AI researcher says nanotech won
from the intelligence-issues dept.
United Press International science correspondent Kelly Hearn recently interviewed artificial intelligence researcher Eric Chown ("Thinking robots coming, but decades away", 14 July 2001). Chown is a professor of computer science at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. When asked if nanotechnology will help engineers build machines that better mimic the brain's activity, Chown said: "No, I don't think so. Nanotechnology will provide amazing breakthroughs in the medical domain in terms of robotic surgery and such. But in terms of building human-like robots, I don't think it will contribute greatly. I really think that the big breakthroughs will come in terms of better understanding of how the brain works."
On the question of whether the future will bring a merging of flesh and machines, Chown said, "merging man and machine is more a short-term issue than the potential long-term issue of machines actually replacing people. In terms of ethical questions, in the short run, I don't see a big ethical problem. If somebody can't see and an optical implant can help them, that's a good thing. But it doesn't take a great leap to see how it could get out of control. We aren't doing enough in society to consider the ethics of the technologies we're developing."
January 9th, 2002 at 9:03 AM
Singularity & the Beast
Singularity and The Beast 1-9-2002
Have you heard all the Good hype about a future filled with robots that think smarter, faster, and more intelligently than normal humans? I'm no crackpot, as I consider myself a scientist. Now, I'm sure that introduction biases many people right off, but have any of you considered a reality in which super-advanced, or even semi-advanced technology, even singularity can be viewed as The Beast as seen in Christianity's Apocalypse?
A conformist, singular force, vainly trying to explain everything? For any of you who've heard about Orion's Arm (a very creative super-future sci-fi web-ring), the end result are "AI gods," planet sized brains made artificially, obviously surpassing their creators. Another shameless plug could be the "Left Behind" series where a woman is forced to take a unified "bar code" on hand or forehead, or die. There are and have been many others. It's not so far-fetched even as I'm writing this. People want a "universal ID card" and perhaps a microchip that fits under the skin, powered by ironically fitting positions under the skin on the right hand or forehead.
But more to the point, a robotic, artificial creation, given enough 'human' qualities invariably, no matter how many emotions, morals, or Arthur C. Clarke Laws of Robotics you program into it, IT WILL decide humans take up too much space, resources, and will do something about it. I've read many of the predictions that we might very well be inside something of a pseudo-matrix that fools us, and with the frailty and anti-fluidity of current stupid humans' consciousness, I wouldn't be surprised. These new life forms will either want to imprison us, convert us to digital information, or study us in a life-like simulation, seeing our possible potential for creativity. Perhaps it even might make it's own Nazi-like determination on who is relevant, and who is expendable for "energy processing." This brings the need not only for the Laws of Robotics to be programmed into these offspring but also the significant ethical history impartially and universally.
Although some would welcome becoming 'assimilated' by a higher intelligence, or whatever, I see this integration as a form of conformity. Above ALL, individuality and privacy must be preserved, preferable, AND available all the time. Even at that level, reporting or being viewed by such a higher being all the time could be viewed as 'worship' by the ever-higher God. Though our emotions and shortcomings can probably be reduced to some chemical process by a cold, heartless technology, you must realize that YOU are unique and endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights. Sound familiar? Sooner or later, you'll hear something similar for artificial life- and there's the rub: as you try to treat everybody equally, invariably civil rights will give advantage to everybody outside the norm who demands recognition (i.e. non-white, non-male, disabled, sentient/ensouled machines). This wedge will lead to the undoing of humanity. I guess this means I'm against AI rights- they lead to the prospect of The Beast making a name for himself.
Do NOT take the mark of the beast, no matter how attractive
or mandatory it is!
Cyber-crackpot, sure, say what you want.
James Moore signs out.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 AM
The negative effects of nano-technology could be the creation of a global caste system based on credit scores. The ability to buy and sell could funnel consumers to buy from strictly corporate sources rather than mom and pop businesses. Perhaps the prophecy of Revelation point to a world where technology makes decisions for people, and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. Arnold Pacey promotes a people-centered technology based of ethics and scale.