Do you trust this computer

[Juvenal]

Elon Musk’s nightmarish warning: AI could become ‘an immortal dictator from which we would never escape’

Among his many warnings about the rise of artificial intelligence, Elon Musk has said that autonomous machines are more dangerous to the world than North Korea and could unleash “weapons of terror.” He has compared the adoption of AI to “summoning the devil.”

Now the billionaire inventor and Tesla chief executive — who believes artificial intelligence could help trigger the next world war — has issued another severe warning about how super-intelligent machines could come to dominate the world. Those super computers could become “an immortal dictator from which we would never escape,” Musk passionately warns in the new documentary “Do You Trust This Computer?”

Do you trust this computer

[Starlight]

I agree with Elon Musk on this.

His comments are... interesting... in the context that he owns a car company that makes computer-driven cars that he wishes us to trust with our lives to drive us around safely.

[Mountain Man]

I don't believe AI will ever become self-aware, so I have no fear of a Skynet scenario. I'm less concerned about the computers themselves than I am the men who control them.

[Terraceth]

Worth pointing out that Elon Musk has said that he thinks there is a "one in billions" chance that the world as we know it is real and that reality as we know it is almost certainly a computer simulation.

[Tassman]

I agree with Elon Musk on this.

So do I. It's a virtual certainty that AI will ever become self-aware. It's not just Elon Musk but many others, including the late Stephen Hawking, who are concerned that artificial intelligence will replace humans. Maybe that's not a bad thing.

His comments are... interesting... in the context that he owns a car company that makes computer-driven cars that he wishes us to trust with our lives to drive us around safely.

It's a paradox certainly but, virtual world or not, one has no choice other than to get on with life.

[Bill the Cat]

Capture.JPG

[Jedidiah]

I don't believe AI will ever become self-aware, so I have no fear of a Skynet scenario. I'm less concerned about the computers themselves than I am the men who control them.

I am inclined to agree with MM on the issue of AI. That does not mean that an adequate imitation could not be used to move us into a skynet type scenario that would be just as bad as the real thing - or even worse

[KingsGambit]

Worth pointing out that Elon Musk has said that he thinks there is a "one in billions" chance that the world as we know it is real and that reality as we know it is almost certainly a computer simulation.

I don't see any reason to think that this proposed Plato's Cave scenario is real, and the odds he provides there are ridiculous, so why should I trust what he has to say about the likelihood of a Skynet scenario? I certainly think it's presumptuous to say that something that has never happened in the history of the world is certain to eventually happen on a wide scale.

[NorrinRadd]

...

Do you trust this computer

It's private.

[Juvenal]

It's private.

It was free to stream over the weekend.

Weekend's over.

Sorry.

[Sparko]

Well if we are living in a simulation that means that this "universe" had an intelligent designer and that theists are more right than atheists. And probably YECs are more right than anyone since the entire past is simulated and could have never even took place even in the simulation. They could have just booted us up 10 minutes ago with the entire "past" in place.

[Charles]

Well if we are living in a simulation that means that this "universe" had an intelligent designer and that theists are more right than atheists. And probably YECs are more right than anyone since the entire past is simulated and could have never even took place even in the simulation. They could have just booted us up 10 minutes ago with the entire "past" in place.

If the designer was intelligent but not God then what would that help the theist? If the universe is simulated what do you even mean by the statement that theists would be more right? More right thoughts are induced to their minds, or are they having real thoughts in the simulation?

If you claim what we experience as reality could be simulated then it seems to follow that the situation in which we find out it is a simulation would or could also be a simulation. It seems you get trapped in that logic and thus would seemingly never be able to find any evidence to support it since even the evidence could be simulated. Or?

[Sparko]

If the designer was intelligent but not God then what would that help the theist? If the universe is simulated what do you even mean by the statement that theists would be more right? More right thoughts are induced to their minds, or are they having real thoughts in the simulation?

If you claim what we experience as reality could be simulated then it seems to follow that the situation in which we find out it is a simulation would or could also be a simulation. It seems you get trapped in that logic and thus would seemingly never be able to find any evidence to support it since even the evidence could be simulated. Or?

The problem, Chuck, is that the atheists say there is no evidence that this universe was created by an intelligent agent. Yet they willingly accept the idea that it WAS created by one when they claim that this could be a simulation and use various argument to support that belief. So if there IS evidence that this is a simulation of some kind, then that evidence is just as valid for theists, because you don't know what the nature of the "simulation" is or who created it.

Atheists also like to argue that the universe is 14 billion years old. Well if this is a simulation, that argument flies out the window. It could be 10 minutes old and all of the "evidence" is just programmed into the simulation at the onset. Or God could have created the universe in 7 days and the "evidence" of an old universe is just "programmed" into the initial conditions.

Functionally, these "programmers" of the simulation, and "God" and his creation are pretty much the same. If you accept that this is a simulation then you have no excuse to NOT believe in God, because either these programmers programmed in religion and evidence for God, or God actually exists and revealed himself to mankind.

[Charles]

The problem, Chuck, is that the atheists say there is no evidence that this universe was created by an intelligent agent. Yet they willingly accept the idea that it WAS created by one when they claim that this could be a simulation and use various argument to support that belief. So if there IS evidence that this is a simulation of some kind, then that evidence is just as valid for theists, because you don't know what the nature of the "simulation" is or who created it.

If they claim this could be a simulation then how does that force them to accept the idea it WAS created by an intelligent agent? It seems they at most accept the idea that it could be created by one in case it is a simulation. And what kind of evidence within the simulation would be trustworthy? After all the evidence is evidence within the simulation. It appears you think one can both be within the simulation and then somehow escape it again in order to see evidence. Even if you saw what appears to be the simulation from the outside how would you know that view was not from within the simulation? I don't see how you can find your way out of all of these questions if you allow for the possibility that it could be a simulation in the first place.

Atheists also like to argue that the universe is 14 billion years old. Well if this is a simulation, that argument flies out the window. It could be 10 minutes old and all of the "evidence" is just programmed into the simulation at the onset. Or God could have created the universe in 7 days and the "evidence" of an old universe is just "programmed" into the initial conditions.

What happens to that the idea that the Gospels tell us a true story about how Jesus lived and what he said if the universe is 10 minutes old and all the "evidence" is just programmed into the simulation at the onset? Does it fly out the window too or is that something completely different and why? It starts to sound a little strange if you apply this idea to the Gospel of John doesn't it:

1 In the beginning (10 minutes ago) was the Word, and the Word was with God (10 minutes ago), and the Word was God (10 minutes ago). 2 He was with God in the beginning (10 minutes ago). 3 Through him all things were made (10 minutes ago); without him nothing was made that has been made (10 minutes ago).

Functionally, these "programmers" of the simulation, and "God" and his creation are pretty much the same. If you accept that this is a simulation then you have no excuse to NOT believe in God, because either these programmers programmed in religion and evidence for God, or God actually exists and revealed himself to mankind.

If you compare God to a programmer then what happens to free will? Is you faith coded into your brain? I am not sure I get the first part of this sentence: "If you accept that this is a simulation then you have no excuse to NOT believe in God, because either these programmers programmed in religion and evidence for God, or God actually exists and revealed himself to mankind." Should I accept that this is a simulation and claim God exist because programmers programmed in religion and evidence for God? Should I then go on to say that if they had programmed in some other kind of evidence for a completely different religion then that would have been the truth (in the simulation). I may have missed something so please explain.

And how do you know the programmer is "the last level" of the simulation. Could there be a programmer behind the programmer and so on? In that case we would not know if we believed the real God or someone a couple of levels before the ultimate creator.

[Juvenal]

Well if we are living in a simulation that means ...

For the record, I have no idea who spiked the pirate's grog, but if the culprit can provide evidence, there's a reward waiting.