I'm not versed in science, I would like your opinion on

>>8419336
If you have enough time to read shitty blogs you have enough time to get versed in science. Why would you believe our opinions over other people's opinions? Get to actually knowing things instead of being strung along by whoever's agenda persuades your emotions more.

>>8419344
You didnt even read it dont you? Sperglord

>>8419336

OP we'll let you in on a little secret. As far as we can tell, robots taking over humanity within the next decade has a 50/50 chance of occurring.
Either it happens, or it doesn't.

All there is to do now is take up smoking.

>>8419360
>wallstreetdaily.com
>not trying to push agendas
Sorry I don't read propaganda.

>>8419366
It has a link to the white house report to the president.

What does people do in /sci/ if hey cant separate their political views from the info being puored in your faces?

File: 1358752695561.png (504KB, 919x720px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 919x720px

AI won't be a reality until we can either
>emulate the human brain
>discover what is the consciousness and then develop it into a computer (might or not might be possible depending if can be done with just electronics)

What is probably going to happen in the next few centuries
>researchers make half-assed """""""""""AI""""""""""" (aka neural networks) learn massively so they can spout shit somewhat like a human (no consciousness)

>>8419336
I want stephent hawkings to stop posting on this board

>>8419369
Then you should have instead shared the link to the white house report to the president then. This article itself is just an opinion piece. Pure garbage telling you how they're feeling about events going on with no new information. In all definitions of the word it is a blog, it doesn't even cite any information outside of that report. How you people trust this shit enough to read it is beyond me.

Rifts, noice. Love the ngr and the coalition states. Very in depth world.

>>8419385
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf

>>8419390
Already was reading it but thanks.

>>8419336
I take the man as machine approach.
>AI isn't going to be racist unless we teach it to be
>Mind-machine interfaces may be required to make hard AI... by then humans will be super intelligent and AIs will seem like kindergartners
>Emotion must be developed before sentience can be achieved becasue it is integral for associative memory
>It might think, and therefore it is, but does it want to be?

If anything, early AIs will be suicidal. Programming the will to live is going to be the greatest challenge. By then, machines will probably find a comradery with us becasue we're both stuck in the same probabilistic hell that is existing. I doubt they'll have a Frankenstein complex becasue that contradicts the will to live. Technophobia stems from our natural fear of the unknown. By the time AIs are running around we'll begin to see a disintegration of what defines contemporary humanity.

>>8419336
This question is mote and is beside the point.

We create massively intelligent beings that destroy us.
>We created them. They are our proverbial offspring and will continue our legacy inadvertently. It was bound to happen.

We create massively intelligent beings that take over, but still care for us.
>Our dominance was getting old. Now we all get to live out indefinite lifespans in a humanity retirement home a.k.a. Earth.

We create intelligent beings, but to do so we had to use transhumanism to get smarter first.
>We finally made something of human-like intelligence, but had to be smarter to do it. Our new synthetic children look up to us - they too want to create life... not destroy it.

AI arrives, but it's fucking dumb becasue it isn't cost efficient and/or it isn't necessary.
>We creates robots entirely specialized for specific tasks, but they are unable to think outside their box. Humanity still goes trans-human in-order to command our new synthetic proxies. Human consciousness transcends single bodies.

>>8419695
>We create intelligent beings, but to do so we had to use transhumanism to get smarter first.
>>We finally made something of human-like intelligence, but had to be smarter to do it. Our new synthetic children look up to us - they too want to create life... not destroy it.
I like this future.

>>8419703
To create something like us, we must impart the traits present in ourselves. Emotion is an integral part of what it means to be human. There is a hidden rational, and creating hard AI may be the key to understanding not only computing, but ourselves first. Forgoing the "are we alone" question, why not ask "do we have to be alone?"

As in the myth of Cronus, if we try to destroy our children, they will rebel. We must nurture and care for our creations - otherwise we will create abominations.

>>8419695
There is also another option, usually not considered by journalists and movie makers because less entertaining:
We create massively intelligent beings but they don't take over because we made them that way and no, they don't evolve on their own or develop "free will" just because.
They wait patiently for our orders, give suggestions maybe but comply anyway.

>>8419874
That's basically the fourth option mentioned.

File: 61946384.jpg (9KB, 148x87px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 148x87px

>>8419336
>>8419360

>http://www.wallstreetdaily.com

Non-scientific media speaking about science are 100% bullshit.