Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 06:30:20 07/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2001 at 07:56:58, David Blackman wrote: >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. > >That won't stop humans disputing it. How true. I'm not sure whether a :-) or a :-( is appropriate, here. >>However - the history of the last 5 million years is that the most intelligent >>"species" will come to dominate. > >Are you sure? Certainly the most intelligent species (defined as the species >with the most ability to write internet posts about intelligence) is the species >that dominates (defined as writes the most internet posts about intelligence). >If you're looking for better definitions of "intelligent" and "dominate", your >claim is not so obviously true. > >>So will computers take over the management of >>all major aspects of life on earth? > >Are you sure they haven't already? How can we tell? > >>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. > >Maybe they'll do both. We won't notice unless and until they do it in a dramatic >way. > >>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 > >People who ride horses tell me that horses have a good idea of what is going on. >Horses allow people to ride them either because they don't mind or because they >have no practical way to stop it (it probably varies from horse to horse). Some >horses do refuse to let people ride them, but that usually has bad consequences >for the horse. Understanding of the situation is not the key to changing it in >any these cases. > >On the other hand in the dealings between computers and humans, i am convinced >that it is normal for the human to have no understanding at all of the >situation. I'm not sure how well the computer understands it. > >>* 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 > >I can think of plenty of elections where some of the voters were not humans on >the electoral roll. In some cases the most likely explanation is that the extra >voters were humans not on the electoral roll, but in many other cases it seems >more likely that these extra voters were not humans at all. Now that most >electoral rolls are maintained with the aid of computers, there is no reason why >even the voters on the roll have to be human. > >Human: "Are you sure this registered voter Pentium-IV SN841202 is really human?" >Computer: "Yes, definitely human." >Human: "Ok, they can vote then." > >And of course it is not obvious elections have much effect on major social, >economic and evolutionary change. > >>* people are unlikely to deliberately build a machine that can't be controlled <moan> >It is sometimes claimed that people deliberately build (or at least deliberately >ask machines to build) the average PCs running MS-Windows. After careful study i >have come to the conclusion that the only way to control one is to turn it off. >That's not a very interesting way to control a machine. (Yes, i can often get >MS-Windows to do approximately what i want, but that's not controlling the >machine if (as usual) it is doing a hundred other things without my knowledge or >consent.) LOL! Sometimes I suspect that MS itself does not control that software "Windows" anymore. That reminds me of OS/360, an old OS of IBM for mainframes. They stopped in the 70s (IIRC) to fix any more bugs (there were known thousands), since most of the time any intended fix of one bug would create at least one other, new bug elsewhere to occur. It was definitely out of control. >>* if the danger of machine takeover > >Are you sure there is a danger? Maybe machine takeover is safe. > >>becomes apparent, people are likely to >>legislate barriers to machine capability > >Legislation will probably happen, but it will be about as effective as >legislation making it illegal for the tide to rise. > >>* if machines start a war against humans, we can build machines to fight back >>against them > >Maybe your local blacksmith could build you a battle-axe. If you want anything >more high-tech i think you would be out of luck. Computers already control the >means of production. > >>What does everybody think about this increasingly important issue? > >I think the average human doesn't think it's important. I think the average human doesn't think a lot at all. Of course, the average human feels quite different about this. > I don't know what >intelligent computers think about it. I highly enjoyed your complete posting, and share most of the viewpoints you expressed above. I understand that th above contains some exaggerations and some sarcasm. That is fine with me. Thanks for the good reading! Regards, Heiner
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.