ChatterBank0 min ago
Could Ai Threaten Humanity?
Stephen Hawking has said that AI in the future "could develop a will of its own - a will that is in conflict with ours" and that it could “end mankind if it is misused”.
Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction?
http://
Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If it were truly intelligent it would decide that humans are a causing a massive environmental disaster. If enabled to take action then it would get rid of us, starting with those most responsible.
Would be a bad time for any politicians who refuse to accept that climate change is being caused by humans.
Would be a bad time for any politicians who refuse to accept that climate change is being caused by humans.
//Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction? //
At the moment , yes just SF
Humans natural instinct, is to invent / develop new technology in order to make life easier for himself.
However who is to say how man's knowledge will develop into the future and what will be the result of how we apply that knowledge . - 1000 , 2000, ....years hence ; and therefore what unwanted 'side effects' will result .
At the moment , yes just SF
Humans natural instinct, is to invent / develop new technology in order to make life easier for himself.
However who is to say how man's knowledge will develop into the future and what will be the result of how we apply that knowledge . - 1000 , 2000, ....years hence ; and therefore what unwanted 'side effects' will result .
Despite the positive opinion of the most respected Mr.Hawking, I really don't believe that we will ever invent robots with real cognitive thinking.
I do believe however that we and most animals will disappear from the face of the Earth by the year 3000, and leave the planet to plants and micro organisms, to start again.
I do believe however that we and most animals will disappear from the face of the Earth by the year 3000, and leave the planet to plants and micro organisms, to start again.
since we don't really know what constitutes "human consciousness" we can't know how far off the time is when robots will be able to mimic it. But it does appear they're getting better faster than was thought possible.
https:/
To be sure, there's more to life than playing Go; none the less, it's one of the things humans do and now they don't do it as well as machines.
"Deep learning" sounds interesting.
https:/
To be sure, there's more to life than playing Go; none the less, it's one of the things humans do and now they don't do it as well as machines.
"Deep learning" sounds interesting.
Very good artical of this subject here
http://
Nasa are building robots to explore Mars and more!
http://
Nasa are building robots to explore Mars and more!
Beso - “... Would be a bad time for any politicians who refuse to accept that climate change is being caused by humans.”
Good grief. You're still banging on about this? We're experiencing the full force of a bitterly fought presidential battle in the US and not once has “climate change” been put forward as a subject worthy of debate.
Recent worldwide polls suggest that “climate change” is the least of people's worries. It ranks the lowest of all possible concerns. There's a very good reason for that – people have cottoned on to the fact that the whole 'CO2 is a pollutant' and is causing 'damaging/catastrophic climate change' is a steaming pile of demonstrable BS.
I find it fascinating to watch people who put so much store in 'consensus science' dismissing as irrelevant a consensus amongst the public. According to you and others who think like you, when the vast majority of the public say something isn't a problem, then they're wrong. But when a statistically tortured 'poll' of published scientific papers (whose authors were never actually asked their opinions on the matter) says that it is, then it is. Consensus reached – apparently.
This is despite all evidence to the contrary that atmospheric CO2 does not – and cannot - significantly influence global temperatures given the proportions that currently exist. We are running at around the 400pmm mark and even if this goes up to 500 or 600 or 700, nothing bad will happen. How do I know this? Because these (and greater) atmospheric concentrations have happened in the past and have had no effect on global temperature.
Beso, I'm sorry but you are simply wrong on this matter. The amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is not a problem whether anthropologically generated or otherwise. It has never been a primary driver of global temperature in the past and basic physics says that it cannot be so in the future.
For whatever reason it is clear that you are ideologically obsessed with the notion that humans, by their very existence, are damaging the planet. You have latched on to the 'CO2 is a pollutant' bandwagon as it helps to shore up your own self-flagellating belief system. You are vitriolic in your contempt for those of us who know that the whole CO2 'pollution' scam is an invented fiction.
What, I wonder, would constitute evidence in your mind that anthropogenic CO2 was not causing catastrophic global warning and/or climate change? Is this theory that you're clinging to falsifiable? If not, it's not science. Can you give me a scenario that would prove that, “anthropologically generated CO2 is causing planet Earth to warm up to levels that put human beings at risk”?
Falsify it for me.
Good grief. You're still banging on about this? We're experiencing the full force of a bitterly fought presidential battle in the US and not once has “climate change” been put forward as a subject worthy of debate.
Recent worldwide polls suggest that “climate change” is the least of people's worries. It ranks the lowest of all possible concerns. There's a very good reason for that – people have cottoned on to the fact that the whole 'CO2 is a pollutant' and is causing 'damaging/catastrophic climate change' is a steaming pile of demonstrable BS.
I find it fascinating to watch people who put so much store in 'consensus science' dismissing as irrelevant a consensus amongst the public. According to you and others who think like you, when the vast majority of the public say something isn't a problem, then they're wrong. But when a statistically tortured 'poll' of published scientific papers (whose authors were never actually asked their opinions on the matter) says that it is, then it is. Consensus reached – apparently.
This is despite all evidence to the contrary that atmospheric CO2 does not – and cannot - significantly influence global temperatures given the proportions that currently exist. We are running at around the 400pmm mark and even if this goes up to 500 or 600 or 700, nothing bad will happen. How do I know this? Because these (and greater) atmospheric concentrations have happened in the past and have had no effect on global temperature.
Beso, I'm sorry but you are simply wrong on this matter. The amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is not a problem whether anthropologically generated or otherwise. It has never been a primary driver of global temperature in the past and basic physics says that it cannot be so in the future.
For whatever reason it is clear that you are ideologically obsessed with the notion that humans, by their very existence, are damaging the planet. You have latched on to the 'CO2 is a pollutant' bandwagon as it helps to shore up your own self-flagellating belief system. You are vitriolic in your contempt for those of us who know that the whole CO2 'pollution' scam is an invented fiction.
What, I wonder, would constitute evidence in your mind that anthropogenic CO2 was not causing catastrophic global warning and/or climate change? Is this theory that you're clinging to falsifiable? If not, it's not science. Can you give me a scenario that would prove that, “anthropologically generated CO2 is causing planet Earth to warm up to levels that put human beings at risk”?
Falsify it for me.
Birdie, you have resorted to exactly the same strategy that you deride other types of religious people for, simply denying the scientifically verifiable facts.
I am not going to argue with you because arguing with a religious view would be a waste of time. It won't affect you because you are as deeply entrenched in cognitive dissonance as any of the godly.
Moreover you have no comprehension of the science. Time will ultimately prove you are utterly wrong but you will go to your gave denying it. Such is the nature of a religious belief.
I am not going to argue with you because arguing with a religious view would be a waste of time. It won't affect you because you are as deeply entrenched in cognitive dissonance as any of the godly.
Moreover you have no comprehension of the science. Time will ultimately prove you are utterly wrong but you will go to your gave denying it. Such is the nature of a religious belief.
birdie //I find it fascinating to watch people who put so much store in 'consensus science' dismissing as irrelevant a consensus amongst the public. According to you and others who think like you, when the vast majority of the public say something isn't a problem, then they're wrong. But when a statistically tortured 'poll' of published scientific papers (whose authors were never actually asked their opinions on the matter) says that it is, then it is. Consensus reached – apparently. //
That statement must rank as one of the stupidest ever posted on this site. What you are asking is, "why do we listen to climate scientists more than the ordinary public?". Do I really need to answer that?
Moreover your assertion as to the general public consensus is wildly incorrect. Take a look at the statistics.
https:/
That statement must rank as one of the stupidest ever posted on this site. What you are asking is, "why do we listen to climate scientists more than the ordinary public?". Do I really need to answer that?
Moreover your assertion as to the general public consensus is wildly incorrect. Take a look at the statistics.
https:/
Beso - “... I am not going to argue with you because arguing with a religious view would be a waste of time...”
My view is not religious in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. My opinion is based on empirical science. Remember that? The Scientific Method as described by Karl Popper? Science that is demonstrable, reproducible - and crucially – falsifiable.
Nothing about the 'science' of dangerous, anthropologically generated atmospheric carbon dioxide is demonstrable and it certainly isn't falsifiable. Ergo, it isn't science per se – it is unproven hypothesis. And one which doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
You attempt to prove your case by maligning my intelligence and by quoting spurious consensus. Basing your initial argument on a well known logical fallacy – argument from authority – is not a good start for a supposedly rational exchange.
Beso - “... Moreover your assertion as to the general public consensus is wildly incorrect. Take a look at the statistics...”
My assertion is not, “wildly incorrect”. It is factually accurate. My evidence doesn't come from the well known politically biased Wikipedia website, it comes from the UN itself. Nearly 10 million people from hundreds of countries have now voted in this poll. These are real people - not projections, not computer models, but real actual votes from real actual people on real actual topics. And guess what? People of all ages and from widely disparate countries simply don't think that “climate change” is a big problem. In fact, it's dead last on their list of global problems:
http://
I hate to say it Beso, but you are projecting – and then some. It is you who is demonstrating a quasi-religious belief by decrying my apparent heresy by not accepting as fact that which is not demonstrable nor falsifiable.
I repeat my earlier challenge - “... Can you give me a scenario that would prove that, “anthropologically generated CO2 is causing planet Earth to warm up to levels that put human beings at risk”? Falsify it for me.”
I know you can't. But it will be entertaining to watch you try – and fail.
My view is not religious in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. My opinion is based on empirical science. Remember that? The Scientific Method as described by Karl Popper? Science that is demonstrable, reproducible - and crucially – falsifiable.
Nothing about the 'science' of dangerous, anthropologically generated atmospheric carbon dioxide is demonstrable and it certainly isn't falsifiable. Ergo, it isn't science per se – it is unproven hypothesis. And one which doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
You attempt to prove your case by maligning my intelligence and by quoting spurious consensus. Basing your initial argument on a well known logical fallacy – argument from authority – is not a good start for a supposedly rational exchange.
Beso - “... Moreover your assertion as to the general public consensus is wildly incorrect. Take a look at the statistics...”
My assertion is not, “wildly incorrect”. It is factually accurate. My evidence doesn't come from the well known politically biased Wikipedia website, it comes from the UN itself. Nearly 10 million people from hundreds of countries have now voted in this poll. These are real people - not projections, not computer models, but real actual votes from real actual people on real actual topics. And guess what? People of all ages and from widely disparate countries simply don't think that “climate change” is a big problem. In fact, it's dead last on their list of global problems:
http://
I hate to say it Beso, but you are projecting – and then some. It is you who is demonstrating a quasi-religious belief by decrying my apparent heresy by not accepting as fact that which is not demonstrable nor falsifiable.
I repeat my earlier challenge - “... Can you give me a scenario that would prove that, “anthropologically generated CO2 is causing planet Earth to warm up to levels that put human beings at risk”? Falsify it for me.”
I know you can't. But it will be entertaining to watch you try – and fail.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Food & Drink15 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Technology43 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching44 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.