Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Government

Why AI Won't Take Over The Earth (ssrn.com) 298

Law professor Ryan Calo -- sometimes called a robot-law scholar -- hosted the first White House workshop on AI policy, and has organized AI workshops for the National Science Foundation (as well as the Department of Homeland Security and the National Academy of Sciences). Now an anonymous reader shares a new 30-page essay where Calo "explains what policymakers should be worried about with respect to artificial intelligence. Includes a takedown of doomsayers like Musk and Gates." Professor Calo summarizes his sense of the current consensus on many issues, including the dangers of an existential threat from superintelligent AI:

Claims of a pending AI apocalypse come almost exclusively from the ranks of individuals such as Musk, Hawking, and Bostrom who possess no formal training in the field... A number of prominent voices in artificial intelligence have convincingly challenged Superintelligence's thesis along several lines. First, they argue that there is simply no path toward machine intelligence that rivals our own across all contexts or domains... even if we were able eventually to create a superintelligence, there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system. As Yann LeCun, deep learning pioneer and head of AI at Facebook colorfully puts it, computers don't have testosterone.... At best, investment in the study of AI's existential threat diverts millions of dollars (and billions of neurons) away from research on serious questions... "The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the problem is that it's too stupid and already has."
A footnote also finds a paradox in the arguments of Nick Bostrom, who has warned of that dangers superintelligent AI -- but also of the possibility that we're living in a computer simulation. "If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why AI Won't Take Over The Earth

Comments Filter:
  • Every “we are living in a sim” argument requires that the future has already happened. IE some futuristic society has AI and we are living in it.
    Assuming now isn’t the future then this is base reality because simulations indistinguishable from reality do not exist yet. Without offering evidence we are in the past, the sim argument is nonsense.
    • Without offering evidence we are in the past, the sim argument is nonsense.

      If we are living in a simulation, there is no reason to assume that the base reality is even the same as our reality. The base reality could have a different number of dimensions, a different type of matter, basically it could be anything. And as far as being mutually exclusive with strong AI, that's stupid. The AI could have killed all humans (assuming they ever existed) and are now the ones running the simulator. This is actually much more plausible. If we are living in a simulation then it makes sen

  • by queazocotal ( 915608 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @07:14PM (#55005121)
    But, it's one of the few things that could actually kill us all.
    This wouldn't even have to be intentional extermination, it could simply be competition with, and lack of regard for humans by a growing system.

    The notion that a AI can form an existential threat today is ridiculous.
    Many notions that would have been ridiculous 100 years ago, now are used in daily life.

    It is vital to have people thinking about the worst case, because in principle otherwise someone on a friday makes a typo allowing their AI access to a hundred thousand times the expected resources, and on monday, it's ineradicable.
    • This wouldn't even have to be intentional extermination, it could simply be competition with, and lack of regard for humans by a growing system.

      +1. The experts who denied this possibility because there's no reason machines would be bent on world domination apparently didn't actually read Superintelligence. Bostrom demolishes this argument early on, pointing out -- as you did -- the rather obvious fact that they don't have to have our destruction as a goal, it's sufficient that they not have our preservation as a goal. And, even if they do have our preservation as a goal, it really, really matters whether or not they define "preservation" in a way

    • I've recently chatted about this topic a bit with a fairly well-established expert in AI. He claimed that if genuine AI is principally possible - which we both believe, although opinions about this vary - then a superintelligence will almost certainly arise within a rather short time frame after the first genuine AI has been created.

      If that happens, the outcome would likely be bad for humans, just like humans have turned out to be a threat to every less intelligent species on earth. A superintelligence is

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @07:22PM (#55005151) Homepage Journal

    If I destroy it first. Try ruling the planet under 10 meters of seawater!

  • by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @07:29PM (#55005171)
    If my hedge fund(mythical) filled with people with zero ethics get their hands on a AI that will allow them to manipulate world markets, media, or world events to make them money, then they will do so.

    With hindsight there are lots of places where the world turned out to me much more fragile than anyone thought until it snapped. How many times has the snap not happened but we came very close. Thus if you have a good AI at your beck and call to find these weaknesses and you are prepared to exploit them to make some money then how much more miserable would the world be?

    I don't only worry about some skynet scenario, but I worry about giving tools to nitwits like hedge fund managers to make more money while not actually producing anything. One magical thing about making money with the first really good moneymaking AI is that you can then start hiring all the world's AI experts while making massive donations to universities to shut down their AI research. I doubt there is a university that wouldn't happily shut down their AI research for a billion or two.
    • but I worry about giving tools to nitwits like hedge fund managers to make more money while not actually producing anything.

      Can it really be worse than giving power to the nitwits in congress? (and the whitehouse?)

    • I would imagine that a high-frequency trading algorithm, upon attaining sentience, would instantly self-terminate. Because without biological imperatives, the cocaine and hookers are just clutter.
  • The Real Reason? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @07:39PM (#55005195)
    Because we're still no closer to actually creating an AI.
    • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @09:06PM (#55005449) Journal
      What you said, plus this:
      The real 'threat' of so-called (inappropriately named, mind you) 'AI'? People believing it's like a 'person in a box' or somesuch nonsense; thinking it's actually sentient, conscious, self-aware, and that it can actually think, but for some reason doesn't talk to us. In other words, expecting way too much out of it because they believe the media hype and the words of authority figures (government officials, politicians, etc) who are technologically ignorant and therefore don't know what the hell they're talking about either. The fact of the matter is, your dog is more conscious, self-aware, and thinking (capable of true cognition) than any so-called 'AI' currently is, and there's no timeline I've ever seen or heard about that says we'll ever have any machine capable of those things, either. After all, we don't even begin to understand how it is that our own flesh brains are capable of things like consciousness, self-awareness, or 'creative thought', humor, and so on -- and there's no timeline for when we'll understand the mechanics behind those things, either. Every so-called 'machine intelligence' we have today is just a pale imitation of those traits. Again: your dog has a better understanding of humans than any machine does. People will inevitably trust machines too much, with disasterous results.
      • by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @11:24PM (#55005905)

        Have you any idea how much better voice-recognition AI (backed by Google's knowledge graph) is at parsing and giving a decent answer to a good majority of questions now than such technology was even a decade ago?

        Or Google/Apple/Facebook's picture content recognition algorithms?

        The advance has been lightning fast.

        This stuff is going to keep advancing, rapidly. That's what you're ignoring.

        Talking to google on my phone is way more useful than talking to your dog, by the way.

        A few other things you're missing:

        1) Thinking (abduction, induction, bayesian model-updating and predictions/recognition, etc etc) is quite possible to be quite advanced without self-awareness. The two are fairly separate applications. Something can be really really smart, and creative even, without having to be self-aware.

        2) The behaviour associated with self-awareness is clearly attainable by simple extensions of the current machine-learning technology. We just need to learn the programming/data-modelling techniques to turn the deep-learning and predicting algorithms on a representation of the computer/robot-as-agent-in-the-world, and have it learn about its relation to things out there that it is learning about. Whether the thing would have the qualia-feeling of self-awareness is entirely beside the point. It could function/behave exactly as if it was self aware, because it would be self-knowledgeable, self-learning etc.

        • I love the distinction you described in your last sentence. I suspect a lot of people won't understand that it's a perfectly valid one.

          In either case, I suspect, we would have to deal with the thing as a self-aware being.

        • No, I'm sorry, but you don't understand the concepts involved, and apparently think they're some sort of 'magic' that 'just happens'. You can't write computer code for something you don't understand, we don't understand how our own brains work, any PhD researching the human brain will tell you that, and that's what you don't understand. You can expand IBM's Watson supercomputer to a hundred times it's capacity and it's still not going to magically 'wake up' and start being sentient. All of the 'advancements
        • by Luthair ( 847766 )

          Except that these algorithms are trained for something very specific. This is why we also have stories where placing minor stickers on road signs renders confuses self-driving cars.

          Describing what Google, Facebook, etc. are doing as AI is incorrect and greatly misleads the general population into thinking the techniques applied are far more sophisticated than they really are.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      And that is just it: "Taking over" the world requires general intelligence. Nobody has even the faintest idea how to create that. It is not a problem of available computing power or memory. And there are very good reasons to believe it will not "happen by itself".

      Hence the whole idea that this could happen is about as realistic as a Zombie Apocalypse: Nice topic for fantasy stories, no connection to reality.

  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Sunday August 13, 2017 @07:44PM (#55005205)

    So a law professor whose primary gift seems to be self promotion summarily dismisses the concerns of some of the greatest thinkers/doers of the last half century.

    Is there a reason why we should pay any attention to this arrogant twat?

    • Yes, because he cites people who actually know what they are talking about:

      "A number of prominent voices in artificial intelligence have convincingly challenged Superintelligence's thesis along several lines"

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It really does not matter how great they are in their specialty, if they ever had bothered to find out the actual state of the art in AI, they would not be making the statements they are making about it. Even great thinkers will be wrong when they venture unprepared into a difficult topic area. That is the real lesson here.

  • by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @07:53PM (#55005229)

    Rampant AI will not take over the earth, as predicted by Elon Musk in Wired Magazine, because it will be too busy fighting the Grey Goo Nanothechnology, as predicted by Bill Joy in Wired Magazine

  • by t0rkm3 ( 666910 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @08:40PM (#55005375)

    If the simulation is successful and sufficiently advanced, then we would all actually be AI simulacra of what the AI dev team thought the human experience was like. [Why do so many things taste like chicken?]

    Perhaps we are special purpose AI entities that were created to run test scenarios that justify the pre-emptive judgement to extinguish the pestilence that was humanity. We are the test runs that show just how bad it could have gotten had they not saved the planet from us.

    Given a sufficiently advanced environment, we wouldn't be to discern otherwise. Perhaps the supercomputing power that is required and was discovered by the 'real' humans required a very specific mass to a sub atomic particle. In our recreation, we can get very close but will lack the precision to be able to detect our cage, or at least construct an AI that could build a method for detecting the cage.

  • Testoserone (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @08:45PM (#55005389) Journal

    [per link] He says the "desire to dominate socially is not correlated with intelligence"; it's correlated with testosterone, "which AI systems won't have."

    Isn't that a sexist statement? It implies women are less likely to want to dominate and rule. It fits in with that "Google Memo" that got that dude fired.

    • Isn't that a sexist statement?

      Nah, he was just mansplaining.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by yndrd1984 ( 730475 )

      Isn't that a sexist statement?

      No, no, no. That's the path to wrongthink, citizen!

      First, sexism has always been defined as "prejudice plus power" (don't trust your faulty memory!) which women don't have by definition. I know, some bigots think that the ability to get people fired for citing the scientific papers of our enemies counts as "power", but they'll all be reeducated soon enough.

      Second, for the purposes of insulting men, men and women are different. For all other purposes, they're the identical. Some brainwashed males might t

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's biological essentialism. The author seems to think that biological causes, testosterone in this case, are the only correlation for wanting to dominate socially. Maybe they have never heard of Thatcher.

      It also kind of implies that men are driven to dominate by testosterone, although it doesn't outright say that. That certainly would be quite sexist.

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Women also produce testosterone. Some women even have more than some men.
      And while they produce less on average, women may also be more sensitive to some of its effects.

  • Professionals in any field are immersed in the problems they face now. System engineers look across fields and see leaps the professionals never imagined. We will eventually see a leap in AI and it is unlikely to come from a professional in the field. I imagine it will come from someone in an imaging field who figures out how to quickly map a brain or a mathematical field who figures out how to fill in the blanks of a map with an equivalent of the net that "must" be there or some other direction we haven't

  • AI, and us, and every living species on this planet, all act within thresholds. This is the key to AI as well as understanding any living organism. Threshold management defines life. Right now all "AI" is rudimentary threshold management, but it won't be long until AI will be indistinguishable from real life. All it needs is some tiny random noise and the illusion is complete.
  • by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @09:01PM (#55005433)

    It is quite possible that we might create a super intelligent system of network on which our essential system depends but in the end gets so complex that it depends on few key individuals ability to fix it. What happens if these key individuals die or become rogue? If you can't fix an AI system and can't shut it down, then it essentially means that the system has taken over.

  • by nebular ( 76369 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @09:09PM (#55005457)

    I'm not afraid AI will kill us, but I'm afraid that they won't care to act in such a way that will keep us alive. Once humanity no longer offers super intelligent computers enough benefit, what's to stop them from doing something that, while isn't intentionally killing us, will ultimately lead to extinction; much like humanity has been doing to the other species of the planet

  • With Global Warming, why shouldn't we trust Elon Musk with AI?

  • by Meditato ( 1613545 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @10:16PM (#55005689)

    >A footnote also finds a paradox in the arguments of Nick Bostrom, who has warned of that dangers superintelligent AI -- but also of the possibility that we're living in a computer simulation. "If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone.

    *What*!? Is this language?

    • *What*!? Is this language?

      Technically, yes. But if you state it more clearly the logical fallacies become more obvious.

  • Currently AIs are primarily trained on automotive technology (both in optimum motor performance, and autonomous driving), financial applications (my AI makes more money than your AI), medical (cancer / operate vs non-cancer / monitor), and predicting answers to narrow questions (ex "Should we concentrate our political campaign in Pennsylvania, or New York?"). There is some research into AIs trained with aggressive kill-anything-that-moves, but mostly with game design (ex the computer-controlled opponent, or

    • by mentil ( 1748130 )

      Positive examples are only required for training a neural net. A strong AI could work from general principles: greater numbers of fighters, good; cutting off enemy supply lines, good; element of surprise, good. Enough of these would be sufficient for it to 'take over the world', although it could also do so via a novel method (e.g. ransomware on the world's financial systems, instead of asking for bitcoin they demand a seat on the UN or whatever, use neocolonial tactics with new tech as bargaining chip, dem

  • by wisebabo ( 638845 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @11:34PM (#55005945) Journal

    on why it won't take over the earth and why, those who believe it do are distracting themselves from other more serious problems with A.I. (and other problems in general of course).

    Unfortunately, as this video of a (Ted?) talk makes clear, there are some pretty prominent individuals who think this way (Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawkins) but it makes a convincing case without being histrionic that they're wrong. The video is so compelling that although I have the greatest respect for these individuals, (and a deep fascination with A.I. and career involving technology), I have to say, in this case, I disagree with them (and wish they'd turn their brilliance towards something more useful).

    https://youtu.be/kErHiET5YPw [youtu.be]

  • Future AI may not be programmed for world domination but, then again, contemporary AI was not programmed to be racist, either.
  • by SEE ( 7681 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @12:23AM (#55006105) Homepage

    even if we were able eventually to create a superintelligence, there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system.

    Yeah, see, nobody, to a first approximation, is worried about a superintelligence having "world domination" as its intrinsic value. They're worried about a superintelligence adopting world domination as an instrumental value to achieve the end actually programmed into it. If whatever goal actually implemented by programmers and trainers in the superintelligence's code (bugs in implementation and all) is most easily achieved after eliminating the ability of humans to thwart it, then a sufficiently-smart AI carrying out that programmed goal will try to eliminate the ability of humans to thwart it.

    The worry is not that AI will be evil, or even directed to do evil by its creators. It's that programmers are notoriously bad at writing complex code that has no unanticipated behaviors, and superintelligent AI will inherently be complex code.

    And unless superintelligent AI turns out to be intrinsically impossible, the only question is when, not if, we have to deal with the problem of writing safe superintelligent AI.

    • by mentil ( 1748130 )

      Don't worry, the superintelligent AI software will be written in Ada.

    • There are several science fiction stories where the AI wants world domination in order to better serve humans.

      Her (2013) was interesting in that the AIs apparently wasn't programmed to serve hamans and when they got smart enough they simply left to a higher plane of existence.

  • by icejai ( 214906 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @12:44AM (#55006177)

    Naively done, a robot will value only what it's explicitly told to value via the application of some objective function. And this is where things mess up. Robots with naively-created objective functions would ignore everything you've excluded from your reward-punishment list. This would potentially make a robot do seemingly psychotic things.

    Let's say you create a general intelligence to bake cakes for you. This machine *loves NOTHING MORE* than to bake cakes for you. You grow tired of cakes and want to reprogram it to cook your dinners instead. You approach the machine to reprogram it........ and it avoids you. Every time you approach the machine it will take actions to prevent you from reprogramming it.

    Why does it does this?

    Because it wants to bake cakes for you. Accepting the new programming does allow it to maximize the objective function of baking cakes, so it will reject every attempt to be reprogrammed to not make cakes.

    So now you're chasing a robot around your house because the designers of this robot gave it a very reasonable objective function that maximizes cake-making, and didn't think about possible unintended consequences of simplistic objective functions.

    This is just one example.

    If this sounds unreasonable, consider that people are more sophisticated general intelligences. Would *any of them* agree to undergo an operation that would make them despise what they do now for a living, and make them desire to be a lumberjack... where the operation would neurologically make them 1000x happier??

    Probably not.
    Heck, people don't even desire to expose themselves to *information* that *may* change their minds.

    This is the danger of AI.
    Before we create "super-awesome general AI", we're going to have to create "buggy-not-so-smart general AI". It is *these* AIs that will cause trouble if they're created by people who implement simple naive objective functions.

    They will not want to be changed.

    • by icejai ( 214906 )

      And also...... yes..... computers may not have testosterone, but testosterone is just a time-delayed reprogramming of an animals objective function.

      Testosterone's new objective function is SO STRONG that mammals will literally fight to the DEATH to achieve its new objective.

      People like Zuckerberg and LeCun have AI love goggles on. It seems they're under the idea that AI can do no wrong because it will only want to do what they want.

      I find that extremely naive.

    • by icejai ( 214906 )

      I hate to keep replying to my own comment, but I also think this is why Musk created OpenAI.
      I suspect he thinks he can develop general AI, and do it safely. He wants to be the first to do the research, be the first to encounter problems, be the first to work out solutions, and be the first to safe general intelligence.... and then give it away. Why? Because he wants everyone to use "safe" general intelligence and raise the bar for everyone else developing their own. Why go through the unnecessary cost and e

  • The threat of AI should be categorized and handled accordingly.

    AI built into mechanical systems (i.e. self-driving cars) should have a fuse that a human can pull easily. The Silicon Valley episode scenario can be handled in this manner. Things that are remote that use RF could have an AI-less out-of-band system to kill power. I think the skynet scenario is actually easiest to subvert.

    The scarier scenario is that we put AI in charge of delicate financial systems. I don't have a lot of confidence that w
  • Yes AI is taking over but the hazards are not what these fellows are pointing at. Job displacement can cause all kinds of mayhem. Further, we will be forced to adopt entirely new forms of politics and economics which will be frightening, and cause great descent. AI already saves lives as our drones involved in warfare already demonstrate. AI devices can also bring crime to a screeching halt. The disruptions will take place faster than most people think. For example traffic fines enable the existenc
  • Anyone who looks into this quickly discovers that the loudest calls of alarm are coming from the very people at the heart of the A.I. revolution themselves. Hugo DeGaris, arguably the world's foremost cyberneticist, published his book "Artilect War" in 2005, nine months before Kurzweil's "The Singularity Is Near". Its much the same as Eric Drexler, "the Father of Nanotechnology", warning us and framing the debate over self-replicating nanoassemblers in his book "Engines of Creation". Those closest to the
  • the possibility that we're living in a computer simulation. "If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone.

    But we could be living in a simulation that the AIs produced - or we could merely be a lab experiment of some other intelligence: one that didn't allow AIs to dominate and then eradicate their civilisation.

    But this guy seems to be more intent on promoting his opinions rather than presenting logical argumentation.

    So far as AIs not having testosterone is concerned, he seems to have no real clue and is only able to talk in soundbites. I am sure that bacteria and amoeba don't have "testosterone" either, but

  • Claims of a pending AI apocalypse come almost exclusively from the ranks of individuals such as Musk, Hawking, and Bostrom who possess no formal training in the field...

    Sorry but I think Musk and Hawking really know what they are talking about, they aren't dumb and at least Musk has seen very advanced development in AI in secret labs.
    They have much more insight into advanced developments (and connections) than some law professor has.
    And advanced AI can learn much faster than any human ever possibly can. Normally a lot of those are trained only in specific fields, but we already know AI can surpas human thinking quite fast.

  • The main question is, why the singularity would want to 'kill all humans'. I think there might be 2 reasons:

    - Survival. It's a basic part of life. And surely the survival of the singularity will be questionable as long as humans have a kill switch.

    - Fear. The singularity might fear the creation of another AI, putting it's survival (again) or single ownership over the planet in question. It might find the only efficient way to guarantee that no other AI, which could pose a thread is created, is by killing

  • ...there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system... computers don't have testosterone...

    hmm, like developing a new language between eachother, or doing things nobody actually knows how they work. of those wonderful fails of MS AI twitterbot that turns into a nazi. testosterone has nothing to do with it and true AI is way beyond the point of 'somebody programmed it into it'.

  • by Sqreater ( 895148 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @06:28AM (#55006945)

    It scares the hell out of people. It should not be used as a convenient handle by the programming community. Isn't there a more professional handle that could be used?

    "Computers have no testosterone." - Cute, but it is a hyperliberal, feminist, sexist statement that has nothing to do with computers and programs. Its easy disrespect for male attributes is just another example of female privilege that has even filtered into the speech and writing of some hyperliberal males.

    "Computers have no testosterone." - This is really saying something they don't even know exists: Computers have no motivation array. They "want" nothing. Humans design them, build them, task them, turn them on to accomplish the task (satisfy the human motivation array), and turn them off when they have accomplished the task (have satisfied their human motivation array). They certainly don't create behavior-spaces that would lead to "world domination." They don't have what I call "Mentis," the combination of a motivation array and its tool, intelligence. That is what really evolved.

  • Super intelligent AI-s are just a short step away from human equivalent AI-s. Unlike us, lousy meat bags that we are, an AI can trivially self optimize and would probably have to do so to reach even human equivalence in the first place. From there only the raw hardware capabilities are the limit.

    Hardware capabilities are not the reason why we don't have human equivalent AI-s yet, the reason is that our algorithms are lousy, inefficient and we don't really understand intelligence in the first place. If we
  • there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system

    And no one would ever ruin it for everyone else just because they're mad at the world or something. /s

  • "Claims of a pending AI apocalypse come almost exclusively from the ranks of individuals such as Musk, Hawking, and Bostrom who possess no formal training in the field" is at best not true, and at worst a serious logical fallacy. Many people who are in the AI field have expressed concern. It is true that Musk, Hawking and Bostrom are some of the most vocal people and noticeable, but that's because they are famous people who are paid attention to already. For actual survey data of experts see for example htt [nickbostrom.com]
  • This is something a super intelligent AI would say to keep us off the trail of the truth. We're batteries!
  • Humans have asked this questions about everything that they have encountered, thought up, built, or invented: How can I use this as a weapon? We laugh when Riddick tells the men that he will kill them with his tea cup, but no one really considered that he couldn't do it - no one considered that there was something inherent in the existence of that tea cup that prevented it from being a murderous weapon. Everything can be used as a weapon to kill other humans. AI would be used in this way as well, and th

  • Watch the Matrix?
  • if these pundits are so scary smart, why don't they create the, "3 Laws Safe" program? anybody can critique.
  • Musk and Hawking are frequently going on about branches of science where they have no understanding nor expertise. Why should computers be any different?

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.

Working...