Who Needs Picasso?

[Sparko]

Like before, your link isn't actually supporting your claim. This is people saying how they think AI will affect the world--but they're not talking about the "singularity" AI you were talking about, i.e. a truly self-aware one, just more regular AI, like the kinds we already have (opening sentence: "Artificial intelligence (AI) has been changing our lives for decades, but never has AI felt more ubiquitous than now.") "AI" doesn't necessarily mean a fully intelligent computer. Recommendations for what to buy on Amazon.com based on your purchase or browsing history is technically AI, but it's a far cry from sentience.

Even the "ultimate hacker" can't get into a computer just because it's attached to the Internet, especially with firewalls everywhere. Contrary to what people see on TV or movies, you can't really just hack "directly" into a system. The actual way hackers will get into your system is by tricking you into downloading some kind of malware which, when run, will turn off your defenses and let them attack. There's a reason people often call such things trojan horses, and in fact the analogy is apt. The Greeks couldn't break through the defenses of Troy (much like the difficulty of a hacker simply breaking into your computer), so they offered up the horse in order to sneak into the city and win the war. If the Trojans had just said "thanks, but it doesn't match our furniture" then they would have been fine, much like how not downloading and running malware will keep you protected.

Beyond that, some of the things you mentioned--particularly the high level military stuff--isn't connected to the Internet to avoid possible hacking.

To be fair, an "ultimate hacker" could get into a lot of stuff and cause some real havoc. But not everything.

How many factories have control over their assembly lines available to the Internet?

Um I work in IT. Hacking is more than tricking someone. Breaking passwords is one other. and an AI could probably do that pretty easy. and yes the Military is connected to the internet.

[Mountain Man]

And the Lord Jesus spoke unto him: dumbass, conspiracy nut, lamebrain and idiot, how dare you think my followers are impolite.

Already been addressed, Chuckles:

Perhaps you would prefer more biblical insults like calling you the "spawn of vipers", or maybe a challenge to self-righteously castrate yourself?

[Charles]

Already been addressed, Chuckles:

That is actually funny. But, once again, I prefer to go for a more civilized approach than the Christian approach.

[Mountain Man]

That is actually funny. But, once again, I prefer to go for a more civilized approach than the Christian approach.

Rather bigoted of you to imply that challenge/riposte, an honored tradition in many cultures, both ancient and modern, is not civilized.

[Charles]

Rather bigoted of you to imply that challenge/riposte, an honored tradition in many cultures, both ancient and modern, is not civilized.

I was only talking about the Christian version of it. There are other far more sophisticated versions that are also far more civilized.

[Tassman]

Rather bigoted of you to imply that challenge/riposte, an honored tradition in many cultures, both ancient and modern, is not civilized.

The way you use it is not civilised. Charles may not be aware of the reputation TWeb's 'scholar extraordinaire' <sarcasm> JP Holding has for aggressively insulting those who disagree with him. He rationalises this abuse under the guise of the challenge/riposte tradition and his lowly his disciples try to emulate him. Sad!

[Roy]

Rather bigoted of you to imply that challenge/riposte, an honored tradition in many cultures, both ancient and modern, is not civilized.

There is more to challenge/riposte than slinging insults.

[Mountain Man]

There is more to challenge/riposte than slinging insults.

Indeed. I use insulting rhetoric to disarm my opponents, then I finish them off with solid arguments.

[Mountain Man]

I was only talking about the Christian version of it. There are other far more sophisticated versions that are also far more civilized.

Because singling out just one religion is somehow less bigoted. Wait, what?

[Charles]

Because singling out just one religion is somehow less bigoted. Wait, what?

That was the one you refered to so that was the one I refered to. Very simple Mr. MM.

[Tassman]

Indeed. I use insulting rhetoric to disarm my opponents, then I finish them off with solid arguments.

Well let us know when you get to the "solid argument" bit.

[Sparko]

Like before, your link isn't actually supporting your claim. This is people saying how they think AI will affect the world--but they're not talking about the "singularity" AI you were talking about, i.e. a truly self-aware one, just more regular AI, like the kinds we already have (opening sentence: "Artificial intelligence (AI) has been changing our lives for decades, but never has AI felt more ubiquitous than now.") "AI" doesn't necessarily mean a fully intelligent computer. Recommendations for what to buy on Amazon.com based on your purchase or browsing history is technically AI, but it's a far cry from sentience.

Even the "ultimate hacker" can't get into a computer just because it's attached to the Internet, especially with firewalls everywhere. Contrary to what people see on TV or movies, you can't really just hack "directly" into a system. The actual way hackers will get into your system is by tricking you into downloading some kind of malware which, when run, will turn off your defenses and let them attack. There's a reason people often call such things trojan horses, and in fact the analogy is apt. The Greeks couldn't break through the defenses of Troy (much like the difficulty of a hacker simply breaking into your computer), so they offered up the horse in order to sneak into the city and win the war. If the Trojans had just said "thanks, but it doesn't match our furniture" then they would have been fine, much like how not downloading and running malware will keep you protected.

Beyond that, some of the things you mentioned--particularly the high level military stuff--isn't connected to the Internet to avoid possible hacking.

To be fair, an "ultimate hacker" could get into a lot of stuff and cause some real havoc. But not everything.

How many factories have control over their assembly lines available to the Internet?

so apparently, Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking also worry about AI's taking over.

Elon Musk really wants us to be worried about the potential danger of artificial intelligence. He just told an MIT symposium that he feels it's "our biggest existential threat," then ratcheted the hyperbole further, saying "with artificial intelligence, we're summoning the demon." He added that "HAL9000 would be... like a puppy dog," and said governments need to start regulating the development of AI sooner than later. Last August, Musk said that super-intelligent robots were "potentially more dangerous than nukes."
https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/27/...killer-robots/

Bill Gates: I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though, the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don't understand why some people are not concerned.
https://www.engadget.com/2015/01/28/bill-gates-ai/

"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race," Hawking told the BBC yesterday. While he admits early forms of AI have been useful (it's clearly been a huge help for his speech systems), he worries that we won't be able to keep up with super-intelligent versions that outwit humans. Hawking made similar comments back in May when he called the development of full AI "potentially our greatest mistake in history."
https://www.engadget.com/2014/12/03/...g-ai-doomsday/