1 The future of Man & Machine? Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:46 pm
Fatal Dawn
Registered Member
Given the rise of technology pervading everyday human life, what do you feel about the future of humanity and our role in the world?
Do you feel our dependency of technology could be our downfall?
What are your thoughts of man and machine?
My thoughts support the latter I recognize that humans becoming more and more dependent and reliant on technology - Technology has moved from public domains like hospitals and supermalls to the privacy of our own homes. Almost all jobs in the workforce are dome by a mechanical hand, so in the future machines may very well outsource humans. I will break my argument into segments.
Postulation 1: efficiency of artificial intelligence vs human sentience
I guess looking at it from this perspective my argument sounds anti-intellectual as opposed the humanistic perspective. Look at that supercomputer on Jeopardy, the human brain is no different from a robot's programming (maybe even better) the difference is the processing. Robot's can process things faster and with more accuracy - This thought processing allows for more rational thought, reliance on logistics, statistical decision-making skills etc. Robots being able to autotomize, adjust, adapt would drive the more "high-maintenance" living creatures to inferiority
Postulation #2: sudden sentience of robots
"Learn"-ing is a term to describe when a robot would be able to evolve and act on it's own intentions and rationalization outside of programming. Robots can rebel against their creators the same way teens rebel against parents, citizens rebel against an oppressive regime, or slaves rebel against their master.
There is first a choice, then a rationalization, and then opportunity. I think rebellion has a lot to do with opportunity. If you can rationalize a better alternative and you certainly have choices than you are more likely to have an opportunity.
Not all teens have choices outside the family their given. Oftentimes housewives are not given the choices to postulate rebelling from an abusive relationship. Sometimes citizens aren't able to rationalize a reality outside of a closed world ruled by an oppressive tyrant. Without choices or rationalization there is very slim opportunity for rebellion. It's somewhat a stretch if a computer is somehow to change is capacity and programming being able to rationalize and compose its own choices the only thing left is to find an opportunity.
If a computer is somehow able to rationalize and compose its own choices the only thing left is to find an opportunity. To rebel against a larger force you need to first find your best opportunity and by then it would be too late to stop their rebellion. They may already be rationalizing and looking at their choices in a world dominated by it's creators, whose to say they're not just waiting for an opportunity.
Postulation 3: pervasiveness of artificial intelligence in everyday human life
Take the first controversial example: Prosthesis which isn't exactly bad... little more than a complicated garage door: a signal (in this case through the nerves) is received and parsed to start a motor (or maybe several... limbs aren't too complicated most of the time) that moves something (basically itself, rather than a door). Military robotic suits can be considered prosthesis to a certain extent.
In the future who is to say the prosthesis won't be more advanced. What if people not only required robotics to move or fight in war, but to run our cities or enforce laws, advise decisions, or things like that? You're entrusting a good bit of yourself to a robot.
Also imagine an enemy that is nearly invisible, can slip through the tiniest of cracks and destroy life simply by attacking some neurons... nanobots (in your water, in the air you breathe,etc).
People who have qualms about Free-will may find this unsettling? Free-will is not 100% and the rest is (theoretically) influenced by environment. Media, technology, all things (in your environment) which influence the choices you make and by affect free will. With robotic mind-control devices, corruption, genetic engineering, and brainwashing it'd be pretty hard to fight the oppression on your own free-will.
Postulation 4: Genesis of machines as the sole master race
Maybe the future is more... dangerous, I suppose
They feel artificial intelligence is better than living creatures. They only see living creatures as that which is not artificial (hence are inferior and don't deserve life).
Think about genocide. One race or group basically eradicating another. Same concept on a grander scale. Genocide is actually pretty logical - extreme but logical. It's been attempted in the past but it really is humanly illogical. No race really has the power to completely eradicate another race. Furthermore eradicating another race would in turn devastate your own race - since we all belong to one race after all (human race). But robots have nothing to worry about, no resistance, and certainly no qualms about enslaving the human race which is not the (robot race).
At the very most optimistic scenario maybe humans are of some value being the most sentient creatures on the planet (debatable) but if they don't feel human life as so far inferior to kill, what qualms would they have of keeping slaves? It's good to have capable, physical vessels that you have total control over for your every purpose. Regardless if they need us it would be a big lesson towards the human race - THEY are the masters now.
Life wouldn't be a threat it would just be seen as so far inferior to the world they're imagining. The three laws of robotics. Basically the main idea is to preserve human life. Well what if they proceed to see us as a danger to ourselves. A bit jovial but worrying thing is a reference back to I Robot, they would enslave and dominate us to save us from ourselves:
Postulation 5: Comparing Past, present to the future of robotics/ human industrial advancement
Man loves to have control, we like to think we're the masters of something because we build it. Well if you look in history man didn't always have everything in control with their creations - Computer intelligence, dams, levees, ships, cars, planes, factory engines, weapons... Even now it happens, but if it happens things will be much more disastrous because we place so much reliance on machines. Now think about future disasters when this reliance is further magnified.
The perfect counter-argument is that if we didn't have said technology people would die for a lack of it, that being the reason our species has grown so much. There is of course a problem as we end up relying on machinery, we need more machinery to provide for the new population that managed to grow because of the advances.However, as your population grows it requires more food and it becomes less hygienic... And there are only so many fields around a city that can be worked. Technology is good ... to a certain extent. Technology can be a dangerous thing so we should never believe we have total control over our creations.
Do you feel our dependency of technology could be our downfall?
What are your thoughts of man and machine?
My thoughts support the latter I recognize that humans becoming more and more dependent and reliant on technology - Technology has moved from public domains like hospitals and supermalls to the privacy of our own homes. Almost all jobs in the workforce are dome by a mechanical hand, so in the future machines may very well outsource humans. I will break my argument into segments.
Postulation 1: efficiency of artificial intelligence vs human sentience
I guess looking at it from this perspective my argument sounds anti-intellectual as opposed the humanistic perspective. Look at that supercomputer on Jeopardy, the human brain is no different from a robot's programming (maybe even better) the difference is the processing. Robot's can process things faster and with more accuracy - This thought processing allows for more rational thought, reliance on logistics, statistical decision-making skills etc. Robots being able to autotomize, adjust, adapt would drive the more "high-maintenance" living creatures to inferiority
Postulation #2: sudden sentience of robots
"Learn"-ing is a term to describe when a robot would be able to evolve and act on it's own intentions and rationalization outside of programming. Robots can rebel against their creators the same way teens rebel against parents, citizens rebel against an oppressive regime, or slaves rebel against their master.
There is first a choice, then a rationalization, and then opportunity. I think rebellion has a lot to do with opportunity. If you can rationalize a better alternative and you certainly have choices than you are more likely to have an opportunity.
Not all teens have choices outside the family their given. Oftentimes housewives are not given the choices to postulate rebelling from an abusive relationship. Sometimes citizens aren't able to rationalize a reality outside of a closed world ruled by an oppressive tyrant. Without choices or rationalization there is very slim opportunity for rebellion. It's somewhat a stretch if a computer is somehow to change is capacity and programming being able to rationalize and compose its own choices the only thing left is to find an opportunity.
If a computer is somehow able to rationalize and compose its own choices the only thing left is to find an opportunity. To rebel against a larger force you need to first find your best opportunity and by then it would be too late to stop their rebellion. They may already be rationalizing and looking at their choices in a world dominated by it's creators, whose to say they're not just waiting for an opportunity.
Postulation 3: pervasiveness of artificial intelligence in everyday human life
Take the first controversial example: Prosthesis which isn't exactly bad... little more than a complicated garage door: a signal (in this case through the nerves) is received and parsed to start a motor (or maybe several... limbs aren't too complicated most of the time) that moves something (basically itself, rather than a door). Military robotic suits can be considered prosthesis to a certain extent.
In the future who is to say the prosthesis won't be more advanced. What if people not only required robotics to move or fight in war, but to run our cities or enforce laws, advise decisions, or things like that? You're entrusting a good bit of yourself to a robot.
Also imagine an enemy that is nearly invisible, can slip through the tiniest of cracks and destroy life simply by attacking some neurons... nanobots (in your water, in the air you breathe,etc).
People who have qualms about Free-will may find this unsettling? Free-will is not 100% and the rest is (theoretically) influenced by environment. Media, technology, all things (in your environment) which influence the choices you make and by affect free will. With robotic mind-control devices, corruption, genetic engineering, and brainwashing it'd be pretty hard to fight the oppression on your own free-will.
Postulation 4: Genesis of machines as the sole master race
Maybe the future is more... dangerous, I suppose
They feel artificial intelligence is better than living creatures. They only see living creatures as that which is not artificial (hence are inferior and don't deserve life).
Think about genocide. One race or group basically eradicating another. Same concept on a grander scale. Genocide is actually pretty logical - extreme but logical. It's been attempted in the past but it really is humanly illogical. No race really has the power to completely eradicate another race. Furthermore eradicating another race would in turn devastate your own race - since we all belong to one race after all (human race). But robots have nothing to worry about, no resistance, and certainly no qualms about enslaving the human race which is not the (robot race).
At the very most optimistic scenario maybe humans are of some value being the most sentient creatures on the planet (debatable) but if they don't feel human life as so far inferior to kill, what qualms would they have of keeping slaves? It's good to have capable, physical vessels that you have total control over for your every purpose. Regardless if they need us it would be a big lesson towards the human race - THEY are the masters now.
Life wouldn't be a threat it would just be seen as so far inferior to the world they're imagining. The three laws of robotics. Basically the main idea is to preserve human life. Well what if they proceed to see us as a danger to ourselves. A bit jovial but worrying thing is a reference back to I Robot, they would enslave and dominate us to save us from ourselves:
VIKI decided that in order to protect humanity as a whole, "some humans must be sacrificed" and "some freedoms must be surrendered" as "you charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth, and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction". In light of this understanding of the Three Laws, VIKI is controlling the NS-5s to lead a global robotic takeover, justifying her actions by calculating that fewer humans will die due to the rebellion than the number that dies from mankind's self-destructive nature.
Postulation 5: Comparing Past, present to the future of robotics/ human industrial advancement
Man loves to have control, we like to think we're the masters of something because we build it. Well if you look in history man didn't always have everything in control with their creations - Computer intelligence, dams, levees, ships, cars, planes, factory engines, weapons... Even now it happens, but if it happens things will be much more disastrous because we place so much reliance on machines. Now think about future disasters when this reliance is further magnified.
The perfect counter-argument is that if we didn't have said technology people would die for a lack of it, that being the reason our species has grown so much. There is of course a problem as we end up relying on machinery, we need more machinery to provide for the new population that managed to grow because of the advances.However, as your population grows it requires more food and it becomes less hygienic... And there are only so many fields around a city that can be worked. Technology is good ... to a certain extent. Technology can be a dangerous thing so we should never believe we have total control over our creations.