Quote

Originally posted by Pallas Athene:
<snip>
(/B)

I'd describe myself as a Neo-Rayndist, but that's just me.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

Personally, with Neural-Networks making it totally unescisary for us to actually figure out how the brain works in order to make an AI, I think it's only a matter of time now.

I would love a friend who could predict the stock market with insane precision...

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

I think there was one ortistic kid who could do that. And another one who could play any piano piece after hearing it once.

Quote

Originally posted by Count Altair El Alemein:
I think there was one ortistic kid who could do that. And another one who could play any piano piece after hearing it once.

You do mean "autistic," right?

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

Yes. The kids who can't coordinate properly.

Personally I think that AIs will not be allowed to do such a thing as taking over the world. The Human race isn't that sloppy.

------------------
PI=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097
494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230
664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110
5559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233787...

One might assume a sufficiently advanced AI would cover up the fact it is self-aware. This assumes this is such as thing as being aware anyway. Maybe we are just programmed to think that we are self-aware, if we were, then how do you explain the rampant hypocrisy in our society? Humans are programmed biologically speaking.

Quote

Originally posted by White Fire:
**Personally I think that AIs will not be allowed to do such a thing as taking over the world. The Human race isn't that sloppy.

**

Well, the human race is sloppy enough to allow small chunks of the world to accidentally be irradiated and blown apart. (read: Chernobyl)

------------------

I saw someone reading a book called "The Hinge Factor," I believe. If it's what I think it was, it should really show what humans are sloppy enough to do

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork "

Quote

Originally posted by Fleet Admiral Darkk:
**I theorise that, if sentient AIs decided to take over, they would keep humanity around for amusement value. An immortal being with a really sick sense of humor would probably find us really funny.

**

In case it wasn't apparent, I never saw Darkk's reply before I posted. My mention of AIs had nothing to do with his.

A mortal being with any sense of humor would find us funny - we have even effectively removed ourselves from Natural Selection with all of our gadgetry and "principles"; the vast majority of people who "will not reproduce" are the people who are ugly and the people who have been crippled by accidents involving the people who shouldn't reproduce, rather than the people who should have died because of genetic conditions. I admit I may a bit harsh here, but people won't think so when another species evolves the capability to invent things. It may be a few score million years from now (and we'll probably all have died off too) but of course it's all in principle.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork "

If you at first state that we've outsmarted natural selection with our gadgets and at the end of your post state that we may in all likelihood be gone in a few score million years then you are negating your own concept. I think you're right on both counts, actually. We've certainly stalled natural selection, but we have in no way beaten it. We're still subject to diseases like AIDS and cancer for one thing and we have not been selected through natural causes to protect ourselves from ourselves. A species destroying itself is also a part of natural selection. There have been many species that have used up so much of their environment that they no longer had the resources to sustain themselves.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

Quote

Originally posted by Captaintripps:
**There have been many species that have used up so much of their environment that they no longer had the resources to sustain themselves.
**

Name three. Dinosaurs didn't do that, so don't even think about that.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

Darkk, the argument that resources etc can run out and thereby cause a society to die is a perfectly logical one. Unfortunately, there are very few examples from the animal world to support this, due to the fact that nature often re-introduces their old foes or new ones that are now equipped to fight back against a dominant animal after a short time.

(This message has been edited by Count Altair El Alemein (edited 07-06-2001).)

The aurochs of central asia, the chatham islands rail, and the saudi gazelle. Want some more?

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

I'm not claiming we've outsmarted natural selection; I'm simply claiming that we've removed ourselves. Now of course the inefficient methods we've used to remove ourselves will eventually come back and hurt us. We're running out of fuels we need and that source will be gone, we're continually allowing intelligence to die off, and when we need new technology to survive in new conditions we're not going to be able to get it because of our removal. At that point, if we're not extinct within a hundred years we'll be so far reduced in the technology that we can invent that we'll simply be running off older methods for thousands years, with a miniscule population compared to today's because the inefficiency is bound into our technology.

And so are we.

Because we take technology for granted, we never seem to wonder as much about "making it better." If it works we're happy; if it works better it's more expensive (SUVs), and we're not happy. So essentially we're bound to inefficiency through our technology. If technology is what makes man survive, it's also what is most likely to kill us off - it's a great gamble, and the odds are against us. If only this was like SimLife with something higher than us to directly intervene and protect us, and our environment - if only it had the powers of the monolith so that something could take our place when we're gone

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork "

Creating technology is one of the things we've evolved to do. If we die because of our use of technology, whether through overexploitation or technology that doesn't allow us to survive, then we've indeed fallen prey to natural selection. We are in no way removed from it.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

Also on the subject of 'AI', the truth about that is that the more and more technology we creat the more and more dependent we become on technology. After a while, if our civilization creats Artificial Life, after a while they might become our master minds, therefore ending up in our inferiorness in this world.

------------------
Falling inlove is when he lays in your arms and wakes up in your dreams...

Quote

Originally posted by Athena:
**Also on the subject of 'AI', the truth about that is that the more and more technology we creat the more and more dependent we become on technology. After a while, if our civilization creats Artificial Life, after a while they might become our master minds, therefore ending up in our inferiorness in this world.
**

Or we become symbiotic. There are always things that organics can do that silicon can't and vice versa. It could also win in humans destroying the AI becuase of their danger.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/voxhumanasketch/VoxHumana.html")VoxHumana(/url) -- Comedy of the Future

Quote

Originally posted by Captaintripps:
**Or we become symbiotic. There are always things that organics can do that silicon can't and vice versa. It could also win in humans destroying the AI becuase of their danger.
**

See my theory about AIs keeping us around for amusement value above.
Destroying the AI depends entirely on its hardware. Give it the ability to modify its hardware, and destroying it will probably become REALLY HARD.

See Marathon 2 for refrence on both concepts.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

I seriously doubt though that AI will ever get that sophisticated. I don't think any form of life is any better than another and if AIs were so smart they'd probably feel the same way. Or not. This is what William Gibson is for is it not?

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/voxhumanasketch/VoxHumana.html")VoxHumana(/url) -- Comedy of the Future