Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sub7 t1_j6rifln wrote

No self replicating nanobot sludge please.

We have enough to worry about without 98% of land being covered in tiny robots we can't stop from making copies of themselves, forever.

10

Larkson9999 t1_j6rm0y4 wrote

Why would AI waste the time to keep our meat brains or even a simulation of them alive? Humans don't have any real value to advanced AI. Once immortal self-repairing machines are real, humans won't be.

Also, this speculative crap just assumes these technologies will keep advancing instead of stalling out in the same way space travel and automobiles have. Shuttles and cars have been refined over the last 75 and 100 years, sure but they haven't had a leap forward to the fully automated cars or interstellar flights that were imagined when they became common technology.

Our imaginations are very much limited by the constaints of reality. Maybe AI can build a better system for most things but it probably will just build around us animals.

2

thetoxictech t1_j6rqrl5 wrote

'this speculative crap' yet here you are claiming the AI would just kill us. One problem.

Ai might be smarter, faster, whatever. But you can't deny that a biological brain is vastly superior in terms of energy in --> processing power An AI wouldn't just see biology as useless, if it was genuinely intelligent it would see the value biology could have.

5

Larkson9999 t1_j6rrrfr wrote

I don't think AI needs to kill us to make us extinct or at least entirely change who's society it is. We already have countries that are choosing to decline without intelligent sex robots. What percentage of society will enact the labor of having children when even mildly passable AI can simulate the spouse experience?

Now imagine the first AI elected official, the first AI police, and AI city planners. AI doesn't need to kill us to replace us.

1

thetoxictech t1_j71ocw4 wrote

Yeah im literally fine with all of that, they'd be better at making decisions than a human. Reasoning: if it's intelligent enough to know how to do that in the first place, coupled with the ability to make decisions more logically, because all of the data they'd be able to process and make a decision with means they'd be able to get the full picture, and make the best decision with the data at hand. Human judgement is incredibly easy to cloud.

1

Larkson9999 t1_j7jspa3 wrote

So you'd accept a robot spouse that is the breadwinner, takes care of the house, and allows you to be unemployed? Because that robot can't give you children, so by serving all your other needs, they essentially "killed" you with kindness and made certain you won't reproduce.

That's why I think AI won't need to exterminate us if they can just stop us from mating with each other.

1

thetoxictech t1_j7p8fam wrote

Bold of you to assume I want children to begin with. I'd be completely fine with an AI spouse, in the context of it being fully sentient.

2

Larkson9999 t1_j7p8jbl wrote

Oh, most would too! So thus less people and eventually extinction. My point isn't that you personally need to have kids, we just need to keep the population from declining much below 2 billion or we start going backwards fast.

So yeah, we can and should manage our population but having AI that may not need us do that seems a risky gamble to take when the entire species could die out in worst case scenarios.

1

Test19s t1_j6rogjy wrote

>cars

There are significant numbers of electric vehicles on the roads, small clusters of autonomous cars/trucks and delivery robots in places like San Francisco, and increasing tech integration in cars versus even 2013.

1

FuturologyBot t1_j6qa93a wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the article

>Indeed, computer-based AI appears to be advancing at an unprecedented rate. But the rate of advancement in robotics – which we could think of as the potential physical embodiment of AI – is slow.
>
>Could it be that future AI systems will need robotic “bodies” to interact with the world? If so, will nightmarish ideas like the self-repairing, shape-shifting T-1000 robot from the Terminator 2 movie come to fruition? And could a robot be created that could “live” forever?

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10qi8a1/our_future_could_be_full_of_undying_selfrepairing/j6q5z8m/

1

Gari_305 OP t1_j6q5z8m wrote

From the article

>Indeed, computer-based AI appears to be advancing at an unprecedented rate. But the rate of advancement in robotics – which we could think of as the potential physical embodiment of AI – is slow.
>
>Could it be that future AI systems will need robotic “bodies” to interact with the world? If so, will nightmarish ideas like the self-repairing, shape-shifting T-1000 robot from the Terminator 2 movie come to fruition? And could a robot be created that could “live” forever?

0

DM_me_ur_tacos t1_j6v4mj8 wrote

Well, some superhuman AI might prove me wrong... But animals made of squishy, self replicating bio-materials are far far far more durable and adaptable than anything electro/mechanical/robotic, so far. Animal bodies are exquisite vehicles to transport, protect and fuel our brains

So yeah, a super intelligent AI confined to a server rack isn't going to take over the world, the AI will absolutely need some sort of "body"

1

thetoxictech t1_j71osd0 wrote

The AI could just Make bodies though?

And then instead of being confined to a body, it's safe in a server rack controlling many bodies. An AI that smart could easily say, steal everything from Boston dynamics

1

DM_me_ur_tacos t1_j72n1ia wrote

Could the AI "just make bodies" though?

What kind of bodies? How are the components sourced? How are they assembled?

1

thetoxictech t1_j7p8lfh wrote

Two words: Boston dynamics. Proves it's possible, bunch of them out there already. Remote control capabilities coupled with a multitude of sensors and modules makes for a pretty decent ai body

2

DM_me_ur_tacos t1_j7p9kqx wrote

As impressive as they are, I don't think their robots are anywhere near being able to self repair or self replicate

1

thetoxictech t1_j7pa34v wrote

I mean. No, but all they need to do is get access to a functioning assembly plant. There are a lot that would be suitable for this and are likely networked so, could again, be remotely managed, safely, in a server rack.

2

DM_me_ur_tacos t1_j7qhyrm wrote

Yeah, I see your line of reasoning, but so far we are nowhere near having fully automated assembly plants, especially for things that complex. A ton of human labor is required to maintain, operate and fix manufacturing lines and to keep an entire facility running. Automation is always increasing and the most ruthless capitalists of the world would love nothing more than to lay off the majority of their workers and just let their manufacturing pipeline churn out cars or whatever. We're not close to there yet.

1