Author: Jay Rinde
Date: 08:52:55 07/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2001 at 07:19:39, Graham Laight wrote: >We've seen chess programs grow in ability. Now, for 99% of all chess players, >the best way for them to select a chess move would be to consult a cheap chess >program (unless there's an obvious good move in the position). > >At some point in the future, the same will be true of any kind of question. Ask >a computer, and you'll immediately get a high quality answer - in the format and >context that you want it. > >At this time, the intelligence of computers will indisputably be higher than >humans. > >However - the history of the last 5 million years is that the most intelligent >"species" will come to dominate. So will computers take over the management of >all major aspects of life on earth? > >They could either do it in a dramatic way (as has been depicted in many >Hollywood films), or they can do it with stealth - taking control so gradually >and quietly that we don't notice it's happening. > >Here are some arguments for the takeover: > > >* horses are about 15x stronger than humans - yet we ride on their backs for >fun. This is because the horses don't know what's really going on. To the >computers of the future, we'll look like horses > >* although nearly everyone I speak to always says, "I prefer to be served by a >human than a machine", the simple historical reality is that whenever people >have a choice between an expensive human or a cheap machine, they've always >chosen a cheap machine > >* people who think that humans will always retain ultimate control overlook the >fact that for the last 5 million years humans have been unchallenged in the >intelligence stakes - and there's no human experience of this not being true. >But in 25-50 years from now, it will be. > >* legislation to control the limits of machine capability are likely to fail - >because machines with intelligence will soon find a way around such legislation > > >Here are some arguments against: > > >* no species other than humans have ever had the vote > >* people are unlikely to deliberately build a machine that can't be controlled > >* if the danger of machine takeover becomes apparent, people are likely to >legislate barriers to machine capability > >* if machines start a war against humans, we can build machines to fight back >against them > > >What does everybody think about this increasingly important issue? > >-g The machines run on electicity. Pull the plug. Machine run on fuel. Give it none. Machine run on battery. Kill the recharger.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.