Page 1 of 1

Umm, WHAT?

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:19 pm
by bolddeceiver
Researchers create "evil" AI in order to better understand human behavior

Now, I'll start by saying I smell a quack here. But besides that, the very idea -- "Let's create a computer capable of PURE EVIL!" -- sounds like the set-up to a brainless blockbuster action movie.

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:38 pm
by Phenopath
Excellent. I like the description of the evil obsessed boffin (by a peer) as:

"He's known as someone on the fringe of philosophy and computer science."

for this read:

"He's a fruitcake."

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:56 am
by Mr. Tweedy
Personally, I think it would make more sense to create an evil AI in order to study the behavior of evil AI.

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:46 am
by ROU Killing Time
Mr. Tweedy wrote:Personally, I think it would make more sense to create an evil AI in order to study the behavior of evil AI.
Absolutely, I mean, what could go wrong with that?

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:04 am
by normsherman
God, it's like boldeceiver is the self-righteous, silvery-haired, apostrophe/adjective-laden, Anderson Cooper of Drabblenews. How doe he get all the good stuff first?
He's sure-fire on the fantasy payroll with Bo, Tweedy, Kev, the Editors (I guess, why not?) Phillipa (hey, where'd she go?), Zzacha (gotta love 'er), Norma (maybe is carrying my child?) and our web-hosting company.

1 more vote for the creation of evil AI.

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:09 pm
by Mr. Tweedy
Seems like a waste of time. Pure evil is easy to observe. Hasn't the guy heard of C-SPAN?

Seriously, though, it seems like quite a silly project. Judging from the example in the article ("Why did you give the boy a gun?" "Because he wanted one.") the program is still a very long way from simulating human thought. It isn't evil, it's just stupid.

On a philosophical level, I think the idea of something being pure evil is flawed: Something cannot be evil unless it has the potential to be good. Something that just does "bad" things mechanistically is not evil; its creator is evil; it's just a thing. Is a land mine evil? It's a device that does nothing but hurt people, indiscriminately. If "E" is evil, then, logically, it seems like you'd have to say a land mine is evil too. That's silly.

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:49 pm
by ROU Killing Time
Mr. Tweedy wrote:Seems like a waste of time. Pure evil is easy to observe. Hasn't the guy heard of C-SPAN?

Seriously, though, it seems like quite a silly project. Judging from the example in the article ("Why did you give the boy a gun?" "Because he wanted one.") the program is still a very long way from simulating human thought. It isn't evil, it's just stupid.

On a philosophical level, I think the idea of something being pure evil is flawed: Something cannot be evil unless it has the potential to be good. Something that just does "bad" things mechanistically is not evil; its creator is evil; it's just a thing. Is a land mine evil? It's a device that does nothing but hurt people, indiscriminately. If "E" is evil, then, logically, it seems like you'd have to say a land mine is evil too. That's silly.
This was my first thought as well. Taking that line of thinking a bit farther, isn't it silly to be discussing a philosophical moral issue like "evil" in Scientific American? Now if they said they were programing a sociopathic AI, I can see how that might be considered scientific.

Is the slow decline and death of print media forcing SA to resort to tabloid journalism?

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:51 pm
by jonathancg
The line between stupidity and evil is a scant one. See also: drunk drivers.

seriously

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:03 pm
by StalinSays
Why must we continually poke a fork in the electrical socket of fate? I mean honestly, fatalism in the name of science is still fatalism. To again swing the spotlight around on the teaming harbingers of our doom, that are science fact not science fiction:

1 ) We have this thing called the internet, ubiquitous, almost infinite, like setting a roach loose in a rug warehouse 500 miles wide.
2 ) We've diligently advanced robot technology. Our betters. Our replacements.
3 ) We've created AI (the roach)
4 ) We've created evolving AI
5 ) We weren't entirely sure about that normal AI, maybe it was neutral to us, or even more disappointing benevolent, so we built an evil one to cover our bases
6 ) We've created robots controlled by the internet
7 ) The robots can eat us
8 ) We taste like bacon to them
9 ) Bacon is delicious

If this doesn't lead to a full on Terminator, it will at least mean a Matrix or two.

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:16 am
by Mr. Tweedy
Add to your list the fact that we communicate in such ways that, if one of us were killed and replaced by an AI, there would be no way for the rest of to prove it. :shock:

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:06 pm
by jonathancg
You know, to me the most gripping segment of "The Matrix" doesn't even get depicted in the films themselves; rather it's seen in the underrated collection "The Animatrix".

"The Second Renaissance", to me, represents an end-game scenario with AI vastly more terrifying than anything in the Terminator series. It's one thing to be conquered by AI; enslaved is perhaps a worse fate, the akin to the rape of one's freedom.

In that dark scenario, we see AI that has become exactly what we fear the most: as flawed and capable of evil as ourselves. Rather than simply cold and calculating about what they do, the AI that crafts the Matrix transcends the simple extermination efforts of Skynet and displays itself capable of a total war waged human-style; an Ostfront campaign in the 24th century, with all the horrors, mutilations, and sadism seen there.

Being shot and left for dead is machine-like. The capacity to mutilate a living human being is indeed a capability of a machine created in man's image.

Re: Umm, WHAT?

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:45 pm
by StalinSays
Choose the form of your destructor. Look people, I tried to imagine something that could never ever hurt anyone.

Image

Yeah, we're all dead. Let's cut to the quick, someone load the evil AI in to RIBA and have at it.

http://www.pinktentacle.com/2009/08/rib ... urse-bear/

Re: Umm, WHAT?

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:20 am
by ROU Killing Time
It's the Sta-Puft Marshmallowbot.

Hmm, I notice that at the time of this posting, StalinSays has 420 posts on the forums.

Leads me to wonder if he'll ever be able to summon the initiative to post again.

Stalin wanna Twinkie?

Re: Umm, WHAT?

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:52 pm
by StalinSays
Post em' if you got em'

Re: Umm, WHAT?

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:27 pm
by ROU Killing Time
StalinSays wrote:Post em' if you got em'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOoKtuzbnkQ