Hi Joe,
You beat me to it!
Regards,
David
On 2020-05-11 12:57, Joe Monk wrote:
An even better story ...
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Adolescence_of_P-1&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca75858d79d87417845d108d7f5cc8165%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637248130998340065&sdata=NhAxRmAC4HmPk73MgwB1TITh%2BMtPZ5Y3a5hDvhnSV0Y%3D&reserved=0
Joe
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:31 AM Bob Bridges <[email protected]> wrote:
I'll cheerfully leave political partisanship aside. But if I may
attribute this equally to both sides (and thus avoid partisanship), I'm
with Joel ~and~ Lionel on this. Most folks who misuse their power start
out, at least, in hopes of doing good. What I'm saying is that although we
value altruism, I don't trust even altruists in the matter of exercising
power, especially when in pursuit of The Good of Humanity.
Doesn't mean we won't keep building robots. Doesn't even mean we
shouldn't. But even altruists can be villains. Ultron and Colossus both
wanted to save the world, after all.
---
Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313
/* The historian Macaulay famously said that the Puritans opposed
bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave
pleasure to the spectators. The Puritans were right: Some pleasures are
contemptible because they are coarsening. They are not merely private
vices, they have public consequences in driving the culture's downward
spiral. -George Will, "The challenge of thinking lower", 2001-06-22 */
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22
Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I
wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and
that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money,
influence, etc.).
There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the
development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software
developers who implement the code for the three laws.
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf
Of Joel C. Ewing
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM
I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I
step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics
would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if
well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the
concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have
always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans
as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting"
them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might
make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our
present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific
recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the
opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived
offered some short-term political advantage?
Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel
began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to
humanity.
--- On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote:
Well done Joel....I agree , But I can help to to be curious about the
future of AI.
a bit of Isaac Asimov ....
--- On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing <[email protected]>
wrote:
And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War
Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was
to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers
(all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the
hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something
with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the
hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software
above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with
unknown consequences.
There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society
becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to
understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse
when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister
reading E.M.
Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young.
Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots.
People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the
potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by
other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal
machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian
suggests why that may be an even worse idea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Bridges
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM
I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people
have seen it, as far as I can tell. The only problem I have with
that movie - well, the main problem - is that no programmer in the
world would make such a system and then throw away the Stop button.
No engineer would do that with a machine he built, either. Too many
things can go wrong. But a fun movie, if you can ignore that.
-----Original Message-----
From: scott Ford
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:38
Like the 1970s flick , ‘Colossus , The Forbin Project’, Colossus and
American computer and Guardian a Russian computer take over saying
‘Colossus and Guardian we are one’....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
