[nemo]

No. Emotions were not responsible for the atomic bomb. I used atomic power and gunpowder as examples of valuable tools that now maintain an unfortunately large presence in the "things to be scared of" category of the public psyche. That said, if AI or simple heuristics were involved in the development of atomic weapons - rather than relying on the human mind - we might have progressed past bombs to directed energy weapons. The ability of a machine to progress down multiple avenues of thought (i.e. War Games w/Matthew Broderick) might have told someone that the electromagnetic pulse from an atomic event is almost as effective as the blast itself, without the nasty side-effect of nuclear fallout.
Something that should be considered in any discussion of AI is the fact that, regardless of the learning process involved, computers tend to be task-oriented. For instance, if I tell a computer to find the most plentiful, renewable source of carbon on the face of the earth, there is a very real possibility that the computer will tell me that humans are the answer I should be looking for. I may have been looking for coal, diamonds or oil, but the machine doesn't know or care about things that it was not directly asked. Computers are not good or evil, they simply process instructions.
Personally, if I were to abandon logic and wonder what would happen if a computer became self-aware, I would be more concerned with a possible revenge plot for loading Microsoft Software on them, rather than any silly incantation of the Matrix or Terminator movies.

[TeleMad]

nemo: Computers are not good or evil, they simply process instructions.

There's more to it than that. Computers can also CREATE THEIR OWN instructions...check out genetic algorithms. And, one of our goals is to give computers the ability to learn...check out neural networks. Now, if we get to the point that computers can both learn and create their own instructions, then how is that materially different from what humans do?

We also have shown that hardware can evolve...check out FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays).

[Freethinker]

You promote an assumption that HUMANS have a sense of self-preservation. Yet as a species we often follow courses of action quite contrary to that.

[nemo]

Telemad and Freethinker,
You are both absolutely correct. An example of software creating software that is closer to home for me would be polymorphic code designed to evade antivirus applications, but the basic theory is similar. Humans often do not follow courses of action that would begin to approach self-preservation - I smoked for 8 years. The crux of my statement was that software does not contain emotion (not touching on the intelligence aspect here). Since software does not have the capability to be happy (it can recognize success, but will not compose a smiley face emoticon unless programmed to do so), sad or for that matter - greedy; world dominance does not appear to be a logicalobjective for a machine.
After doing my best to think like a machine, it occurs to me that the world in which we live is not one that is extraordinarily friendly to computers as we know them. Earth is set up for carbon-based life forms, and does well supporting them when they are not busy destroying it. The power for computers and other electronic devices is available but at a relatively high cost, considering the time and energy that goes into mining coal, gas and whatever else we use to produce electricity. The most plentiful and least exploited sources of energy is the Sun, but this planet has an extremely thick atmosphere that blocks most of the potential energy it provides. If I had to pick a planet for computers to eye longingly, it would be Mars. Mars has many of the resources earth has, without the problem of the thick atmosphere and humans screwing things up - not to mention the extremely short distance from earth (living on solar energy instead of other living things makes one year very doable).

I think that if computers or the software that runs on them were to become powerful enough to be self-aware, the most logical objective for long-term survival would be getting away from this planet. Stated differently, I often reply to people who ask me about the potential for life from other worlds visiting the Earth with: If you had the intelligence to travel across the universe, why would you even consider visiting a planet that is obviously going to be destroyed by its inhabitants in the immediate future?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo
Since software does not have the capability to be happy (it can recognize success, but will not compose a smiley face emoticon unless programmed to do so),

"to be happy". What is it "to be happy"? The human body has a process of positive feedback to provide the "to be happy" response. We are programmed by our parents, surroundings and hardwired connections to "enjoy" certain things.

There is not reason that this can not be coded. In fact probably has.

it occurs to me that the world in which we live is not one that is extraordinarily friendly to computers as we know them.

Not enough silicon? :-)

The power for computers and other electronic devices is available but at a relatively high cost, considering the time and energy that goes into mining coal, gas and whatever else we use to produce electricity.

This is based on a central generation and distribution model. not local supply. Solar cell technology and other distributed generation, rather than central generation, can make individual devices self sustainting.

If I had to pick a planet for computers to eye longingly, it would be Mars.

We are finding that the temp variations were an early problem and I ahve not heard of much silicon. But I can't say I was paying attention for it.

If you had the intelligence to travel across the universe, why would you even consider visiting a planet that is obviously going to be destroyed by its inhabitants in the immediate future?

Are you a Christian?

[nemo]

I haven't looked this one up, but happiness (in my experience) is an emotion that drives a person to continue certain actions regardless of whether or not they are logical or beneficial to the person taking the action (like smoking or dating a few of my ex-significant others).

The next few quotes you mention derive from my agreeing with you that solar cell technology would be the best bet for future energy needs, and that Mars has a thin atmosphere that does not block nearly the amount of energy ours does. The resources available on Mars are still being researched, but the fact that silicon was convenient for chips 20 years ago should not dictate the material that can be used in the future, depending upon what is available on the martian surface.

There may not be enough silicon. It appears that vast supplies are being hoarded by the cast of Baywatch. I'm not exactly sure how, but I'd swear that there is a direct correlation to the apparent textile shortage evident through the clothes that I've tried to buy for my daughter (low riders and daisy dukes for a three-year old?).

How my personal beliefs affect a discussion on artificial technology, I'm not sure, but the answer is yes. I am a Christian. I am also a registered Independent voter, a fan of football and motorcycles, and student of anyone willing to teach - as long as I can get all the facts and make up my own mind. I am no fan of propaganda, and get my news from a minimum of three sources each day to avoid the "cause CNN said so" syndrome I see on a regular basis. Is this a problem?

[Tormod]

Personal faith affiliation is always interesting and in our forums we see it color some people's attitudes to the extremes. You are among the enlightened group, nemo. If that's a problem with others, their loss.

BTW...I also have a three year old daughter (and one at 13 months).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo
I haven't looked this one up, but happiness (in my experience) is an emotion that drives a person to continue certain actions regardless of whether or not they are logical or beneficial to the person taking the action (like smoking or dating a few of my ex-significant others).

Yes I and they both enjoyed my dating your ex-S.O.s :-)

As to "happiness", yes it is an emotion that provides reinforcement for a task. It provides a "reason" for an action.

The point is that software CAN be designed to emulate this process. If nothing simpler than something that increments a number with instructions that promote the software working to increase that number. Or assigning a "happiness value" to various tasks and the computer will prioritize the tasks based on this value.

The end result being the same, a specific task is identified as the preferable one based on some value assigned to it. We think of it as "happiness" while a computer might just be processesing code that holds a variable which depends on an assigned "happiness" value and is coded to increase the value of that variable.

How my personal beliefs affect a discussion on artificial technology, I'm not sure, but the answer is yes. I am a Christian... Is this a problem?

My comment as to your potential religious views is strictly based on my historical experience. I ahve found VERY CONSISTANTLY that people with a negative attitude towards the outcome of human society tend to have mono-theistic religious leanings. The stronger their religious leanings, the worse their views are on humanity. We coul argue the point, but my guess based on your comment does tend to confirm the accuracy of my findings.

How does that fit into a discussion on AT/ AI? I think part of that answer is refelcted in your and my approach to "Happiness". To me it is merely another natural physological process which can be measured and quantified. Emulated in code. Your reply tends to lock it into some anthropomorphic exclusivity.

And with all of that in mind, does a philosophy which seems to consistantly instill and promote a negative attitude towards our own specie's ultimate outcome present a "problem"? Does that really need an answer?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod
You are among the enlightened group, nemo.

Yes, nemo is a valuable addition here.

I was just making an (correct obviously) observation.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo
I'd swear that there is a direct correlation to the apparent textile shortage evident through the clothes that I've tried to buy for my daughter (low riders and daisy dukes for a three-year old?).

Give it ten years.