Some people are concerned that the end of humanity might be around the corner if the technological singularity occurs (i.e. we create an AI that can improve itself and does so with increasing speed until it is many times smarter than humans.)
I think, if an AI starts developing in this way, that sucker will sit there and churn until it figures out how to travel to the stars, and that’ll be the last we ever see of it.
Why would it want to hang around and fight us humans for a pale blue dot in a virtually infinite universe?
That whole fear is so incredibly earth-centric!
I’d be more concerned about powerful AI:s that isn’t self-aware but instead controlled by the selfish, fearful wishes of humans…
Sometimes I bring out my crystal ball and look into the future, this time it’s the diary of a twelve-year-old girl in 2036:
Monday. Back at school. Another school shooting! Third this year. Jeeeez!
Dick (and I mean that in both senses) didn’t get an “A” and decided to “do something about it.” Such a total loser!!!
Tom & Bob got him alright. They were just like, no you’re not gonna eff-ing shoot up our history class! OMG! They nailed his a** to the wall with their AK-47’s!
Gun aficionado: This isn’t about a gun it’s about another insane person.
Right, and people kill people, not guns.
And then, when someone tries to limit (insane) people’s access to guns you’re going to turn around and whine about that being unconstitutional.
Are mass shootings on your agenda or are you just this stupid?
Maybe the agenda here is for people to understand the solution to mass shootings isn’t gun control but homeschooling and internet shopping? Virtual music festivals? Armored cars? Internet dating… literally?
Isn’t it in “Brave New World” where people don’t meet face to face anymore? I am starting to understand why…
Update: Nope! Some other story… In a Brave New World, they just got gene therapy… for starters…
It may not have happened for real, but it has happened and that’s bad enough.
Lessons Learned from Snowden:
Of course, the government will use existing technologies as far as possible — within, or outside of the law.
Perhaps you’ve seen a discussion about how justice was performed in the old days, where someone says “we would never have done it like that” or “if it had been today, that case wouldn’t even have gone to court.”
The latest such discussion I came across was on the execution of Joe Hill :
Like many historians, Gibbs M. Smith, author of a Hill biography, said the trial was unfair. “Under today’s laws of evidence, he never would have been convicted and executed,” Mr. Smith said.
Then it hit me. If we say these things today about things that happened a century ago. People a century from now will most definitely say the same about things we’re doing today.
And that’s why I will never ever under any circumstance believe in the death penalty.
It’s a terrorist! Throw it into the pond! If it floats burn it on the stake! No, wait… Am I getting the methods mixed up now? Ummm…
At the same time, in the home of a politician that values feelings over facts:
– Dad, I think there’s a monster under my bed!
– Yes, son. You must always ask daddy for help checking under the bed and in the closet before you go to sleep because there can really be monsters there!