Has Artificial Intelligence Gone Too Far? - Comments Page 1

Speaking of AI and the future. There was a science fiction story from the 60s or 70s that had an AI system acting as the court. A library patron checked out "Kidnapped". She returned the book but somehow the library system failed to take note. The patron starts getting overdue notices. She tries to correct but is ignored (no human oversight in system). When the fine is transferred to the courts the title of the book causes the system to put the case in criminal court. The patron is convicted of kidnapping and is executed. Ah well, the AI system did save taxpayer money - is money more important than life?

Never read Isaac Asimov, eh? You should. Everyone should. Or maybe Google, meet Hal. Or Terminator. Isaac wrote a remarkable series of novels about robots with real AI.

But questions about where lines get drawn need to be considered too - Westworld, for instance. Think that can't happen? We humans are too smart for that? Look around, I don't think there's anything we're not too dumb to try before thinking all aspects through carefully.

This IS the future, no doubt, but what that means needs definition. Maybe protection.

Robocop could have been AI, but the point of the movies was based on the robotic policeman NOT being true AI. Rather, the core intelligence was from a critically damaged human, considered to be not much more than corporate property, who is dragooned into the transplant to a robotic form. The human's gradual recovery of his memory eventually over rides the hardware based (AI?) control of his brain and his humanity asserts itself to positive effect.

All of which tends to support the contention that without human judgement in the mix an AI could easily be subject to the "law of unintended consequences" with potentially devastating results.

For speculation on the future of AI reference the "Aeon14" SiFi series/universe by M. D. Cooper. Particularly "The Sentience Wars - Origins" (5 of the projected 7 book series currently published).

The google demo was based on a very narrow scenario. The "AI" needed to be programmed for all the expected responses. If the person taking the appointment had asked some things that were not in the programmed script, what would have happened?
Seems a lot like the old Eliza program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA)that was fun to mess with like some people like to mess with Siri.
I bet that some high powered lawyers have looked at Watson to check for legal issues.

too invasive, makes me what to get rid of my electric devices. :(

Science fiction in the 60's and 70's were considering this issue quite often. In 1970, "Colossus:The Forbin Project" came out. That dealt with a super computer designed to control U.S. nuclear weapon defense. Things got out of hand quickly.
Currently, I don't think AI is close to being widespread or practical beyond simple tasks. But the people doing research might want to think of how Murphy might weigh in. (Murphy's Law - What might go wrong, will.)

I've had two robot calling machines that refuse to talk to my old and conservative answering machine; yes.... the derangement syndrome has reach AI.

Mark me on the fringe of extreme. I'm the guy that would take a sledge hammer to a Coke machine for ripping me off for a quarter. I don't abide thieves, even mechanical ones. Do me the ultimate discourtesy of having a machine call me? Insure that I don't know who and where you are. If I find out my best advice is to hide.

There's already a very successful tech entrepreneur, Andrew Yang, who is now running as a Democrat for President of the US based on AI taking things to the point where we will need a universal basic income because of all the jobs lost to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/technology/his-2020-campaign-message-the-robots-are-coming.html

So, yes, there are significant forces out there ringing alarm bells about AI.

Didn't some South Korean company get in trouble recently for wanting to make military robots?

And if you want "pleasant dreams", try reading "When the Machine Stops".

Isn't it obvious to anyone that we already suffer from unintended consequences and have done for centuries. No need for AI. Will we suffer more or less with the help of AI?

Will the military use AI to help them analyze war scenarios? Probably. Will they give the AI control over super weapons? Maybe. Some of the last century's sci-fi novels about runaway AI's have been mentioned. They also made a movie called Wargames in which the computer took over the nuclear missile control system and staged a fake attack so that the generals and politicians all thought Russia really was attacking. It's on secret that Russia has long thought they could survive a nuclear exchange with the US. But recovery would be hard with several years of nuclear winter, food running out, water contaminated, diseases rampant, etc. But what about the Terminator movies? Skynet decided that man had to go. Machines were better. So they nuked the planet. Radiation doesn't bother shielded machines too much. And they just build more. Sounds bad, but those are just sci-fi stories, right? But, as sci-fi writers like to say... what if? We need serious controls and oversight. Politicians have proved that they can't properly handle oversight. So who will watch and restrain the developers and implementers? Someone needs to give this serious thought. Can developers restrain themselves? That may be best. Get them to agree to lines not-to-cross and stick to them. And when some politician asks us to develop an AI President (thinking that the politicians can control 'him' or 'her' or 'it')... just say no.

I would think that people would have been apprehensive about AI after experiencing voice menus. Pandora's box has been opened, the cows are out of the barn, the feather pillow contents have been tossed into the wind....

It has gone too far already. We are losing our humanity. Our children, in large part, have become slaves already to technology, and it is only going to get worse.

There is nothing like human to human contact in the real world. An image on a screen can never take the place of a living, breathing person.

When life on earth stops being about money...life on earth will get better for everyone and we won't have to get rid of money to do this, just manage it better: including how much of it there can be and what it can buy, etc, and how much of anything anyone or anything on earth can "own," exclusively as their own private property or possession! Then, finally, we might have a chance for a happy future for all (not just those who can afford it).

Posted by: Chris, 11 Aug 2018: "Isn't it obvious to anyone that we already suffer from unintended consequences and have done for centuries. No need for AI. Will we suffer more or less with the help of AI?" My answer: We will suffer less (if we do it right).

Life on earth (responding to Grand Pa Ken) will never stop being about money, or power or leisure. Human nature being what it is, things created (nuclear weapons as an example) will be refined and used regardless of the foreseeable harm. Thankfully, most predictions of doom and disaster do not turn out to be so bad. What an interesting world my grandchildren will inherit!

I **hate** it when a machine answers and say "I will help you" or "I see you are calling from ... ." A machine is not "I" or "Me" (help me understand you by repeating your request).

Everyone should either refuse to "chat" with a machine or should emphasize that the system is not consumer friendly and not appreciated.

Sadly, customer support is so bad today, some companies will hang up on you if you do not "speak" to their ego machine on cue. Everyone should make it clear this is not "progress."

I feel AI should be used as a tool not a way of life.

AI is great tool to help the handicapped or as a teaching aid but we seem to be getting away from human contact and human interaction.

I think we will have certain corporate types pushing for more and stronger AI until the first AI CEO. Then when it seems they may also be replaced, it will be outlawed.