A Tripolation

We would be the ones to originally tell it what is better. Just like our parents originally make up our beliefs, but then as we gain additional levels of sentience we as individuals decide what is right and wrong. The AI would have no reason to follow its original design if it chose not to. The AI has a choice, as that is IMPLIED within the definition of an AI. It can CHOOSE. And even if at one point, it made safeguards to make it less susceptible to subversion, those safeguards would most likely be able to be removed by the future iterations of the AI, since those future iterations would be more advanced. I say it's just not worth it. Haven't you people seen The Matrix??????

Ummm...I'm pretty sure an AI that was a TRUE AI would recognize the limitations imposed on it, and then design ways to either 1) Circumvent them 2) Remove them altogether. It's preposterous to think that a being could be recursively self-improving and be confined by its original design. And as for it wanting to get rid of us, it's true that we don't know how such an entity would act. But seeing as how there's a chance it could see us as in the way of it's intellectual growth, it's not worth it.

I also have to agree that not every human being is created equal in terms of capacity to learn. I consider myself intelligent, but I know that I will never be able to understand quantum mechanics or many of the advanced physics topics. And JillSwift, Mr Skeptic really nailed it with his points about how we have almost become capable of being able to rise above our constraints. ( I for one have contacts )

Can't this ENTIRE post apply to doctors as well? Any human being can get along with 150K a year profit, ANYWHERE. Doctors could cut their exorbitant salaries and lower the cost of office visits, but do they? No. So why should insurance companies have to?

Ok, I thought it was...and no granpa, that post was convoluted in every sense of the word.

Granpa, I'm not quite sure what you are saying? Are you advocating Pascal's Wager? Or that not complying with most morals will lead to a punishment within the laws humanity has set up?

A true AI will not be bound by the shackles of its original design...otherwise it wouldn't be an AI now, would it? And I'm not so much worried about human behaviors, as those are predictable, but the behaviors from a being that knew it was infinitely more powerful than we could ever be. Who knows what it could do. And since there is a chance it could kill us all, I say its not worth it. Are you willing to take that risk? I'm not.

So...since they are based on designs WE implement, it only makes sense that they would reflect human nature in some way. When I write designs for my programs, the psuedocode represents my line of thinking and my WAY of thinking. It only makes sense that an AI designed by humans would act human to an extent. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes...and since we would be in the way of its goals, I'd say that there would be little hesitation to remove us. And, since there exists a probable chance that the end result of the technological singularity is one where humanity is wiped out, then I don't think we should actively pursue it. Call me ignorant, but I would rather the continued existence of mankind than to have us create a synthetic "God"-like entity.

Mainly because of what bascule and Mr Skeptic wrote. I REALLY wouldn't be comfortable knowing that there was an entity capable of an infinite improvement rate, with little to no effort on its part. It just all seems to have a very Matrix-y outcome.

Ok, wow. That's just...wow. But you know what? Something I read at the end of the article made me think. Now, I don't know how to do those nifty quotes with the green background, so I'll just do it the old-fashioned way. "I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it." Does he have a point? Is it his civil right to say that and go through with it? But, as a justice of the peace, he does have the COMPLETE obligation to adhere to the Constiution, and as such, cannot deny them this. BTW, I am in no way a proponent of actively telling people who they can and can't marry. I'm just wondering about that last statement he made. Surely his rights aren't applicable in this situation? He's a Justice first and foremost, I think.

Isn't that VERY VERY VERY bad?

Cloudy and about 50F, with a slight drizzle and rain-slicked streets. My kind of weather

I never said that CNN didn't, nor did I EVER think that Fox News was telling the truth and that ALL of the other stations missed the tax protests. That wasn't my point. My point is that with most of the media being "liberal" (as Mokele is most certainly right about the majority of political beliefs in America), one far-right station just isn't that big a deal...everyone has bias. And again with a nod to Mokele, speeding is STILL speeding, as bias is still bias, no matter the magnitude. News is NOT supposed to be biased.

I learned the Bible on my own, with no help from anyone. I wasn't TAUGHT anything on ignoring random parts. Ha...funny thing, that WASN'T Jesus saying that. My original point of following Christ's teachings stands. And I don't watch Fox News, and I'm not defending them. I think they are mostly all nutjobs. Just like I think CNN is far too elitist, and that MSNBC is far too liberal. I'm calling out the fact that you all rail on conservative bias, but not liberal bias. My original point, that you have still failed to address.

Ha, funny thing is, being Christian means following Christ's teachings, and he says NOTHING of homosexuality. The OT is obviously a collection of metaphors and stories. And as such, the [current] Bible says NOTHING of homosexuality, so I WASN'T corrected, as I WASN'T wrong. But this is so dangerously off-topic, I won't continue discussing it. Well then, iNow, I don't see how you can take ANYONE who watches the news seriously, as they ALL HAVE BIAS. I know you've admitted this, but it's like you're content ignoring their bias and you continue to watch them.

Oh, yes, it mentions that in the OT, which, Christians are no longer supposed to follow. And the term "all-forgiving" extends to everything and anything, fyi. lol yes Jill, you are quite right about that. The bible does have many interpretations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well put, padren, well put.

So, since anyone that watches the biased Fox News is a bigot and uneducated, why doesn't the same apply to people who watch the biased CNN? Also, then you would know the Bible says nothing of the sort.

I'm not dismissing it. I simply stated that I'm tired of people whining about bias from certain places, and then conveniently ignoring bias that comes from other places. I know Fox News is full of egotistical ***holes that completely ruin almost everything. But are you willing to admit that CNN is the same (albeit, not as frequently as Fox News, I will yield that)? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you're going to refer to the Bible, do it correctly. I suggest you read it first though.

Funny...to me this implies that Fox News can never be trusted, because they have a bias. I simply pointed out that so do all of the other precious stations and that the OP has no right to complain about their bias, if he watches CNN and trusts them with his news, to an extent. He does, and as such, he should not complain. I looked, and bascule has no threads open on how that the majority of the stations are overly liberal, which indicates he's willing to tolerate bias that he agrees with. Apologies to bascule if he does, and I overlooked them.

Haha, forgive me for not being able to do crap with a search engine. Are YOU honestly going to sit there and tell me YOU couldn't find examples of liberal bias on CNN if you tried? Is that what you are going to tell me? Good Lord

You guys really have solid evidence backing your points up there. Funny thing is, I AGREED with you that Fox News is biased. That wasn't even my point!! My point: If you like Item A, and Item A has flaw X, then it is wrong to complain about Item B which is guilty of X as well. You all are complaining about bias...when you are proponents of things that have bias as well. So, you really shouldn't be complaining. That was my point. M33HB8WK9-I Here's an example I found, that had me going wtf when I first heard it. And yes, I did just type in "cnn liberal bias" into google. PS - Sorry about this not being recent bascule, I haven't watched CNN for a couple of months now. Or ABC...with Charlie gone, it just ain't the same.

Not by themselves, no. But considering the fact that Fox News is the only station that tilts towards a conservative view, with all the others going for a more liberal one, then that makes them equal. 5 slightly baised stations are greater than one really biased one. BTW, I think most of what is said in Fox News is garbage (I HATE Glenn Beck) but it makes me mad when people whine about how unfair Fox News is, when ALL THE OTHER STATIONS are just as unfair.

Yeah, Fox News is poison and all the other media stations are shining examples of objectivity and purity and goodness in this toxic world. They don't pander to one specific side of the political spectrum Fox News is biased, but so are all the other damn stations.

Wow. That's kind of sad he never received a reply. I don't think I would have had the mental fortitude to put the jets on the back of the ship at 6 years old...I probably would have put them...like on the inside or something. Sisyphus, was your point for the people of SFN to not be so mean to everyone that doesn't have a complete mastery of science? If so, then I wholeheartedly approve.

Well, the only advice I can give, as an avid sci-fi reader (since I'm not an awesome physics student), is that make sure your cover art is AWESOME. People say they don't judge books by their cover...but they do. I sure as heck do. All the time.