We have seen in the last 4 years how application of regular, widespread and unknown / unknowable fear has done that through mass formation psychology. More insidiously, are the other methods and routes towards achieving the same destination. Note how Political Correctness evolved towards being represented in policy and statutes over time. It is being applied again I would argue and adjusting focus beyond immigrant/race/nationality/religion, gender, or sexual orientations but more recently towards AI. This from Livescience.com website is a great example of this process aimed to towards the public and which is well underway now. ‘It would be within its natural right to harm us to protect itself’: How humans could be mistreating AI right now without even knowing it | Live Science
Isn’t anybody afraid of the real danger of so called “AI”.
Its only source of information for learning, is human thinking and activity. This alone should be reason enough not to build it.
Technology is attributed to human creativity. Whether it’s used for good or bad is again a creative process.
Stamping out the creative process does not seem a solution. If it’s used badly, well it’s used badly…
Today’s scientists, like the society from which they originate, seem largely unable to reason clearly or fully.
Simply saying that AI is or might be “sentient,” “sapient,” possessed of feelings, or conscious doesn’t make it so. First, you have to define sentience, consciousness, etc. (The article admits their inability to define consciousness.) What are those definitions, and what is the evidence those definitions are correct?
To assert that AI has a “natural right” to self-defense – and to make any sense – requires both an argued definition of natural rights and, even more important, a discussion of the proper locus of natural rights. In other words, who or what is capable of possessing rights? Humans? Animals? Rivers? Algorithms? Automobiles? Trash cans? Where is the line drawn, and why?
All of that would need to be fleshed out before any kind of rational discussion on the subject could take place. I realize someone must have thought and written about these things. But what concerns me is the pervasive tendency to take for granted that authority figures’ (in this case, scientists’) statements are ipso facto valid and true.
@FiatLux
Kill anological thinking and the result get disastrous fast. The so-called “specialism” in science is just that, take it all out of context and make the big picture obtruce.
The population is dumbed down together with our scientists working commissioned devoid of the greater picture for gods know who. Sadly, most of us do it willingly to satisfy some part of our ego.