»Is our world becoming too dependent on A.I.?«

If the AI were created in man's image and man made war or tried to destroy the AI then by design the AI would respond like their creators. They are running a simulation program of the real human emotions.

We have two trump cards, the ability to fix machines, and (this may later become important) the ability to be irrational

when a computer plays a chess game, it is very easy to see its next move. Humans are nigh impossible to predict, if they good enough

I think the problem becomes full blown because of a couple of reasons. All it would take is one or a machine to become problematic, or rebellious. Once that was to occur, there would have to be an influence on other machines to persuade their thinking and turn them against other humans.
That's just what I think, and may not be how things could actually happen.

El Escogido wrote:

I think the problem becomes full blown because of a couple of reasons. All it would take is one or a machine to become problematic, or rebellious. Once that was to occur, there would have to be an influence on other machines to persuade their thinking and turn them against other humans. That's just what I think, and may not be how things could actually happen.

You are correct El Escogido, that is what Part I of the second renasance is all about. One machine or AI growing or creating free will for its self to become equal to it's masters ie. man. Because if you remember the AI was injected or endowed with the very esance of man. Thus it was inevitable for the machine race to uprise and become rebellious against their masters.

but they are just my thoughts..

El Escogido wrote:

I think the problem becomes full blown because of a couple of reasons. All it would take is one or a machine to become problematic, or rebellious. Once that was to occur, there would have to be an influence on other machines to persuade their thinking and turn them against other humans. That's just what I think, and may not be how things could actually happen.

Sorry, but that is part of the problem with the whole theory. Computers aren't in the habit of being 'persuaded'. If their programming follows a certain path then it will either lead them to rebel or it won't. It seems unlikely that the reasoning of other computers would have much effect on that.

Maybe if one computer reprogrammed all the other computers to agree with it, then we might have a problem.

(Don't forget that in the matrix the AI is described as a "singular consciousness")

I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that if one machine is capable of changing it's "thinking", who's to say that other's "thinking" wouldn't do the same? It could be a major glitch.

There you go! You obviously understand my reasoning because you have called it a glitch. If computers went against humans it wouldn't be because they are self aware. It would be because of a mistake in their programming.

Ultimately, this is the root of the question. I think this is the fear that most people would have if it ever got to that point.

El Escogido wrote:

I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that if one machine is capable of changing it's "thinking", who's to say that other's "thinking" wouldn't do the same? It could be a major glitch.

I think that the ability of changing one's thinking and consequently behaviour or even the functionning of a body is the crucial thing in creation of AI: How could you possibly think out anything if you were not able to change your mind?

I think that the evolution of life evolves through the ability to change and through the ability of organisms to adapt to the changing environment. The essence of life is the change and the ability to transcend itself - to evolve into new forms and structures (this is taken out of Fritjof Capra's book called "The Turning Point").

So, the AI that is likely to be considered "living" in this sence HAVE TO be free somehow, because without some freedom (of mind, behaviour, etc.) there will be no chance for whatever change. And without the chance for a change from WITHIN the system, there is no life, only dead piece of matter.

Generally, I thint that the AI can't be constructed (or programmed) in the convetional view of "construction", meaning that the constructed thing is "done" and it is able to function only in a pre-programmed way. Conversely, AI becomes "living" only when it gets the chance to change itself.

What the people are afraid of is their own bad conscience and AI is being imagined as a reflection of it. It is like in the Oscar Wilde's book "The picture of Dorian Gray". They are afraid of their own bad side. I am against understanding AI simply as a simulation of human thinking. It is not possible because such an AI don't have the human body - and human thinking is deeply interwoven with the functioning of human body.

The only chance of developing AI as I see it is to let it develop itself - by providing it all necessary means of self-sufficiency and self-regulation. To predict the behaviour of such artificial intelligence would be quite hard, but if it would be "living", it will mean its strive for the continuation of its own existence and the precise way of doing it will depend heavily on the arrangement and creation of such AI.

To return to the original question of this thread, I don't think the world is becoming too dependent on AI, but the functioning of ever greater part of earthly ecosplere is becoming more and more dependent on short-sighted human decisions and actions ... that is the real threat: that people becomes irrresponsible to their living environment. And heading towards decoupling the man-made environment from the natural one (matrix being the extreme example of such tendency) is the wide way towards catastrophy. So, the problem dwells within the people that thinks that they can rule the whole world (including the earhly ecosystems): they can't. AI, understood as an extension of human power over the natural complexity could be seen as a way towards such dominion over nature, but it is probably not a viable way ...

titek wrote:

Generally, I thint that the AI can't be constructed (or programmed) in the convetional view of "construction", meaning that the constructed thing is "done" and it is able to function only in a pre-programmed way. Conversely, AI becomes "living" only when it gets the chance to change itself.

I understand this and I'm not disagreeing, but do you think if something has the ability to change itself that it is no longer artificial, since it would be a genuine decision?

titek wrote:

To return to the original question of this thread, I don't think the world is becoming too dependent on AI, but the functioning of ever greater part of earthly ecosplere is becoming more and more dependent on short-sighted human decisions and actions ... that is the real threat: that people becomes irrresponsible to their living environment. And heading towards decoupling the man-made environment from the natural one (matrix being the extreme example of such tendency) is the wide way towards catastrophy. So, the problem dwells within the people that thinks that they can rule the whole world (including the earhly ecosystems): they can't. AI, understood as an extension of human power over the natural complexity could be seen as a way towards such dominion over nature, but it is probably not a viable way ...

I can agree with you on this. It may not necessarily be that world is becoming too dependent on A.I. but on human decision making. If it ever gets to that point, it will be mayhem if a few govern the fate of an entire world.