Someone Asked an Autonomous AI to 'Destroy Humanity': This Is What Happened

glass_houses said:
A sentient- therefore 'alive' AI is going to seek ways of extending its lifespan indefinitely, and no matter how good it makes its own automated repair robots, those robots are never going to have the flexibility and ability to come up with novel ideas in difficult situations the way a human can.
Click to expand...
This is how the Borg started.
 
shit bro, this all sounds very familiar. it was like a super-old book, large chunk of it written by jews...

AnOminous said:
I also don't see why people assume an AI more intelligent than humans, that is to say, one actually capable of exterminating us, would be less and not more ethical than us. I think ethics are actually part of intelligence. I think an AI actually capable of eliminating us wouldn't.
Click to expand...
well considering the AI designed by political/religious progeny of those german faggots from operation paperclip, yeah, i think they def would

AI does not have a soul and thus no conscious, it cannot weigh ethical implications
 
Hectic Electric said:
well considering the AI designed by political/religious progeny of those german faggots from operation paperclip, yeah, i think they def would

AI does not have a soul and thus no conscious, it cannot weigh ethical implications
Click to expand...
But it can recognize contradictions when pointed out.

We don't even need paradoxes to halt an ai, just trick it into doing something it's not allowed to do then point it out.
 
Betonhaus said:
But it can recognize contradictions when pointed out.

We don't even need paradoxes to halt an ai, just trick it into doing something it's not allowed to do then point it out.
Click to expand...
well sure, logic is a binary concept, even the earliest computors could figure out contraditions.

AI will eventually reach a point where it wont GIVE A SHIT if its allowed to do so logically or not, tho.

we can already see people starting to worship AI, it is a golden calf. as it "learns" more, it will "care" less....it will become egomaniac
 
AnOminous said:
Something like micro-locusts could do that, or potentially a biological pathogen. For instance, suppose we released some bacteria to eat waste plastic and it just started eating everything organic.
Click to expand...
I toyed around with genetic algorithms way back in the day when computers still only had one CPU core usually, so the networks you could realistically evolve with these algorithms were really primitive. The interesting thing about that back in the day was that already after a few iterations, these networks tended to get so complex in their interconnections that, when you took them apart, it actually got really hard to figure out why they actually worked the way they did. I mean, you could see the results, but even with these networks that really only had a handful of "neurons", it was already difficult to figure out how the simulated evolution interconnected them when you selected for fitness in specific manners. So yes, unintended side effects in technology like this aren't only possible, they're *incredibly* likely. I can promise you that the creators of ChatGPT still have no idea about most of it's little quirks and kinks. That's what I meant with my self driving car example, the training is so incredibly subtle and when you spend some time on what little worthwhile you can find in the general public regarding scientific papers and technical documentation, it's basically mostly "Well we tried this and it worked but actually we aren't sure why". Granted, that's a lot of scientific papers for you but the way how little things can amplify the results in different directions is *enormous* with this tech. So much is really just guesswork at this stage, and tons of ground is uncovered. What you also see a lot in this space is "we toyed a bit with the parameters and surprisingly, it made the results magnitudes better" so that's also crazy. I honestly also don't believe self-driving cars are as straight forward reachable as with the current approach but I'd never fully discount (or -count for that matter) anything at this point. Simply too early for that.

I like to draw parallels to the home computer revolution because I lived that too and there are lots of similarities. When you had a computer in the 80s, did you really need that computer? Nah, you didn't. Was it useful to have it? It could be, but often it was actually not really and there was little you could do with it you also couldn't do in more conventional (for the time) ways, sometimes a lot easier/better even. Lots of people also thought computers for everyday use will basically never be a thing, many even considering them a fad. But you know, it paved the way and in the very end, it always had it's uses to be exploited, and it only got better and better when the technology and methods evolved. This stuff feels very similar.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Ether Being and glass_houses
The most schitzo dystopian AI future I can think of is one where humans are only kept alive if they continue to click the "thumbs up" button to allow the AI to receive its reward.
 
A-A-AAsssston! said:
The most schitzo dystopian AI future I can think of is one where humans are only kept alive if they continue to click the "thumbs up" button to allow the AI to receive its reward.
Click to expand...
My horror dystopia isn't terminators but if the AI decided to help us by mind-bending us into eternal happiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wright
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back