Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

[Corbin Wells]

We'd have to be pretty stupid to let a machine rule us. But I highly doubt it. Machines as a group are much more vulnerable than people:
Heat
Viruses
The ability to think like a human or any other intelligent creature
Aside from all of those things considered, the best computer is the human mind.

[kid_merkury]

Originally Posted by Corbin Wells

We'd have to be pretty stupid to let a machine rule us. But I highly doubt it. Machines as a group are much more vulnerable than people:
Heat
Viruses
The ability to think like a human or any other intelligent creature
Aside from all of those things considered, the best computer is the human mind.

the points you made almost seem like they could be an advantage even. those are human weak points, but also with machines, to an extent and on a much much high level. so wouldnt that seem like an advantage? a machine can withstand more heat than a human can. as for viruses, i could go explain how those are eradicated in the human body (macrophages, b and t cells, wbcells, etc) but what if a similar system were to be used?......idk....it seems really really far fetched, but not so far fetched taht the idea is astronomical..

[Xx{Midday}xX]

wb, bump.

Corbin Wells provides no point with Heat and Viruses.

Human mind can't do crap. It's the most flawful piece of junk matter in this universe. Uh, I guess in CT, you're supposed to go into a lengthy explanation of why you would think such a thing... but I don't really have a clear cut explanation.

[x After Dawn x]

Machines can't think, and won't. They're basically programs with set commands and actions.

You ask, "what about machines that can think?" I don't think mankind will ever build any because of the threat of takeover, if that's the answer you want.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Originally Posted by x After Dawn x

They're basically programs with set commands and actions.

In essence we humans are too, just saying. It's just that we have a more diverse variety of commands and actions than the said machines do for the time being.

[kid_merkury]

ty midday ^^

but going off, the human body (mind, more specifically) is so complex. They say the average human only uses about 24% of it in a lifetime (i forget where i heard that, i should probs get better sources xD). So making a machine to think like humans? You have two options:

a.) Build it to think EXACTLY like a human does, including decision making skills, analytical skills, even possibly emotions (legit, the more i type this, the more ridiculous it sounds), but essentially, not efficient. If my source was correct, and we build machines like humans, wouldnt that make the machine only around 24% efficient? (remember, this is being modeled as the average human, according to the stat i mentioned earlier)

b.) Build a machine that surpasses the efficiency of humans, that is capable of all i mentioned in part A, as well as more. I feel like this option is where people might see a possibilty of a "mutiny-esque" type ordeal happening, but again, to build something of this magnitude, with this much power....the amount of work, time, etc to do this would take a lifetime..so I'd pick "a"?....idk


-Merky

[someweakplayer]

What i think is that it is impossible to create something smarter than yourself. So if the robots do manage to ''Attack'', then it is near impossible for them to outsmart ourselves.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by kid_merkury

They say the average human only uses about 24% of it in a lifetime (i forget where i heard that, i should probs get better sources xD)

The usual factoid I hear is "humans only use 10% of their brain" which is at worst a complete fabrication and at best a hopeless misunderstanding. The only way I could think of that being accurate would be to add at a time to the end of the original statement, as in not all portions of your brain are active at any given moment.

Originally Posted by someweakplayer

What i think is that it is impossible to create something smarter than yourself.

Do you apply that principle only to intelligence? Or would you generally expand that to be "It is impossible to create something with characteristics you don't have" because I can think of a few pretty glaring oppositions to the more general extension of what you're saying.

Further, whether that is possible or not depends on how you choose to define intelligence. We can and do create things with vastly faster computational and analytical speeds than we can match, and have done so for years. I don't see how one could find it impossible to create (Assuming we develop the ability to create an artificial intelligence) an artificial intelligence that is at -least- smarter than a large number of people, if not necessarily the designer.

Remember, if it can't be smarter than its creator, and its creator is say...Stephen Hawking, it is still plenty more intelligent than the vast majority of people.