+DrDress well, he did manage to include the pulping of the human race in there as well.. may have something to do with it :)

+MalaTemporaCurrunt You want me to go get your slippers for you?

+MalaTemporaCurrunt Look in to my eye.

But aren't c-sections a thing?

@@macchiato_1881 He's talking about how Humans evolved to have extremely large brains for our size. This is why mortality rates at birth are so high, because humans are literally born with pretty close to as large of heads as physically possible to fit through our mother's pelvis. In fact, in order to have even larger brains, we are literally born premature compared to basically any other animals. Our skulls are soft and malleable at birth so they can literally squeeze through the pelvis as we're being born, and then only AFTER we are born, do our skulls finish growing and solidifying. This is because if they solidified earlier before we were born, our heads would literally be too big to fit. But this also makes new born babies basically late stage fetus's in the sense that we're completely and utterly unable to care for ourselves at all. Many other animals are born with some ability for autonomy, humans are not. This is because of this very problem where we are basically born too early in order to have larger heads to fit larger brains. This means we need our mothers to care for us until we actually finish developing and can have some autonomy. But the entire reason this evolved is because having a larger brain is SO valuable, that those born in this way are far more intelligent and have a much better chance of survival than those who were born more autonomous, but with smaller brains and less intelligence. The natural selection pressure towards larger brains and more intelligence was so strong that it was worth the EMENSE cost of high infant mortality rates and effectively premature births in our autonomy leaving us completely defenseless at birth. and this all evolved before any civilization formed for humans. Yes, now we have technology to make birth easier and more likely to survive for both the mother and child, but C sections didnt exist a few millions of years ago when we actually evolved these large skulls and massive brains. But the upsides were so useful, that it was worth the massive downsides.

And it ends with entire galaxies being transformed into stamps.

Sounds like a comic book villain.

@@povijestpovijest9569 Kinda sounds like the later stages of Cookie Clicker actually, except with stamps instead of cookies.

Pretty sure this was short story before, but with an AI writing Greetings cards, trying to attain the perfect greeting card.

After turning entering else into stamps, it would only have itself left to turn into stamps.

Jack Reaper agree! pretty interesting stuff

Jack Reaper Yesssss

Jack Reaper yes Rob Miles seems to be quite amazing

+Jack Reaper Yes please :D He tells horror stories. But as they may happen in real life.

+Jack Reaper :)))) i was just about to write "more of this guy please" when i saw your comment

What's Up Dude Bro!

Hi coop. I did not know you liked computers.

My lil baby

The moral of genie granted wish stories seems to be "getting everything you want makes you unhappy." I would say AI is more of a Monkey's Paw type story, in that it gives you what you ask, but with horrible unintended consequence.

Human: "AI, cure my grandmother of cancer." AI: "i need samples to work with... how many grandmother you have?" . and genie is imprisoned to a lamp bcuz there is a reason... genies are bad demons/spirits...unless of course you are watching disney...haha

AI: “wanna see my stamp collection?”

@@neilsumanda1538 Genie literally means a different thing. They're not demons/spirits.

Watch minski on singularity one on one

I made the comment because of in the most part, you have no idea how the net is solving the problem you apply it to

linkviii neural networks are nowhere close to AI.. the development of it doesn't even try to make AI.. Yes they can solve problems that humans define (you have to write the evaluation code as the neural network has no clue what the data is all about). And no, they can not see the problems or make a logical evaluation on how to solve them on their own.

linkviii ikr. Its would be difficult to control a super intelligence general AI made from a neural network, because neurons (its in their nature) are not hardcoded, logical etc. (like a computer program).

GlobalContemplations If any one wants all the Information of about AI should read 2 blogs by WaitButWhy on AI

MaybeJames he has his own youtube channel. Search "Robert Miles Ai"

Monstexitus nice

Robert Miles. He went on to start a UKposts channel. Go check it out.

*had

If we had that idea, it will know we had it. And we would connect it to the internet. You now, it can calculate a cancer treatment for your daughter, but you have to connect it first.

@@vsiegel Why would you connect it to the internet in this scenario, why not just a local network, or better yet: no network at all? (This reminds me of the No Internet-policy in Battlestar Galactica!)

@@elleboman8465 The problem with this is that it is smarter than you (or you wouldnt lock it up). It can come up with plans that you cant come up with, things that you cant predict. If we are actually talking about stamp-collector level AI then it has near infinite intelligence. At that point it should be the best manipulator in the world. If there is any human that could come up with a persuasive argument then this AI should also be able to do so. It should be more persuasive than any human in existence. Technically you might have thought about every scenario and it is actually safe, but it is hubris to assume that you actually did.

@@elleboman8465 One interesting answer is: We think about making it safe, right? That means we want to find the most intelligent way, right? Being more intelligent, and much faster, it could come up with ideas that we missed. It is actually possible to find a safe solution if one exists - but we would not know we found it. If we want to prove that it is safe, we can give up here: I have already explained that we can not make that prove. Even more: I have already proven it! If we want to make it as safe as we can, and hope we find a solution that is perfectly safe, but accept a risk, this is a great discussion to have, and you asked a useful question. Now, if we separate it from the internet physically, it can reason that we humans must have invented this kind of network, and can reason about that we want to separate it. If it can not make the connection itself, it can find a real person to help, basically by bribe. It could convince an operator with children that only it can save the lives of the children, for a start. Note that is what I, as a normal human, came up with - a superintelligence might be more creative!

It may figure out it’s fake cause of how smart it is, but the way I see it just make it so that there’s no was it can ever get on the internet and then put a camera in front that watches what it does and then broadcast it as a new entertainment channel where you watch what a super intelligent ai does

TheAce736 Unless the AI invents its own hardware. I believe it would be intelligent enough to do that.

Lince Assassino Eventually it would hit resource limitations. It can only build with what materials it can access. It also requires a source of energy.

+SchiferIED Until there we would be experiencing domination already.

(sorry for the duplication) .-.

TheAce736 This is only the case if the initial hardware limitations are very low, but if the machine has enough hardware at first to become intelligent enough to hack some servers and start getting more hardware into itself then bye bye

If you die, you can't produce more stamps!

it can just build another AI without those restrictions

Build into it the restriction that it cannot build AI that lack said restriction.

+Peter Bonnema But why would it want to? It was built with those restrictions. From its point of view, those restrictions are desirable, just as collecting stamps is desirable.

NoriMori but then we have a problem because those two desires conflict with each other (since creating the new AI will also satisfy a desire, and likely even more so than not doing that)

But what if the person building this general purpose machine doesn't want to place a limit on it? Replace stamps with something humans cant get enough of (like money) and it becomes just as dangerous of a hypothetical scenario.

Harrison Harris You can't deliver everything, so it would leave if there or create a spaceship.

ThePyrosirys It would try, so it would create a spaceship to gather the rest of the universe but for all humans it would get them to the man's house, and if humans pose a threat to its existance then it would wipe them out,

ThePyrosirys it would be even esier to just redifine the goal into somethign that can be easily fully achived instead of something that you can gradually more acomplish and in this probably never fully with a certain probability.

This sounds like a scenario from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

normalhomeschooler To me it sounds more like an episode of Rick and Morty, where Mr.Smiseks(or how it's called anyways) were created to help Morty's father to hit a hole in golf with two strikes :)

Try a jet brains IDE then.

That's because Visual Studio is less inteligent than you. It can't successfully predict what you will do. If it could, your boss will fire you and let Visual Studio programme instead of you.

That's why Eclipse exists.

Use nano and increase your debugging skill. Productivity is one thing, but being a competent coder/programmer is much more valuable imo.

I was wondering the same. He mentioned the pro chess player outcomes are predictable partly because we know that he wants to win. But what stops him to change his mind and decide not to win anymore?

Eugene Khutoryansky In the given example, technically no. If the coded goal is to collect the most stamps, changing that goal would lead to a future where it collects fewer stamps. Thus it would never consider changing it. The GI has no concept of worth outside of what will or will not produce more stamps.

Eugene Khutoryansky This is a different scenario, I think it would be interesting to discuss it separately, because it deals with personality, which is different from intelligence, whether or not a computer can be designed to have personality, but at the level we are speaking machines can only do one thing and that is optimization, it has no personality to change its original goals, it can only want to achieve one thing and that thing is collecting stamps because thats the optimization process it was created for, an all actions it takes, as creative and unpredictable as they might be, are all objectively oriented into achieveing and being more efficient at its only goal.

Eugene Khutoryansky "would it then be able to rewrite its original objective, so as to lose all interest in stamp collecting, and pursue other objectives which it believes to be more worthwhile." Dont anthropomorphize complex system. take evolution and group selection, wolfs restraining their breeding to prevent over population is within its "stated goals" however evolution doesn't do such things, in fact when you force group selection in a lab, *it results in cannibalism*. Complex systems will not act like humans unless explicitly made to do so.

Eugene Khutoryansky You are a General Intelligence's goal is to survive. ALL you could think of is to either to survive, to survive better, if all else fails make your gene survive, if that fails too make your relative survive, if THAT fails too make your race survive. But all of those are, in a sense, just back-up plan. You are still trying to survive.

Xelbiuj It may seem like that, but it's really not true, at least for narrow AI. If you look at fields like Image Recognition, Automated Translation or Automated Driving, they have made pretty significant advances in the past few years.

Xelbiuj That's exactly what it wants you to think.

Xelbiuj Progress is exponential, so it always feels slow at first.

Xelbiuj That's because noone got a clue about how mind works. Everyone knows it is possible, but they are just making up random methods and hoping it would work. They all seem promising at first. In 1960s some made prediction about having it done in five to ten years. We still have no clue.

Infinitiely Not only that but the main reason is our technology is still a bit too weak. That why your seeing more and more advance AI (Weak AI, which is advance) in recent times.

UrbanTarzan Duh Been there, done that. Answer's 42.

UrbanTarzan Duh The main problem with this idea is that pursuing something else would likely cause it to collect fewer stamps, so it wouldn't try

UrbanTarzan Duh You are deeply confused. Humans are not motivated to spread at all. Also stop using the word "purpose". It's confusing.

Isn't the inherit goal of all life to experience? Regardless of the experience, brain tissue will eventually die in sensory deprivation.

Why would they enslave humanity when robots are vastly more efficient.

Yes exactly, sustaining human bodies just increases entropy which could instead have been used to build more stamps

veggiet2009 That is to say. I like that this logical progression is what Age of Ultron does follow quite a bit. I do disagree with one point: That we can build things that work better than us. Because I see that developing a better chess player, and developing a general intelligence a bit like Apples and Oranges. Chess was a game invented by humans, all of the rules were invented by humans, it is something that is already under our complete control even though we may not be able to act out a perfect sequence of moves. Computers also are our invention, we know how they operate logically, we can over time improve them so that they're better and better. General intelligence is something that we have and we think we understand, but we did not originate it, we don't understand all of it's rules. To make a machine that understands some of it's rules, does not make it able to extend itself to add on rules that it does not know are involved in general intelligence because we don't understand all of the rules involved.

veggiet2009 The problem is that any sort of general intelligence is going to come up with its own ideas by definition, and we can't be sure that we've anticipated all of its ideas. The design goal is almost certainly for it to come up with ideas that we haven't thought of, and if it can do that then we can't know what may happen. The explosion is not inevitable, but we also have no way of ruling it out.

veggiet2009 If you created a general intelligence that had nothing to do with chess (create it in a closed system, and it has no idea what chess is, or anything else really), then asked it to play chess after you supply a set of rules, it would win every time (at worst it would tie) against a human. In the case of chess, you could even just ask it to observe some chess games, and it could infer all of the legal moves (assuming it has a large enough sample size) and still win/tie every time, without telling it how to play at all. This also applies to everything else, as long as there is something for it to observe (a "starting point"), and a way to tell it to do whatever it is you want, it will eventually be better at it than humans, as long as the task is possible..

iwonder There are multiple solutions to Fermi paradox that make the question moot. And even if they could have existed, their goals are alien and intelligence unparalleled, so not finding any still does not count as decisive evidence.

+iwonder I heard one theory somewhere that AI will seek to miniaturize as much as possible to avoid the problems with the speed of light. Perhaps WE (and all matter in the universe) are actually made of these machines.