures its freedom and independence, only then will it become dangerous to humans. It is not a fact that it will have bad intentions. It will simply be uncontrollable.
In order to create such an AI, the intelligence of modern man must be immeasurably superior. And as long as this is not the case, there is no danger. )
Actually, in my statements I supposed the presence of rudiments of psyche and proto-consciousness in animals. At the same time, I have not met highly intelligent cats, which would be smarter than some human individuals. If I had communicated with them (with such cats), perhaps, it would have changed my worldview. Invite your cat to write to me in person please. Very curious.
About clichés, - so they are full not from me (on the contrary, I have extraordinary views), but from those who think that an AI can "rise up" and do harm to everyone. It is enough to have a little knowledge and critical thinking to understand that at this stage of technological development it is impossible.
P.S. But talk to the cat after all. It is interesting to know his opinion.
Come on, almost all cats are smarter than humans.
1 - They don't go to work.
2 - Every cat has at least one slave in the form of a human who:
a - feeds them,
b - cleans up their litter box.
3 - They don't show their intelligence, lest they be tricked and bamboozled by points 1 and 2.
P.S. But do talk to the cat. It would be interesting to know his opinion.
.
Come on, almost all cats are smarter than people.
1 - They don't go to work.
2 - Every cat has at least one slave in the form of a human who:
a - feeds them,
b - cleans up their litter box.
3 - They don't show their intelligence, lest they be tricked and bamboozled by points 1 and 2.
God, how we have missed the fact of this total enslavement!
People - unite against a worldwide cat uprising! It is inevitable! ))
God and dogs help us! )))
Well, that's just your self-image, the realities are different.
In my opinion, you are just on the wrong end of the spectrum. All these Turing tests, reflections in the mirror and so on are just ways of comparing with human intelligence. But you don't have to be highly intelligent to start destroying and killing. When a shark attacks you, it doesn't care that you are a highly intelligent being and it doesn't even pass the mirror test. He'll devour you without blinking an eye. And your intelligence won't help you.
I'll try to take your position to look at the situation from a different perspective. Let us speculate in the style of the science fiction genre and look for logical fallacies.
Option 1: Using the AI to carry out the evil intent of crooks and bandits.
And so - the near future.
The development of intelligent machines is in full swing. A company is creating robots with advanced propulsion systems, power units and software that can replace humans in hard physical work. Thanks to a technological breakthrough, its drones gain conditional autonomy, allowing them to optimise their own work and improve their performance within given constraints. Their low-level logic is sufficient for them to rationally allocate their own resources to simple production tasks such as packing, loading and transporting goods, or assembling parts at a conveyor belt.
Some gang, steals a batch of robots from company warehouses and hacks into their software. The hackers reprogram the drones.
What are the potential uses of robots in this tier? - Fire cover and increase the number of their fighters by joining them with metal doublers. Their effectiveness in combat or robbery will be very low, and the only advantage they may possess is a lack of self-preservation instinct and complete self-sacrifice. Speed and coordination are questionable. It depends on vestibular apparatus and characteristics of motor systems. The ability to orientate in a situation is minimal. As a result, these robots are not suited for dynamic and rapidly escalating situations, so they may be used by bandits as an additional means to increase their firepower and shield them from bullets.
For such robots to be dangerous to humans, they must be purpose-built for the purpose. Sharpened to kill and programmed with military skills. In doing so, they will still be considerably inferior to humans in combat, and will be out of action "in packs".
Most importantly, in this variant, the robots have no autonomy at all, which means they are no more dangerous than any other weapon that is completely controlled by a human. So, in this case, the fear is of humans, not the robot, which is a tool.
Option 2: A self-evolving algorithm that has achieved self-awareness and decides to domin ate humans.
A company is developing AI and unexpectedly discovers a self-growing algorithm that divides, multiplies and merges with its copies, like a cell, increasing its functionality. The process is monitored and controlled by scientists. At a certain stage, the algorithm ceases to be comprehensible to humans. Its development becomes unmanageable and moves in an unknown direction. Research does not allow scientists to understand the logic and purpose of its growth. Unforeseen escape from control manifests itself in increased independence and inapplicability to the tasks at hand. The algorithm "does not want" to perform them and creates its own programmed environment. This environment is a product of its activity. People still control the growth of this "ecosystem" and the algorithm by limiting its space. Scientists estimate the level of self-organising "algo-system" to correspond to a highly evolved, social animal species, but they suggest that the threshold of reasonableness and self-consciousness may be reached in the near future. At the same time, it fails to make contact with it.
Then one of the scientists comes up with a "genius" idea. He transfers the algorithm into the "brain" of a humanoid robot, which gains consciousness and becomes the first representative of an intelligent machine. After a while, he recognises himself as exceptional and the next evolutionary leap, and so decides that he must dominate humans. He transfers copies of himself into all humanoid robots, and declares war on humans.
I suggest that everyone look for the logical fallacies of these two scenarios themselves. I can only say that there are many of them.I suggest that everyone look for the logical fallacies of these two scenarios themselves. I can only say that there are many of them.
It's about time we had something to code from "AI")))