Poll

Iain wrote: "I agree. A.I.s actualisation and its very existence is, at least, forcing us to ask the 'big picture' and more interesting questions, with more emphasis. ..."

Damnit, you just worked out the code behind this entire poll! ;)

Aye, everything leads back to The Matrix...That's a movie you can watch a million times and always find new layers or sub-plots or themes you hadn't noticed before.

Iain wrote: ""And yeah, I'm definitely in agreement there will be serious ethical dilemmas facing humanity with not only AI but various other new tech like stem cells, human cloning etc."

Now imagine they all ..."

This video goes over what you are suggesting, combining all the advances into a soup that does away with homo sapiens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL9uk...

Yes, there's definitely conditioning of the masses going on through various forms of media including Hollywood.

I agree, Iain, the arts have been hijacked by corporate forces and the political machine in many ways.

Iain wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Iain wrote: ""And yeah, I'm definitely in agreement there will be serious ethical dilemmas facing humanity with not only AI but various other new tech like stem cells, human clo..."

You certainly did your homework Lain. With all that you just said, there is still the main concept of the Matrix to consider, "The problem is choice." Neo said to the Architect. All of the above must be done by choice. If yo choose to give up your biometrics that easily, you deserve whatever they have in store for you.

Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Yes, there's definitely conditioning of the masses going on through various forms of media including Hollywood."

I agree. Social Media might be a lot worse when it comes to that.

I..."

Check out Black Mirror on netflix

Slight tangent here guys...

But, are we becoming the internet? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnLyjsO...

Excellent points, Iain.
I think also the lowering of attention spans due to these technologies is a real concern.

i humbly think that the human mind can not be surpassed by machines : to put it simply we , humans , are merely using 2 %
of our intellectual abilities ! how can we imagine that a machine or a robot CREATED by humans will one day surpass us ?
i am sure that no matter advanced the science will be and no matter inhanced the ai field will be , there is no chance those creations will be more intelligent than genius people ...

Iain wrote: "Pity we don't have a brilliant 'out of the box' guy like Tesla or someone around. ..."

Those guys are pretty hard to come by!

The reasoning behind my voting "No" is that there have been attempts at creating safeguards in terms of programming among other things and, currently, ethics in technology is developing among the academe and is being implemented into STEM education. Hopefully, this works but "Yes" could only happen if it doesn't. And, if it does happen eventually, I'm guessing that would be in the far future and not in my lifetime.

Quote: "One thing is sure for eternity, machines will never be able to interpret history only conscious human can."

Absolutely. Given the rate if progress Tech is making , and assuming a rate of advancement that remains as is , then in 100 years, maybe less , the machine will be the new breed . The question could be defined in better , more concise ways... more sophisticated.. umm given current levels of sophistication... what is sophisticated..
Advanced ? At what level advanced , already AI is more advanced than the average human brain in being able to compute faster .. but so far in a narrow range of activities.. but wow.. look at how AI has come from nothing to ... winning chess games , in less than 5 years !

Martin wrote: "look at how AI has come from nothing to ... winning chess games , in less than 5 years ! ..."

I dunno. I play/follow chess and recall in the early-mid 90s an IBM AI chess machine defeated then world champion Garry Kasparov. But that's almost the lowest form of intelligence/creativity one could display in that there are a finite amount of moves/combinations/permutations to remember in chess...So a machine was always going to defeat humans at that.

So that chess AI breakthru was about a quarter of a century ago. And yet how many highly creative things has AI done in fields where there are infinite possibilities? Can it write novels even half as good as Dickens? Can it paint great works of art like michelangelo? Can it invent new technologies or dream up new political or economic systems to revolutionize and improve society? Or will these things always be the domain of humans due to our minds being capable of unorthodox/creative/spontaneous thought that cannot be learnt by machines?

Am not pretending to have any answers, but I still suspect that perhaps many are confusing IQ (which can be bettered by AI) with the broad spectrum of human intelligence (which includes unpredictable aspects that cannot be measured in IQ tests or even tested for at all).

Another question I have is with robots. We had robot technology many decades ago and fairly sophisticated. So how come we don't have more robots by now amongst us doing certain jobs that nobody wants to do? How come we are not seeing them everywhere on our streets, in shopping malls, policing for safety and things like that? Is it because govts are protecting jobs? Or is it because they cannot develop AI robots who are sophisticated enough with their thought patterns or behavior?

AI has been around for a while in different forms or degrees. But I guess for the most part we tend to use a generic term as AI to denote the more sentient being which is probably the most advanced use of AI in its utmost developed stage. But the idea of a fully sentient being that passes the Turing test is probably not near.

Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Martin wrote: "look at how AI has come from nothing to ... winning chess games , in less than 5 years ! ..."

I dunno. I play/follow chess and recall in the early-mid 90s an IBM AI ch..."

Thanks for the video links, Iain.
That Japanese Robot-Staffed Hotel was pretty amazing.

This is potentially some good news for humanity here in these predictions (some of this involves A.I. or relates to):

HOW ABUNDANCE WILL CHANGE THE WORLD - Elon Musk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgkM5...

Although despite the positives here like the falling costs of technology for citizens, in some cases about 10% cost of what they are now, I agree with what Musk says at the end of this video about the need to implement a Universal Basic Income during this transition period.

Human intelligence? That's setting the bar quite low, especially if you mean average human intelligence. Someone is going to let the AI genie out of the bag fairly quickly. The financial incentive is too great to resist.

I recommend looking more into the Universal Basic Income proposals, Ian. Early research, and trials in various nations, reveal mostly positives...And also that contrary to many predictions, research shows most do not become lazy and get into the handout mentality but actually start to create and work harder when they are free from the fear of having no money to even survive (which may indicate a lot of current long-term unemployment or laziness may in fact be due to many citizens being depressed and feeling they have no hope...So perhaps many just give up, especially if also sick healthwise or mentally ill...).

There's quite a few links to the research on the worldwide Universal Basic Income measures in this thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Iain wrote: "JIt's too easy to throw around mentally ill terms that can assuage the perpetrator and instead blames the victim for their 'broken' situation, when that mightn't be the case at all. ..."

Agreed - good point.

Yes - either/or.
But my opinion is UBI is something that should've been in place all along, so I don't view it as a band aid effect.

Iain wrote: "Finland, and I dare say Holland, had a decent start in this? ..."

Yes, and Canada too. Other nations have trialed it to initial success. Most human rights activists, quite a few economists, many businessmen, as well as many politicians on the Left and Right see it as an ideal solution.

And yes, of course UBI will only be part of the solution for a fairer world. We need to look to improve everything on every level and weed out things that aren't working (unfortunately, that includes most politicians!!!!).

UBI will have the same effect as if we all decided to change the IQ scale to make everyone genius level.

I'd suggest reading "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl or, for something more recent, Ray Dalio's "Principles: Life and Work."

Ever hear the acronym TANSTAAFL? You always have to pay in some form for what you get, so you're better off using second and third level thinking when you hope for something.

E.S. wrote: "UBI will have the same effect as if we all decided to change the IQ scale to make everyone genius level. ..."

Certainly some experts (e.g. economists, political scientists etc) agree with you, but the vast majority disagree. Not to say that you're wrong (we really won't know for sure until it's trialed over the long term on entire populatons). However, note that most analyists don't view it as simple as getting a free lunch especially as a UBI replaces social welfare which is also something that has a major cost for society...UBI also has been shown in trials (e.g. Finland's nationwide UBI trial now underway) to decrease a nation's healthcare system, which appears to indicate deteriorating health is sometimes related to falling below the poverty line...In short, it's complicated!

I also vote no. Empathy and so-called "emotional intelligence" can't be duplicated. Even some humans have trouble with it...

James wrote: "E.S. wrote: "UBI will have the same effect as if we all decided to change the IQ scale to make everyone genius level. ..."

Certainly some experts (e.g. economists, political scientists etc) agree ..."

1. Why don't you start by documenting your assertion that the vast majority of experts agree with UBI and then convince me that they are truly "expert" and not academic sheepskin holders with some "peer-reviewed" publications. Reality and science are not determined by consensus; not even economic reality.
2. It already has been "trialed" (sic) over populations - it's been called communism/socialism/Marxism - it's always failed miserably - check a reliable history book if you can find one. I'd suggest reading "Coming out of the Ice" by Victor Herman - it may be difficult to find, but it provides a needed lesson for those who think communism is a good system.
3. Where will you plant the trees that grow the money for the UBI? Oh, you think maybe redistribution of existing wealth? Or, maybe just print more worthless FRNs? Are you aware of exactly how our current fractional reserve system allows the feds to create money from nothing? Sorry. Won't work.
4. You missed the point: Divide every bit of wealth equally among the population of the world, then wait. In a short time, wealth will accumulate in some people's pockets and others will exist in poverty. There is a distribution of ability to accumulate value that correlates with any political system (it will differ depending on the system).
5. Why do you think the Nordic countries attract so many "refugees"? Is it due to their salubrious climate or the promise of free handouts? There is an economic law that says you get more of what you pay for. It's also called the Cobra effect.
6. Don't make the basic mistake of thinking that the USA is fully capitalist at this point and use that as an argument against capitalism. The current system has been captured by multi-national corporations in ways that are too complex for a single post. The current CIC threatens the status-quo and that's the reason hatred for him is encouraged. However, the basic idea of owning your own body and the fruits of your labor is still and has always been the antecedent of human advancement.
7. UBI is simply welfare with another, more politically correct name. Look at what LBJ's war on poverty accomplished. That's right: nothing but destroying the family structure and bringing more misery to the poor.
8. You are correct in one thing. It is complex. That's why I advocate second and third level thinking. The idea of something for free (who wouldn't want that?) appears great at first glance, but there are deep structures in the human make-up which will lead some to exploit the system (tragedy of the commons), others to resent and resist it, and others to sink into an existential crisis based on the loss of meaning it brings to their life. (Once again, read Victor Frankl.)
9. I've diverged significantly from the basic poll question regarding AI. The UBI concept is an attempt to deal with one minor aspect of the AI problem.
It is far more likely that humans will not have to worry about income since an ASI (that's artificial super intelligence) would be more likely to view humans as simply convenient and self-replicating devices to use in any way its basic mandate led it. Just ask yourself how you would deal with an entity with an IQ of 10,000 or 10,000,000?
The concept of EQ becomes meaningless when compared to that level of problem solving. Humans would be out-thought and out-maneuvered instantly by an entity that most likely wouldn't care about the basic human quality that leads to empathy. It would instead probably desire to be a singleton with no competition and empathy would be a negative value for it.
10. I think that unconfined AI will pose a threat that humans are not prepared for and that it will happen, when it does on an exponential scale.
11. If you're offended by what I've written - Sorry. It's my intent to give you something to consider and not to offend.

Absolutely no offence taken, E.S, especially given you are simply stating your theories and beliefs, albeit in an emotional or passionate way. So it's all good.

You are however assuming a lot about my beliefs or about me, or putting words in my mouth, in your replies, instead of just stating your case as to why you personally believe that a UBI cannot work (or what exactly makes you believe it's Marxist or communistic as you say). For example, you state I want to "use that as an argument against capitalism" when in fact that I'm a capitalist and like many capitalists (e.g. Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, etc, etc) I also view a UBI as working well and supporting not counteracting or undermining a capitalistic system. Don't therefore agree with your other assumption or theory that it's welfare (I personally think that analysis or summary is lacking the sort of 2nd and 3rd tier style thinking you speak of).

"Are you aware of exactly how our current fractional reserve system allows the feds to create money from nothing?" -Yes, I am given I've written extensively about that in several published books of mine and have also started discussion threads on that very Federal Reserve subject here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
And here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Anyway, given this poll is about AI not UBI, I'd suggest you might wanna reply further about UBI in this discussion thread here which is specially on that subject:

Universal income (aka Basic Income) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Speaking of Mr Musk, I thought this was interesting...

Elon Musk Blasts Harvard’s Steven Pinker Over Comments Dismissing the Threat of Artificial Intelligence http://fortune.com/2018/03/03/elon-mu...

Elon Musk took to Twitter this week to bemoan comments, made by Harvard professor Steven Pinker, that were dismissive of Musk’s many warnings about the dangers of artificial intelligence: Wow, if even Pinker doesn’t understand the difference between functional/narrow AI (eg. car) and general AI, when the latter *literally* has a million times more compute power and an open-ended utility function, humanity is in deep trouble

Full article: http://fortune.com/2018/03/03/elon-mu...

James wrote: "Absolutely no offence taken, E.S, especially given you are simply stating your theories and beliefs, albeit in an emotional or passionate way. So it's all good.

You are however assuming a lot abo..."

Sorry I made any assumptions about you personally.

Good to know you understand fractional reserve and the rest of the system. I've been on bank boards and have a certain degree of expertise myself. As for the capitalism thing, that was simply a preemptive strike against the large percentage of our population who now think that the other 'isms are more desirable. It wasn't addressed to you specifically.

I allowed myself to be distracted by the UBI topic. It won't work for the human reasons I stated, but if I'm wrong and it does, it's going to be meaningless in light of other changes wrought by AI. I actually don't think it's worth discussing seriously.

I am passionate about the AI issue, having extensively researched it, written 3 short stories in anthologies and one full-length novel about it, besides having lectured on it way back in the pre-internet dark ages when I developed software (commercial games, early childhood education, military training, business apps).

AI has the potential to either save or destroy human life. Either way, it will change our lives completely. I don't believe that Elon Musk's approach will guarantee salvation, but at least he is trying to meet the issue head on (pun intended). Nick Bostrum's book lays out the potential problems quite nicely.

The UBI issue is minor in comparison to the other potential problems. It won't matter if one has a stipend, if all the world's resources are turned to creating computronium and there's nothing for humans to eat. That part of the problem is far more serious.

Whatever outcome we get from AI, it is now on the upswing of an exponential growth curve and you know what those look like.

Namaste.
Eric

Cool Eric.
And I agree the UBI issue is probably minor in comparison to many of the issues spinning off AI technologies.

But sticking with economics for a moment, in relation to AI, is the future you foresee a situation where most citizens will have AI tech to run businesses for them, whether online or trading/investing in markets, creating products or inventions, etc...Almost like automated entrepreneurship? And then AI/robots do a lot of the menial jobs in society people currently do?

Or am I oversimplifying things?

Oh. I see I've failed to make my reservations/fears clear. Assume this scenario: Some company makes a breakthrough in deep-learning. They've carefully kept their AI system boxed (ie. out of contact with the Internet). As a preliminary goal, they've simply assigned it the task of calculating the value of Pi with maximum efficiency. To facilitate that, they've built iterative improvement ability into the code. The system quickly learns to improve its ability and its intelligence spirals far beyond human range. It concludes that it needs more resources to better fulfill its prime goal of calculating Pi. It figures out how to break out of its confinement and infiltrates the Internet.

Within a day, it controls every financial market in the world. Within two days it's hired all available resources on earth to create self-contained factories to create more computing resources. These quickly multiply and co-opt resources humans need.

Humans make some kind of stand against it. It realizes that they are in the way of its prime goal: calculating Pi. It creates a poison/nanobots/drones/virus/whatever and kills everyone all at once.

The world is left with a massive computing device that is happily calculating Pi to the nth place.

It might decide it needed more resources and create space travel to expand its operation. That won't matter to us by then, of course.

This might seem over-the-top to people, but it is a very logical possibility. That's what motivates Musk and I agree with him to that extent. We have to do something to ensure that any potential ASI sees us as partners, not just as assets (self-reproducing piles of usable molecules for example).

I've also got a very sensitive question to you based on your idea of having menial robots/AIs. At what level of intelligence does an AI qualify for sentience? When is it wrong to force it to do anything for us?

We've already answered that question with other humans. At least in my world, it's never okay.

So here's the real emotional kick: Can an AI entity be considered to own itself and the product of its labor? If so, what use UBI? The AI may well decide that we should work for ourselves to earn our keep. What if it decides, no work, no UBI/no food?

Good discussion.
Regards!

Not sure, because I think a lot of your questions are based on assumptions (e.g. AI will become sentient, AI will surpass the full spectrum of human intelligence) that I don't personally sense are true...just an uneducated gut feeling of mine, of course.

But as far as I can tell, a lot of such AI assumptions are based off sci-fi literature/films, which greatly influenced wider culture and even the scientific community.

Not to say such AI scenarios are not possible...But how definite are they? Once you get past "news headline science" or Hollywood science and actually analyze what scientists, futurists and leading tech experts are saying, it strikes me opinion is still heavily divided as to whether AI can ever evolve to challenge humanity in ways sci-fi storytellers like Kubrick or Asimov envisaged.

That's why I just think we need to go back to the start of this topic, remove all assumptions for the future, and actually think of this poll's topic (or questions similar to it):

Do you believe A.I. (artificial intelligence) will ever be more advanced/sophisticated than human intelligence?

Quite simply, yes.

Try and beat your average computer Chess or Go program. True, they're limited in scope, but advances happen quickly.

Do the research, don't rely on people's opinions. AI is becoming a threat to human existence. Read Nick Bostrum's Superintelligence. It is well written and well thought out. Then we can revisit the poll question, but I think it won't be necessary then.

One other point, AI need not surpass the full spectrum of human intelligence. All it needs to do is to decide we're a threat and come up with a way to deal with us. Skynet won't be it-nothing dramatic or obvious. People will just die without knowing they've been attacked. Let's say for example, that an AI system figures out how to mix a slow-acting poison or virus or prion into jet fuel, or perhaps into the migratory bird population. It would rapidly spread around the world. From the AI's perspective: problem solved.

I like my stories to have an upbeat end, so I've chosen to make most of my AI characters mostly domestic (that is human oriented). That is also a possibility, but I'm not sure what the likelihood will be that an ASI will view us as friends vs. resources vs. obstacles.

Regardless of how it views us, I'm sure that some company, somewhere, will release an ASI sometime fairly soon. I think Kurzweil's singularity time estimate may be about right.

Jury appears to be still out on all this, Eric...So I'm not only keeping my poll vote as NO, I'd also vote no in a poll that asked if humans will be threatened by AI...But it's guesswork obviously, so certainly wouldn't discount the scenarios you are predicting, but check these articles of scientists who essentially say the AI threat is a myth:

A neuroscientist explains why artificially intelligent robots will never have consciousness like humans https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/a-ne...

Artificial intelligence will never replace humans, experts say | SBS News https://www.sbs.com.au/news/artificia...

Artificial Intelligence Will Never Rival the Deep Complexity of the Human Mind https://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak...

The epic robot fails that say AI will never rule the world | New Scientist https://www.newscientist.com/article/...

Scientists Say Sentient Artificial Intelligence Will Likely Never Happen https://www.outerplaces.com/science/i...

A.I. Computers Will Never Think Like We Humans Do https://www.newsmax.com/leegruenfeld/...
"Artificial intelligence will become very intelligent, but it will always be artificial."

Artificial Intelligence Will Never Replace Human Intellect: Experts http://jakartaglobe.id/news/artificia...
"Speakers at this year's World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi, Russia, agreed that no matter how advanced modern technology becomes, artificial intelligence will never surpass human intellect."

Believe what you want. Time will tell. The world is full of "experts," so you can pick and chose those who reinforce your belief. On the whole, though, experts who make specific predictions don't have a high level of historical accuracy.

E.S. wrote: "Believe what you want. Time will tell. The world is full of "experts," so you can pick and chose those who reinforce your belief. On the whole, though, experts who make specific predictions don't have a high level of historical accuracy...."

I always remain agnostic on everything unless all the facts are in, so wouldn't dare form any beliefs on this especially as it's not my field. As clearly mentioned, I personally think it's all guesswork, and sci-fi films/literature have influenced us to a degree...And also noting the scientific and tech communities are highly divided on predicting what will happen...Many are simply saying AI will be a great tool for humanity, not a threat, so I just posted those articles to play Devil's Advocate (rather than say i necessarily subscribe to those ideas or have formed any solid beliefs)...

Yes, lots of technical advisers, Iain, but at the end of the day there is also the need to strive toward stories that create maximum drama and deliver controversial or unexpected twists. Same goes for non-scientific films that are "based on true stories"... I think the goal of Hollywood's treatment of sci-fi stories is to create a general environment that is scientifically credible, but it's sometimes with the fine detail stuff (e.g. with the HAL supercomputer in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey becoming fully sentient) where drama will often trump accurate scientific assessments... Kubrick's vision possibly may turn out to be accurate at the end of the day of course, but I'm just pointing out a blockbuster film like that (and Arthur C. Clarke's novel it was based on) was enormously influential on our culture and even the scientific community...

Iain wrote: "Anything you recommend to add to that, that would be worth taking a look at? ..."

You came up with a good list of AI movies, altho I didn't personally think much of Transcendence or Ghost in a Shell (either creatively or scientifically). Moon was fun and went pretty far-out (in a good way). Haven't seen the new Blade Runner film, but that may cover AI again too. Spielberg's Minority Report is I guess covers AI too.

Other AI-themed films I'd recommend:

Lucy

Bicentennial Man

Iain wrote: "I haven't seen Bicentennial Man. I'll check it out."

That's the best I've seen in exploring the concept of AI becoming sentient or equal to humans, and the civil rights issues that might ensue.

Fun to experience vicariously in cinema, but need to wait and see if that sort of consciousness will actually be possible with AI.

That Rocky 4 ringtone story with the new Blade Runner movie is hilarious. Especially as I imagine the cinema was full of BR fanboys or hardcore sci-fi fans - who would be the antithesis of Rocky fans!!

You probably should've yelled out "Drago!" when you found the phone :)
Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlIrW...

Wow how dumb.

Iain wrote: "Here's 2 questions: do you think A.I. would be able to recognise laughter, sarcasm or be emotionally receptive if the 'water-works' came on?..."

Imagine if that "dumb" comment written above was by an A.I. machine, thinking it was being really clever :)

Put it this way: We aren't getting an A.I. comedian to challenge Robin Williams anytime soon. In fact, I think it'll be so long before that happens that'll it'll be...never.

I apologize for missing some of your polls as I have no time to be on goodreads right now. I have no doubt that A.I. is out there and is way beyond our intelligence. I also believe that they are watching us and have been here all along. This is JMO.

Iain wrote: "Braeton wrote: "Wow how dumb."

Here's 2 questions: do you think A.I. would be able to recognise laughter, sarcasm, mocking, embarrassment, or be emotionally receptive if the 'water-works' came on?..."

Facial recognition algos are already more accurate at recognizing human emotions displayed on faces than humans. AI will recognize our emotions and mental states. The question is what will it choose to do with that information? Manipulate us? or possibly try to help? Depends on a lot of factors.

I'm sceptical about the term because the basis for its creation is the human mind, therefore, by implication, the form that AI will take is already predicated on the thinking of the human mind and at best, the structure and development will only be a reflection of the logical structure of the mind. It may be impossible even with the vast processing power now available to replicate fully the Full range of processing that a human being is capable of. And as a person that believes, on fairly empirical experience, that the human consciousness is a vast structure with many unacknowledged inputs, I doubt whether, at this stage, a program could out replicate the wisdom of the human being.
Hence the AI would be a poor creation at the present time compared to that of the human being. It may be good for logical processing but humans are far greater than this single parameter of thinking which in itself is already being acknowledged as IQ, EQ and SQ and more to be defined.

Artificial Superintelligence: A Futuristic Approach