2017-07-21 at 9:53 PM UTC
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it is today, but with two difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
2017-07-21 at 11:30 PM UTC
I'm just expressing that I didn't read your post.
2017-07-22 at 5:16 PM UTC
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
So how come you don't always post about stuff you don't do?
"Didn't climb a mountain just now."
"Didn't shit my pants today."
You know why. Expressing stuff you didn't do is stupid. You were just being sour.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-07-22 at 6:13 PM UTC
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
So in your mind refusing to read my posts is like refusing a 50 million dollar contract?
2017-07-22 at 6:46 PM UTC
greenplastic, I mean it.. go drink citracel
2017-07-22 at 7:36 PM UTC
mashlehash
victim of incest
[my perspicuously dependant flavourlessness]
I can imagine an AI breaking someone's dick off.
2017-07-22 at 9:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume
They could just map the human senses then code that information into the robots or they could pull it from the cloud
Explain how our sense of smell works.
I'll wait.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
"Siren Server" is the collective data of all search and inputs request information by quantifying the needed data and then it allocates only what it has searched and formulate an answer by that search.
it's figuring out and solving needed questions by looking up the best solutions based on all conversations or searches and answers since the beginning of internet. I bet it could even find out information related to 9/11 in more accuracy in just a few seconds to that of what NIST spit out over the years and millions they made.
2017-07-23 at 12:48 AM UTC
No one gives a shit if you incidentally didn't read something, actively refused to read something, are mentally incapable of reading something, or transcendentally beyond reading something. It's just a snotty reply that neither generates discussion or is an amusing retort. I'm not even the one you're not reading and it's obnoxious to see the same reply to every other post got dang.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!