Below is a comment regarding a Motherboard article (26 May 2015): Will Superintelligent AI Ignore Humans Instead of Destroying Us?
It is shocking that all the supposed mainstream "intellectuals" have not
pointed out the logical fallacy of comparing human-AI relationships to
animal or insect-human relationships. The UTTERLY massive difference,
rendering the comparisons similar to chalk and cheese, is insects did
not create humans, they had zero input regarding the design of our
genome, whereas humans are intelligently engineering AI, which means we
will have a basic understanding of the minds of super-intelligent
robots.
Deliberately engineering the next level of intelligence above you is utterly incomparable to past animal-human relationships.
Yes
super-intelligence will be massively beyond us but there will be the
option for easy communication between super-intelligence, which is
already evident via narrow AI translators. Humans will never possess the
ignorance of ants etc. The ability to create super-intelligence is
unlike any other aspect of previous evolutionary relationships, thus the
comparisons (insect-animals-humans to humans-SAI) are logically
invalid.
The point about Earth not being a vast repository for
resources is good, but it didn't really delve into the Post-Scarcity
situation of superior technology regarding the scope of the universe.
The
paper-clip maximizer "theory" is utter gibberish. I don't know why
people waste time giving thought to such a idiotic-nonsensical-illogical
proposition. The paper-clip maximizer theory is utterly irrational
tantamount to creationism, but it is expressed in pseudo-scientific
terms, or by supposedly scientific people, thus people somehow assume it
is a logical-valid proposition, a possibility. Maybe people are fooled
by the language.
