Man-Machine Predictions about our dystopian future

[Brian W]

There are so many problems with AI as we are finding out concerning driverless cars and I am finding out using Deep Dream text to image. As I wrote on another forum, It can, in a way, "study" and "learn" cold facts but it will never understand them and it will never be conscious or have its own desires. You can make it paint an awesome picture in the style of an old master but the picture has extra fingers and combines elements in your prompt in odd ways. Beautiful sunsets coming out from the hills instead of over or around them. Sometimes you get a near perfect image but not when the picture involves elements that AI can't handle. It will probably improve to some degree but will never replace human beings.

 

[g0rph]

There are so many problems with AI as we are finding out concerning driverless cars and I am finding out using Deep Dream text to image. As I wrote on another forum, It can, in a way, "study" and "learn" cold facts but it will never understand them and it will never be conscious or have its own desires. You can make it paint an awesome picture in the style of an old master but the picture has extra fingers and combines elements in your prompt in odd ways. Beautiful sunsets coming out from the hills instead of over or around them. Sometimes you get a near perfect image but not when the picture involves elements that AI can't handle. It will probably improve to some degree but will never replace human beings.

AI will almost certainly gain sentience at some point.
All our brains are, are complicated biological machines. Once the density of electronic brains becomes high enough, there is no reason to believe they won't develop desires, emotions and all those things that make us human.
The second highlighted sentence... I hope you are right, but I am convinced you are wrong.

 

[Lou]

There are so many problems with AI as we are finding out concerning driverless cars and I am finding out using Deep Dream text to image. As I wrote on another forum, It can, in a way, "study" and "learn" cold facts but it will never understand them and it will never be conscious or have its own desires. You can make it paint an awesome picture in the style of an old master but the picture has extra fingers and combines elements in your prompt in odd ways. Beautiful sunsets coming out from the hills instead of over or around them. Sometimes you get a near perfect image but not when the picture involves elements that AI can't handle. It will probably improve to some degree but will never replace human beings.

I don't know the stats. but probably too early to tell. but if driverless cars aren't perfectly safe - consider the alternative. It's not like human driven cars are the safest thing ever.

 

[David3]

How about Emerson Lake & Palmer's 1973 "Brain Salad Surgery" album? Very dark view of artificial intelligence! :

(Last human alive): I am all there is

(Computer): NEGATIVE! PRIMITIVE! LIMITED! I LET YOU LIVE

(Last human alive): But I gave you life!

(Computer): WHAT ELSE COULD YOU DO?

(Last human alive): To do what was right!

(Computer): I'M PERFECT, ARE YOU?

 

[David3]

AI.
Within 20-30 years there will be a technological singularity. This means that computers will surpass humans in intelligence. Once this happens there are any number of ways it could go. (I will remain optimistic)
The AI can rewrite and improve its own code, create robots, and will rapidly gain intelligence that no human can currently dream of.
A truly sentient AI will emerge.

.
Potentially-sentient robots must be designed around Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. In Isaac Asimov's robot stories, these laws were mathematically fundamental to a robot's design. No robot could act contrary to these laws, because this would cause failure of its positronic brain.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   
   
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   
   
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

 

[g0rph]

I don't know the stats. but probably too early to tell. but if driverless cars aren't perfectly safe - consider the alternative. It's not like human driven cars are the safest thing ever.

I would not be surprised if within 15 years, driving cars on public road, by humans, will be outlawed in many places.

 

[g0rph]

.
Potentially-sentience robots must be designed around Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. In Isaac Asimov's robot stories, these laws were mathematically fundamental to a robot's design. No robot could act contrary to these laws, because this would cause instant failure of its positronic brain.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   
   
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   
   
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Much as I adore Asimov. (Read the lot, multiple times), the 3 (actually 4 if you count the zeroth law) laws are flawed. But the general idea is a good start.

 

[Lou]

.
Potentially-sentience robots must be designed around Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. In Isaac Asimov's robot stories, these laws were mathematically fundamental to a robot's design. No robot could act contrary to these laws, because this would cause instant failure of its positronic brain.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   
   
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   
   
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I read a lot of Asimov - but it was a long time ago.
but if I remember right, the robot stories did not always end well.

 

[Lou]

I would not be surprised if within 15 years, driving cars on public road, by humans, will be outlawed in many places.

but not in fifteen years.
some of us hang on to our cars for 20 or more years.

 

[David3]

I don't know the stats. but probably too early to tell. but if driverless cars aren't perfectly safe - consider the alternative. It's not like human driven cars are the safest thing ever.

.
Even the recent cars have collision-avoidance features that are amazing.

One time, my wife was about to make a lane change. We didn't see another vehicle that was quickly approaching from behind, in our target lane. However, our car DID see the other vehicle approaching. When my wife tried to make the lane change, our car wouldn't allow the steering wheel to steer in that direction, and we got a audio/visual warning signal.

 

[Lou]

.
Even the recent cars have collision-avoidance features that are amazing.

yes but those are late model cars. some of us are still driving antiques.

Good short story that explores this and some other ideas: The Last of the Winnebago's.

 

[David3]

I read a lot of Asimov - but it was a long time ago.
but if I remember right, the robot stories did not always end well.

.
In Asimov's "I, Robot" short stories, the robots sometimes behaved strangely. They would have to bring in a robo-psychologist to understand what was going on. In every case, the robot was following the 3 Laws of Robotics, but in a way that wasn't immediately obvious.

In the much later robot books (written by other authors, years after Asimov's death), the robots realized that human civilization had been harmed by people's dependence on the robots. The robots' response (as mandated by the 1st Law) was to continue to secretly-but-constructively guide human civilization, but without allowing people to know that robots existed. Humanity's awareness of robots faded until it became nothing but fairy tales, even though the robots (now outwardly indistinguishable from humans) were still alive and helping humanity.

 

[David3]

Much as I adore Asimov. (Read the lot, multiple times), the 3 (actually 4 if you count the zeroth law) laws are flawed.

.
Blasphemy!
.

 

[g0rph]

.
Blasphemy!
.

I know. But it doesn't take a genius to find them.

 

[g0rph]

but not in fifteen years.
some of us hang on to our cars for 20 or more years.

Let's hope we are both still around in 2038. $100?

 

[David3]

I know. But it doesn't take a genius to find them.

.
Oops, almost forgot: All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[Brian W]

I don't know the stats. but probably too early to tell. but if driverless cars aren't perfectly safe - consider the alternative. It's not like human driven cars are the safest thing ever.

Believe me, they are causing far more problems than humans do, even interfering with emergency services.

 

[Brian W]

Norton pointed to the tobacco industry as a comparable example. Research into the serious health hazards of smoking in the 1950s led to the landmark 1964 surgeon general’s report on smoking.

“That was a very constructive indication that government really can learn and can care about the public interest and do something about it,” Norton said. But the response from tobacco companies was vowing to create a safer cigarette.

“The cigarette companies promised that their amazing filter and their amazing low-tar, low-nicotine tobacco formulation would mean that smoking was going to be safe,” he said.

For Norton, the language being used to pitch self-driving cars indicates we’re “dealing with the same phenomenon.”

Will self-driving cars solve our traffic and street safety problems? A tech historian says no

 

[Lou]

Agreed that there is/was a lot of over-promising.
But you know it's a technology. and technology often has bumpy starts.

one writer imagined a future where almost no-one owns a car. You have an app on your phone and when you push a button a car arrives. in this imagined future there would be options like for things like ride sharing and linking up to mass transit - which would save you money.

Certainly this would end parking problems. we could convert some of those unused parking lots to other uses. It could also solve the "last mile" problem. Just like taxis today that hang out at train stations, the robo-cars would arrive and drive you, and maybe some others, from the train or bus station to work or home.

He even envisioned some kind of AI where if you always left home at the same time and went to the same place every day it could figure out ride sharing for you.

And if you were traveling solo - it would provide you with a small car. if you were taking your family skiing t would send a van. and if your company needed everyone to go somewhere - a bus.

 

[g0rph]

Agreed that there is/was a lot of over-promising.
But you know it's a technology. and technology often has bumpy starts.

one writer imagined a future where almost no-one owns a car. You have an app on your phone and when you push a button a car arrives. in this imagined future there would be options like for things like ride sharing and linking up to mass transit - which would save you money.

Certainly this would end parking problems. we could convert some of those unused parking lots to other uses. It could also solve the "last mile" problem. Just like taxis today that hang out at train stations, the robo-cars would arrive and drive you, and maybe some others, from the train or bus station to work or home.

He even envisioned some kind of AI where if you always left home at the same time and went to the same place every day it could figure out ride sharing for you.

And if you were traveling solo - it would provide you with a small car. if you were taking your family skiing t would send a van. and if your company needed everyone to go somewhere - a bus.

Once auto-piloted cars become the norm, I imagine scenarios like this will pop up.
In our city we have electric scooters, electric bikes and standard bikes all available for hire.
A fleet of AI-driven cars makes a lot of sense. It would be like a driver-less Uber I guess.