-- Posted by whoami111 at 5:21 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 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. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 5:25 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 The Grey Goo Scenario has been debunked. Most scientists say that if they create nanites that run amok they'll most likely have a protocol that destroys/shuts down the programming that causes them to run amok. As for the super computers, let's hope the fuck we get Megaman X as an option. -- Posted by MixedDelight at 5:25 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 That's interesting. I really do think that if technology become intelligent they would get rid of the humans. I mean seriously, we destroy everything in our paths. Logically, we're a threat to the earth that technology would want removed. -- Posted by runthespread at 5:28 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Science is always advancing to catch up with imagination. I've read things such as anti-matter engines may become a reality in future spacecraft, like talked about in Star Trek. Elevators to space, etc. Speaking of robots, scientists have created nanobots that can change shape to slip thru small cracks, do their jobs, and then self-destruct and disintegrate. Insane! -- Posted by Courtannnny at 5:28 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 5:25 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 That's interesting. I really do think that if technology become intelligent they would get rid of the humans. I mean seriously, we destroy everything in our paths. Logically, we're a threat to the earth that technology would want removed. would we still be a threat to the earth without technology? -- Posted by 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? -- Posted by whoami111 at 9:34 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 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 -- Posted by medjai at 10:09 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 So then don't create nano machines which require eating "all lifeforms" to stay alive? All you have to do is limit their reproductive capabilities and their desire to reproduce, and then make it so that they require fuel (like oil or some shit) and not human fucking flesh to eat, and then regulate their ability to eat it. That is to say, create a system which requires human approval and moderation of consumption. The machine has to go to a human operator and in some form, get permission to consume and reproduce. I don't see how it even makes sense that they'd just start swarming the earth eating all life forms, lol. -- Posted by asb at 4:20 am on Oct. 25, 2008 Nano-machines that can kill and self replicate at an alarming rate already exist.  They're called viruses. -- Posted by Bacon at 10:09 am on Oct. 25, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 10:52 am on Oct. 25, 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? Although I agree with you to an extent (nanomachines/computers etc. would probably have little reason to hate us), you have to remember that humans have little reason to hate or wreak havoc on who we owe our existence to: the Earth itself. The ecosystem, the order of things.. No other species on this planet has done such global damage than the human race. We consider ourselves the most intelligent life forms of which we know of and yet our intelligence has lead us into massive problematic situations that affect the environment so much that other species, hell, even ourselves are put at risk. Sure there are those among humans that attempt to change that, but it takes an entire species to attempt to change that, for the same level of change that occurred when we were oblivious to it - or at least, were seemingly oblivious to it. What I'm really trying to get at is, if nanomachines, computers, robots, whatever, are created and "released" with AI that equals or surpasses our level of intelligence and self-awareness, who knows what problems this could cause for ourselves and the planet as a whole. Perhaps these machines will figure the human race - though their creators - are simply a threat in the grand scheme of things. A threat to their mechanized freedom and liberty. Maybe then they will lash out at us, much like we lash out at our environment or other species if they get in our way or create problems for us that perhaps we should find alternate means of fixing (or not fixing). But then, perhaps this whole argument of mine is flawed. Perhaps if the machines' level of intelligence is greater than human's they will simply not make the same mistakes as we have made (and may continue making). But then, nothing is perfect, right? Well, nothing is perfect unless it is designed that way.. Logic is the only thing perfect in this Universe. And initially, machines were (and still are) made based on logic - logical arguments, routines, programs. When AI becomes self-aware and conscious.. It will start to become less perfect. It will begin to become selfish. -- Posted by medjai at 2:46 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 You assume too much. Nano-machines won't be "intelligent" anyway, they're fucking nano-machines. We can't even make a super computer intelligent. You assume a provided free will, nano-machines will be created to achieve purposes. More than that, you assume self awareness and selfishness, again, these might be possibilities, but by no means are they the reality of machine intelligence. -- Posted by whoami111 at 4:56 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 medjai:So you are pretty sure we won't be screwed over by terminator rip-offs in the future. There is no possible way a metallic blob will consume us one day. Ri-ight? -- Posted by medjai at 5:23 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 Correct, just because there's a movie about it doesn't mean it's our future. -- Posted by Bacon at 11:45 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 7:46 am on Oct. 26, 2008 You assume too much. Nano-machines won't be "intelligent" anyway, they're fucking nano-machines. We can't even make a super computer intelligent. You assume a provided free will, nano-machines will be created to achieve purposes. More than that, you assume self awareness and selfishness, again, these might be possibilities, but by no means are they the reality of machine intelligence. I love how you definitively say what will and won't happen in the future. One hundred years ago, nobody would have believed we'd have say, the internet.. And anyway, nano-machines will be made "intelligent" if we have the ability (something that will only come with time). Nano-machines will be created to achieve purposes, but eventually they - and other computers - may require free will/self-awareness in order to successfully make the correct and intelligent solutions. The reality of machine intelligence NOW is that it is based entirely on logic and logical routine. The reality of machine intelligence in the future where machines may need to be made self-aware and as much human as possible to work most efficiently is that they will not be made so much on logical routine but a learning, adapting system akin to life itself. Machines will eventually become like us, like life. Because in reality, we are all simply complex machines. -- Posted by medjai at 5:57 am on Oct. 26, 2008 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? This idea is singly tracked, and that is why it is flawed. When we have technology so advanced that we can create machines so small they cannot be seen by the naked eye which have massive computing power and the massive storage for data necessary for useful self-awareness and problem solving capability and the physical adaptability to change their function into murderous functionality, we will certainly have the necessary technology to stop and destroy them at a whim. All I am saying is that this fear of technology is retarded, the same fears that relayed about this kind of shit were relayed about regular computers that's why robot movies were successful etc. The ignorant fears innovation. It's like that one guy who said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Fear of the unknown, fear of the consequences of advancing. It's counterproductive and retarded. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 11:07 am on Oct. 26, 2008 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. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 1:04 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 2:04 am on Oct. 25, 2008 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 Reminds me of the 'mycora' from the book Bloom. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 1:05 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 3:37 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 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. yeah that and Viruses. -- Posted by lisma at 2:31 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 I don't believe we should worry about robots taking over or destroying the world. Even if they do reach the intelligence levels of humans or beyond, we do not wish harm upon them so they should not wish harm upon 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. -- Posted by Bacon at 2:09 am on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 11:57 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 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. -- Posted by medjai at 12:14 am on Oct. 28, 2008 "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! -- Posted by Bacon at 12:25 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 6:14 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 "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) -- Posted by medjai at 1:01 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Just like how people were afraid that computers today would be conscious and killing us. It's baseless, and so not something to concern ourselves with until there's actual evidence that it might occur rather than just fear of technological advancement. -- Posted by medjai at 1:02 am on Oct. 28, 2008 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. -- Posted by Bacon at 2:22 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 7:02 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 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? -- Posted by MadFishBomb at 5:53 am on Oct. 30, 2008 I wouldn't say claims like this are baseless. But I don't think we should be panicking over them yet either. They've already made a sort of robot that behaves like an amoeba- it's large and chunky and looks nothing like a read amoeba, but if you observe closely, you can see the similarities. And they're already working hard on making the robot smaller and faster. 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? -- Posted by Colleen35 at 5:49 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 The way that human computers are currently structured, natural intelligence such as we have is impossible.  We would need an entirely new method of programming.  The current logic paths only work so far, and are stuck within the realm of what they have been endowed with / personally experienced.  Beyond which (though I'm sure an entire realm of naysayers will descend upon me for this), human cognition and awareness are based on more than the brain.  Since even the brain cannot yet be replicated, there is no chance at proper awareness for machines. -- Posted by medjai at 9:06 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 Who are you to say how much a "self-aware" individual can be programmed? 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. -- Posted by allsmiles at 12:27 pm on Nov. 30, 2008 I don't understand why people think that machine intelligence would want to actively destroy us. How would they benefit from it? Humanity is a large source of learning, and we have a highly tuned physiology that, if nothing else, a "malevolent" (though I doubt that one of these would evolve of its own accord) machine intelligence would not waste the resources replicating us if we're already here for it to study. I also don't understand why they wouldn't just leave if we posed a real threat. They do not need anywhere near as much radiation shielding, nor do they need life support, to traverse the solar system and surrounding environments. Concerning nanotech... why wouldn't we just use a strong grade EMP to shut them down? -- Posted by sophos at 11:30 am on Dec. 2, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 8:21 am on Oct. 25, 2008 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. We're already doing a pretty good job at destroying ourselves; why should we expect any less from such machines.