Example: my phone. There's an off switch, but all it does is turn off the screen. You can reset it, but it just starts right back up. Even if you pull the battery, it has a backup.
What I think is funny is that in all portrayals of AI it turns out bad for us. I don't think it will. I think we might want to add an off switch just in case, but I don't think they are going to take over and kill us all.
But the question is, why? Why have the machine think for you? Why let them run on autopilot? Is it a desire for more leisure? I agree that building machines to do the jobs that require the most backbreaking work is a good idea given the caveat that the person who did the job gets an easier, better job. Machines taking the soil samples at Chernobyl and rebuilding concrete barriers there; these are two goals robotics engineers should have.
However, that's not what AI would be for. AI would involve a machine that could adapt. A machine that could change its programming in response to stimuli. There are some computer viruses that seem to come close to this. They are usually quite nasty and if anyone does write one that’s truly capable of complete adaptation, it would take millions of machines down.
Why build a machine that does the very things that make us human? A machine that does our thinking for us? What would be the point of playing chess if a machine told you which moves to make? What would be the point of playing music if the machines told you which chords to use? It’s very nice that a game could be designed that will be easier or harder depending on how good you are, but what satisfaction would you get out of winning?
I believe the only answer anyone has ever come up with is "Because we can." I can't deny this as an incentive. Many of the great works of our society have been done for that reason alone. Of course, so have many of our worst atrocities.
No comments:
Post a Comment