Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


JimsonWeed

126 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4
Inactive user


#207542 1-Jan-2017 14:01
Send private message

Over the weekend, either BBC Knowledge, the History Channel, or Discovery, aired a segment on "Combining Artificial Intelligence and Robots" and posed the question as to whether or not it was a threat to mankind.  Part of this discussion included the moral concepts associated with enabling "smart robots" to conduct autonomous killing and what-not.  Although I could not find the actual segment that aired, I did find another documentary on YouTube that discussed the same thing;

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJeMeLC2nz0

 

What I'd like to know are the thoughts any of you might have on this subject.  Will one country attempt to dominate the world through smart robots?  Will we create our own demise if smart robots become self-aware (i.e., "SkyNet" from the Terminator series)?  Should there be controls put in place to stop the development of smart robots for military purposes?  Or, is all this just a bunch of fear-mongering hype?

 

Obviously, this is a very open-ended topic but, we do know that companies all over the world are investing billions into AI.  Cognitive Computing is already a common word in organisations wanting to utilise it for Business Intelligence and big data.

 

Thoughts?

 

 


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
blakamin
4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user


  #1697210 1-Jan-2017 14:26
Send private message

The military are probably so close to having it already, I doubt anyone could stop them.

 

 

 

I'm going to start being nicer to my TV and phone now tho.

 

The laptop is still a bastard so stuff him.




MikeB4
18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1697214 1-Jan-2017 14:36
Send private message

I always thought our fridge had an ulterior motive

JimsonWeed

126 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4
Inactive user


  #1697223 1-Jan-2017 15:29
Send private message

I found another documentary which tends to support the evolution of technology - the concept of "Singularity".  It's based in part on the principles of More's Law;

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJeMeLC2nz0

 

 

 

 




JayADee
2155 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 407


  #1697326 1-Jan-2017 19:58
Send private message

Although not embodied my dog for some reason loathes Siri and will leave the room as soon as she shows up. Makes you wonder what happened between 'em.

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #1697330 1-Jan-2017 20:21
Send private message

MikeB4: I always thought our fridge had an ulterior motive

 

 

 

To reignite the cold war?


Behodar
10582 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1697332 1-Jan-2017 20:25
Send private message

Reignite? Have I ended up in the wrong dimension again?


Geektastic
17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1697380 1-Jan-2017 23:14
Send private message

Wargames, 1983.

 

 

 

Yes, it will be a bad idea.






 
 
 

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).
PhantomNVD
2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user


  #1697404 2-Jan-2017 04:58
Send private message

https://www.track5media.com/ai-for-dummies-the-rise-of-super-intelligence/

This gives a good opening idea of the issues of the potential AI precipice ahead...

Batman
Mad Scientist
29827 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6089

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1697406 2-Jan-2017 05:51
Send private message

I thought we had a thread on this last year ...

JimsonWeed

126 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4
Inactive user


  #1697489 2-Jan-2017 11:03
Send private message

joker97: I thought we had a thread on this last year ...

 

Perhaps but, I wasn't here last year so it looks like we're have reruns tonight, dear  :)


frankv
5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

  #1697513 2-Jan-2017 11:56
Send private message

The issue isn't about robots and AI and so on. The issue is about *people* misusing them for their own ends.

 

 


JimsonWeed

126 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4
Inactive user


  #1697516 2-Jan-2017 12:11
Send private message

frankv:

 

The issue isn't about robots and AI and so on. The issue is about *people* misusing them for their own ends.

 

 

 

 

Excellent!  We're starting off on a good foot.  You have a firm grasp of the obvious  :)


petes117
371 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 40


  #1697519 2-Jan-2017 12:23
Send private message

frankv:

 

The issue isn't about robots and AI and so on. The issue is about *people* misusing them for their own ends.

 

 

 

 

Yes that's true... but what about accidents? If a self-driving car swerves to avoid a collision and save its passenger's life, but kills a pedestrian, who is to blame? Or if the car knew it was going to be a choice between saving the passenger or the pedestrian, who should it save?


JimsonWeed

126 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4
Inactive user


  #1697545 2-Jan-2017 12:39
Send private message

petes117:

 

frankv:

 

The issue isn't about robots and AI and so on. The issue is about *people* misusing them for their own ends.

 

 

Yes that's true... but what about accidents? If a self-driving car swerves to avoid a collision and save its passenger's life, but kills a pedestrian, who is to blame? Or if the car knew it was going to be a choice between saving the passenger or the pedestrian, who should it save?

 

 

 

 

Ah man, yeah.. GREAT point there.  I forgot all about the "driverless" cars.  Yeah, screw that!  No way I'm getting in one.  I'd be more inclined to purchase a DIY Eye Surgery kit than to trust a computer to drive me in traffic with other humans.


richms
28343 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9325

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1697555 2-Jan-2017 13:03
Send private message

petes117:

 

Yes that's true... but what about accidents? If a self-driving car swerves to avoid a collision and save its passenger's life, but kills a pedestrian, who is to blame? Or if the car knew it was going to be a choice between saving the passenger or the pedestrian, who should it save?

 

 

The person who owns it should be saved. Anyone thinking that the stuff will sell doing anything other than that is an idiot.





Richard rich.ms

 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.