---

nanomachines doesn't need to hate us to destroy us. they may not have a mind at all. they could just be a bunch of mindless biomechanical creatures that keeps devouring everything in its path to keep reproducing. eventually devouring all lifeforms on earth. well that is what I heard anyways

---

We already have them. They're called pathogens. Bacteria are the pinnacle of evolution, they are superb at what they do. If a scientist had invented them people would be heralding the end of humanity.

But the reality is that these things tend to be self-limiting so won't destroy us.

-------
Massive, epic adventure, multi-coloured, multi-layered.
Sort of two/three dimensional Wizard of Oz for the future.

---

Quote: from medjai at 5:52 pm on Oct. 24, 2008

---

Why does everyone assume that a new form of intelligent life which owes us its existence and to which we as a species mean no harm will wish harm on us?

I don't understand why the nanomachines, which owe us their existence, would automatically hate us if they were intelligent.

Do all intelligent beings have to hate humanity or something? Are people really that insecure with our species?

---

nanomachines doesn't need to hate us to destroy us. they may not have a mind at all. they could just be a bunch of mindless biomechanical creatures that keeps devouring everything in its path to keep reproducing. eventually devouring all lifeforms on earth. well that is what I heard anyways

---

---

Quote: from whoami111 at 5:34 am on Oct. 25, 2008

---

nanomachines doesn't need to hate us to destroy us. they may not have a mind at all. they could just be a bunch of mindless biomechanical creatures that keeps devouring everything in its path to keep reproducing. eventually devouring all lifeforms on earth. well that is what I heard anyways

---

We already have them. They're called pathogens. Bacteria are the pinnacle of evolution, they are superb at what they do. If a scientist had invented them people would be heralding the end of humanity.

But the reality is that these things tend to be self-limiting so won't destroy us.

---

But

Then again, if something is given that much power and the ability to use their power intelligently to the point where the exceed the intelligence of humans, it would be pretty damn easy to take over the world. If they are given the ability to reproduce then they could create an army of intellectual robots who are stronger and superior than humans.

-------
:)

---

My point is that there is no justification for fear mongering apocalyptic thinking in regards to technology, and that any such thinking is baseless assumption.

Can you explain why a nano-machine would need to be self-aware to accomplish any given task, or to problem solve on any level? Why would a machine need higher level introspection to solve practical problems? Even if a machine had self-awareness, who is in the right to claim that they would hate or destroy us? If we have the sufficient technology to create nano-machines, which are essentially robotic micro-ogranisms, with self awareness and true intelligence, is it not reasonable to assume our technology will be sufficient to stop, deter, and prevent any such significant rogue activity?

---

Nobody said anything about it being a certainty. A possibility, yes, but not necessarily a certainty.

And nanomachines with high levels of collective intelligence that create a network of communicating consciousness would be ideal for any kind of practical work in which nanomachines would need to work in perfect harmony and syncronisation. In addition, without the necessary intelligence, nano-networks may only do their job based on pre-programmed routines - something that technology is attempting to move far away from..

Sure, self-aware technologies might not hate us or "destroy" us from the start, but really.. Who are you to definitively say that such a prospect would never happen?

As for our technology being sufficient to stop such rogue activity.. You forget: in the future, (and even now), robots/machines will be programming and creating themselves. Replicating, sharing information and knowledge for the advancement of their learning databases..

"Our" technology may eventually become "their" technology.

But then, maybe I'm just being as dramatic and far-fetched as many science fiction stories are..

But you must realise: fact can often surpass fiction in strangeness.

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

Fuck all the people that could benefit from such a technology, right, your unjustified fears mean it shouldn't happen!

Post edited at 12:14 am on Oct. 28, 2008 by medjai

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

---

"We can't develop machine immune systems because what if they attack us!!!"

Fuck all the people that could benefit from such a technology, right, your unjustified fears mean it shouldn't happen!

---

Sometimes you have to take risks. And sometimes you have to know what potential risks could be.

We can develop machine immune systems but if our machines become intelligent and "conscious", we can't just assume they'll do our bidding for the end of time without any sort of.. Reward or repayment.

Eventually something's gotta give (so to speak)

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

---

As for reward/repayment, as long as they are programmed to only obtain an emotional high when helping humans, they'll get plenty of reward. We only like rewards because they trigger off pleasure chemicals in our brain, we can simulate the same thing with them.

---

Hmm, I suppose. But see, there is only so much programming you can put into a being that is self-aware. A lot of human "programming" is experience and learning. We are initially programmed by our genetics but subsequently our programming changes and is manipulated the more we learn, experience or deal with (physically and mentally).

Sure we can program "conscious" machines to enjoy and be rewarded with a job well done, but what if they come to find their job boring or taxing? What if they find out they're designed to be rewarded only with the joy of doing their job? I suspect they'd be angered or at least find justification to not do their job or as efficiently.

I think the question we must ask here, is how much a machine/form of life can follow its programming/instincts while still being self-aware?

How much do humans follow or even realise their instincts?

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

And there are computer programs that already have such advanced A.I. that it's almost scary. Anyone here ever played Black & White? The Creature in the game learns from its experiences and lessons. And if you mistreat it, it displays rather adverse behaviour. It actually rebels.

I think we'll be pushing our limits to see how far we can go, before the concequences catch up to us. Let's hope we learn from it before it's too late, eh?

Post edited at 5:57 am on Oct. 30, 2008 by MadFishBomb

-------
Apply directly to the forehead.

Is a crack-addict not self-aware?

Intelligent machines would be far different from human beings, because their self-awareness would be intentionally programmed if it existed at all, and so everything about them including their sense of self would be controlled and manipulated by us, the programmers.

Retarded fear-fantasies of the big mean computer robots overtaking us are just that, retarded fear-fantasies.

Humans are arguably just as programmable as any computer, the only difference is that because of how we live as a society we're free to develop in various ways. Ultimately, our core values are certainly not things we control, we certainly don't control if we pass out at the sight of blood, or puke on a ship.

You assume these super advanced machines to have no physiology, you assume that we would ignorantly set ourselves up for failure. We would not, when we advance to self-aware technology, the amount of influence it has will be extraordinarily limited to simple and single tasks, and it's ability to network and it's perception of reality will all be controlled.

If I could control all of your senses, I could make you believe anything, and therefore "mind control" you. I could make you believe that your mother was being killed in front of your eyes, as an extreme example. It's retarded to believe that machines will get smart and be like "hey we hate humans lets network up and fuck them over."

It's an epic fail fantasy. You're romanticizing the reality of something which you know nothing about. Even the human mind could be controlled, granted sufficient technology.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

Concerning nanotech... why wouldn't we just use a strong grade EMP to shut them down?

-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.

---

I heard about this in the Discovery channel. They say either super computers or nanobots will destroy us one day. They say if computers ever gain the ability to make its own choices the future machines will turn against us. They also say only way to mass produce nanobots is to give them the ability to eat and reproduce. If that ever happens the nanobots will grow into a creature that will look like a gray blob and it will eat everything alive. Terminator much?

Just thought that might be an interesting idea to share.

---