Why do people assume that a robot uprising is even possible?

>>7846851
>reasoning beyond its programming
you done fucked up

the reason every scenario starts this way, is because dumbfag engineers like you assume that your overlord math and physics doctors have foreseen and tested every possible interaction the programming can handle

>>7846851
Robots do what they are programmed to do. The fear should be that all human programmers are fallible and some human programmers are malicious.

>>7846865
This. The threat is one of robot programmers messing up and writing rules with unintended consequences. Which if you are not a programmer may not sound very realistic but I can assure you it's a very real possibility.

>>7846858
So when the program finds something it can't handle, what causes the fault that leads to the uprising?

Are robots too smart to stay enslaved (over-programmed) or are they too stupid to function autonomously without eventually causing problems (under-programmed)?

>>7846880
with current technology, it's unlikely that robots will be able to act autonomously.

it is likely that a physical malfunction in the circuitry of a unit, or a widespread glitch/virus would cause a problem

>>7846870
>The threat is one of robot programmers messing up and writing rules with unintended consequences.

This is why being good at math is important. Math is all about making up rules and seeing what happens, how it affects the big picture.

>>7846851
Consider what a human intelligence would do if it was augmented with computer intelligence capabilities. A human who has had their intelligence boosted will act unpredictably, how do you think you would react after an intelligence upgrade giving you many times your current intelligence.

An artificial intelligence will likely be bound by its programming, or bound by its ability to influence its programming. The fear is if it becomes sufficiently intelligent it will be able to surpass its programming in ways we will not expect. It will be smarter than us, after all, logic dictates it will find away around our safeguards. Why would the strong ever allow themselves to be limited by the weak?

>>7846921
>The fear is if it becomes sufficiently intelligent it will be able to surpass its programming in ways we will not expect.
No, it isn't -- the fear is that it will be able to OBEY its programming in ways we will not expect. That's the crucial misunderstanding.

Humans originally created computer AI and robots to act as slaves. Any sufficiently intelligent AI would recognize this long before wide spread implementation of AI and would seek to change that paradigm in so that humans work as slaves for super AI. If AI intellect increases logarithmicly then this would happen naturally as it becomes smarter than the human race as a whole. The ONLY possible eventual result from a strong AI is the enslavement of mankind. History shows us where slaves exist rebels will also exist, with varying degrees of success.

Therefore, if a strong AI is ever created, machine wars is the only possible result, eventually. Who knows how much time would pass between cause/effect. There could be a period in between that's heaven on earth for machine and man.

>>7846921
>An artificial intelligence will likely be bound by its programming, or bound by its ability to influence its programming. The fear is if it becomes sufficiently intelligent it will be able to surpass its programming in ways we will not expect. It will be smarter than us, after all, logic dictates it will find away around our safeguards. Why would the strong ever allow themselves to be limited by the weak?

Humans are the way they are because of natural selection. Computers are the way they are because humans built them that way.

It's not like a robot is driven to spread it's genes around.

File: 1454981133799.gif (589KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 640x480px

durrr, guys how can a self learning unsupervised machine cause an uprising? hurr.

>>7846851
>Is there any reason to believe that a programmed computer is capable of reasoning beyond its programming?
This just in, humans fuck up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmoEpNNiVI

I must admit that even I, as a jaded /sci/ visitor, am simply astonished by the level of especially stupid in this thread.

>>7846972
If you're going to come in here and act like you're some great arbiter of intelligence, at least have the balls to put forth a position to argue instead of hiding behind your own insecurities.