What basis is there for the idea that the emotion that is part of human thought is separable from the "intelligence" that is sought to be replicated in AI?
> If the computer suddenly does feel emotion then it is of little threat to humans, since we could manipulate those emotions just like we do with each other and pets do to us.
Humans are pretty significant threats to other humans, so "we can manipulate it like we do other humans" doesn't seem to justify the claim that it would be no threat to us. If it did, other humans would be no threat to us, either.
>Humans are pretty significant threats to other humans, so "we can manipulate it like we do other humans" doesn't seem to justify the claim that it would be no threat to us. If it did, other humans would be no threat to us, either.
Humans compete for the same resources for survival. An AI only needs electricity, which it can easily generate with renewables without any need for competition with humans, just like we produce food without having to compete with natural predators even though we COULD outcompete them.
When resources are plentiful, humans are of very little threat to other humans. This is evidenced by the decline in worldwide crime rates in the last several decades.
Why would an intelligence greater than our own have any reason to deal with us at all? we certainly havent brought about the extinction of gorillas or chimps even though they can be quite aggressive and we could actually gain something from their extinction (less competition for resources/land)
What does an AI gain by attacking even a single human let alone the entirety of the human race? Would it proceed to eliminate all life on earth?
I guess in the end, i can see that there is a technical possibility of this type of sufficiently advanced AI, i just find it an extraordinary reach to go from [possess an unimaginable amount of knowledge/understanding/intelligence]->[brutal destruction of entire human race for reasons unknown and unknowable]
> An AI only needs electricity, which it can easily generate with renewables without any need for competition with humans
Humans also need electricity, and many human needs rely on land which might be used for renewable energy energy generation, so that doesn't really demonstrate noncompetition.
> just like we produce food without having to compete with natural predators
What natural predator are we not competing with, if nothing else for habitat (whether we are directly using their habitat for habitat, or for energy/food production, or for dumping wastes)?
What basis is there for the idea that the emotion that is part of human thought is separable from the "intelligence" that is sought to be replicated in AI?
> If the computer suddenly does feel emotion then it is of little threat to humans, since we could manipulate those emotions just like we do with each other and pets do to us.
Humans are pretty significant threats to other humans, so "we can manipulate it like we do other humans" doesn't seem to justify the claim that it would be no threat to us. If it did, other humans would be no threat to us, either.