In article <ekcFnfG1#GA.153 at cpmsnbbsa05>, "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote:
>it's not 'AI' if it cannot direct its own learning in creative ways... as
>soon as the machines are imbued with such, they're on their own.
>my view is that any True 'AI' should not be allowed mobility,
It does not need "mobility" to destroy you.
Bring down your satallites, confuse communications,
provide false data, triggering the events,
and on and on and on.
> but there's
>'difficulty' even in turning 'AI' loose in stationary machines that have
>access to standard networks.
>of course, 'AI' 'motivation' can be tailored, but in doing so, it ceases to
>be 'AI' and is just another mechanism lacking Free Will.
>K. P. Collins (ken)
>Malcolm McMahon wrote in message <379dd387.4822153 at news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:08:05 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:
>>>The first strike will come from a machine, most likely,
>>>because first of all, the man had some interest to build
>>>that machine. Logically, there is no level where the man
>>>will stop.
>>This idea that AI will compete with and eventually surplant us assumes
>>that machine will have similar motivations to people. There's simply no
>>reason why we would build machines that way. When we build AIs we'll
>>build the to serve us and that will be their fundamental goal. Even when
>>AIs build other AIs they'll do it not out of some biological
>>reproductive drive but in our service. If someone is perverse and stupid
>>enought to build AIs with a copy of our biological motivations then,
>>hopefully, there will be enough AIs produced by sensible people to
>>defend us.
>>Some people think that building AIs as "slaves" is unethical but the
>>truth is that _whatever_ fundamental motivations they end up with will
>>be down to us and the only way that one set of motivations is ethically
>>superior to another is in the way it affects us. If they destroy us it
>>will because we have effectively told them to.
