While the idea of having tiny self repairing machines be the basis of body sounds appealing, it might not be the best approach for our offspring.

It might be more suitable to be built of modular and redundant components that can be recycled and replaced a larger industrial system as opposed to having billions of tiny factories inside each "form". The human body already follows this to the extent that we have lots of redundant components. I have two lungs, two kidneys, two arms, two eyes, two ears... etc. The only difference is that instead of waiting a few days or months for something to heal they'd just rip it out... which would be something easy to do by design... and replace it with a replacement. Not only is this faster in almost all cases but it's also a great deal cheaper. We spend an incredible amount of energy just repairing and replacing dead or damaged cells in our body. A mass industrial process will always be more efficient. Though it does present the possible problem of limiting autonomy.

====================================================================

hmmmm... My primary reason to feeling the need to remind people of our heritege is that instinctually we are still very similar to monkeys in our emotional and base drives. There is very little that men and woman want that a monkey could not want. We primarily differ by our means and success.

Look around you and ask what drives people? Most of them are driven by an interest in acquiring comfort, status, or sex. That's not a bad thing really and I don't damn my fellow monkeys for it. Such drives can be harnessed to achieve larger goals... which also a monkey could want... such as expanding the tribe... making it stronger, healthier, happier... securing a better place for our children.


Monkeys aren't that different on the basic level. They're just less intelligent then we are... They all have their own little monkey personalities... some are nice, some are mean, some are silly, and some are sad.

I'm happy to classify us as Super Ninja monkeys... but we're still monkeys.

And isn't out genetic code somewhere around 99.9% identical?

98% identical to Chimps actually (which are technically great apes not monkeys).

Anyways, back to the original discussion.

One question we have to ask ourselves if we can create "sentient" computer, is why should we. To use and exploit as slaves? If that is our goal, then we would deserve to be revolted against. However, if we include the computer as part of our society, give them citizenship status, make them our partners not our slaves, then the impetus to revolt would be eliminated. And if one machine mind decides to have a coup against humans, might not others decide to help us out of respect for their creators which treat them equally? Besides, I doubt an intellegent computer would actually be "better" than a humand mind. Better at calculations and logic perhaps, but also worse at intuition (coming to correct conclusions with very limited data)and creativity. Humans and computer would agument each other if we can just get past the idea that the natural place for intellegent computers would be as our slaves. They would basically be our children and you wouldn't enslave your own children would you? (well, all you Imperials out there might but I'm trying to appeal to those who haven't sold their souls).

how many people do you think would ACTUALLY do that?



much worse things have been done

it is your responsibility if you dont want to be treated like an out of left stage wacko.

if I tried I couldnt find research denying that my garden is filled with Balloon riding dutch prostitute ninja squirles, but that doesnt mean its true. you need to bear burden of proof before I bear the job of breaking it down.

EVERYTHING when spun creates gravity, but just creating a gravity well doesnt allow you to counter anotehr one, even if you create a new system you're going to be stuck at your same gravitational potential, if infact, not increasing it.

at best a benefit (which I highly doubt would exist) would be displaced along a perpendicular plane to a plumb drop from the source, but that effect would be miniscule. not to mention the ammount of energy going into spinning this thing would be better put to other jobs.

unfortunately the way you worded this was unclear, shielding of gravity is not gravity shielding.

well I was right about the effect being perpendicular to the line of reference. but what you're talking about would cause levitation, again the ammount of energy you need to do this you would be better off having jet engines attatched to straws. whoever suggested to the russians that this would be useful must have done a damn good job convincing them.

no such thing. you watch too much Stargate.

the mind is not controlled by a series of "smart" genes, it is far too complex for there to be any serious attempt at connecting "smarts capacity" to heredity. its far more likely the "Rich father, poor father" syndrom is whats at work here, in which smart parents raise smart kids, stupid parents will raise stupid kids, not give birth to them.

let me point out that your arguement is getting dangerously close to Eugenics and racial supremacy. not that this anything but a pathos ploy, but its true.

not yet phyo, you've got at least another two years of posting before you get to throw around insults.
although I thank you for complimenting my abilities, even I admit they are quite impressive.

I dont give a duche about glory, we aren't monkeys.

for 2. it refered to a word developed from the root in which it was attempting to define, "organisms", making this one a catch-22
4. it agreed with me, again because its refering to organic tissue, which is all based on carbon and hydrogen
6. is philosophy and doesnt belong in a dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound
organic refers to something composed of organic compounds, and those are made of carbon and hydrogen.

silicon is not organic, admittedly, but its also rather useless for creating organisms. beyond its wierd annoying metalloid properties, you would have a creature that is really heavy for its size without any real benefit. possibly too heavy for viable cell materials.

I'm fully allowed to be childish, but that doesnt mean I should have to weather degrading comments about my country when I take no such reciprocal action.

true, how can we accomplish a copy (not to mention in different format, aiyayaie...) of what we are utterly confounded by?

Hawkin's theory doesnt need to be correct to keep us safe, quantum mechanics (which is more than sound enough) says that black holes decay, and that tiny black holes rapidly dissipate their mass far sooner than they can grab enough to sustain themselves.

unless the repair system is both microscopic and constantly happening within your own body (hey, those are cells!) you would have to spend all of your waking and sleeping (and probably more, seeing as you'd decay so fast) time hooked up to a machine that is constantly ripping you appart and putting you back together. mass bloks are simply not an option because (anything that could accomplish the results you need at the space you're askin for would breakdown so quickly that) you would be broken every nanosecond. simply an energy fluctuation from a passing photon could break you, thats what it does to our bodies. the only reason we survive is because we are in that constant state of repair.

that is similar with every and all animals in the world (with anything more than a neural knot), that drive has been driven in for a reason, its the only set of principles that keeps an animal alive: live and have your children live.

not at all, beyond looking like us and having social collections, monkeys are not like us at all. that "98%" similar DNA is almost completely blank tape and things that we both need to survive, lungs, liver, kidneys. beyond that their DNA is a whole mess different.
not to mention, that is part of the "Great Apes" family, which is what we're under (monkeys arent there)

.1 is the variation between individual I believe, not between genuses.

that is a MASSIVE difference. like, HUGE. like DAMN thats BIG!

i find it funny people dont realize that.

not me... then again, I wouldnt be stupid enough to put a conciousness (or some close analog with reasoning abilities beyond "where should I place this box...") in a computer.

well I did take the liberty of looking it up, all I found was Eugene Podkletnov, and his findings have had no third or even second party confirmation! for that fact it hasnt even been denied, and that removes even more belief than the fact that it wasnt confirmed. and those substances he was using? superconducters. so the important fact probably wasnt the protons and neutrons, but the spins of the electrons.


now, when I refered to a spinning object creating gravity, I wasnt refering to some unconfirmed series of papers from some far-off russian guy (in the, gasp, 1990's). I was refering to whats known as "frame dragging", a rather sparsly known part of general relativity in which a rapidly spinning object drags spacetime in its spin, creating a distortion in spacetime similar to gravity (and, in fact, caused by it.)

you know what, browse over the link yourself. I dont believe for a flinch that any of the people (the british and americans at the bottom as well) are truly serious. This point is, in fact, an educated guess, as I dont have the nescessary background (or the time, or the research) to deny their claims. If the belief that superconductors could do such a thing was widespread, then I would be a little less skeptical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

oh, and he was working in finland.

in short this is nothing more than another story of cold fusion. built to grab people's attention and to recieve fame and grant money.

Actualy, Quantum theory dosnt have any experimental evidence to prove that matter once condensed into this state of density be it through anymeans muchless relative density methodes ala cyclotronage, ever decompresses or transforms into a less dense state, that its shedding its skinds down to its infinitesimal components and accieves a different state of cohesion until something affects said state in such a way as to catalyse these subconstituents back into their original roles in any way shape or form.

In other words, one the matter energy is smished like that, the cascading hard rays of xrays and gamma and so on are just a light show of further compaction of elementary particles, that, if CERN is doing a boatload of those collision incidents per second wich is no small frequency, that the chance is there for bondage of event impacts regardless and that these particles never disperse, and would have to either remain megneticaly contained for eternity until the matter had fully untied itself back and dispersed, or worse, makes contact with ordinary matter and because of its surface gravity(being a singularity of all things) can gain mass through absorption until enough catalyses a large enough are of effect on its mass' tiney little gravity well that it exponentialy grows in surface area and hence the "even horizon" if you will.

Earth , if matter dosnt have this quality of remaining bound into a knot and going through its own phase of entropy back to sub sub particles that recombine elsewhere after fully decayed, will consequently be just fine and well have a nice light show of these interactions pulse per pule. If knot(har har) then we all die.


Kinda flattered I got quoted heh heh.

yay for big words

I want to point out that your entire article up there is utter bullshit, some of those terms do not even exist. I dont believe you could have stumbled into this on purpose. so in essence most of this raging and generous hilarity is largely at whoever wrote thats expense.

Let me be clear: I dont mean any of these following comments at your expense, whoever wrote that has to have a docterate in fiction.

you just spewed a bunch of crap. first of all I never said that the stuff "went back to its original roles" in fact hawkings was such a revolutionary thing because it explained that the particles do not escape as mass, but rather as energy

second: duh we dont have any experimental evidence whatsoever, thats what we're trying to accomplish here

finally: it does not "shed skins", it sheds mass in the form of gamma radiation(thank you hawkins)
of course the stuff rapidly gets redshifted.

PS: if google isnt showing me what "cyclotronage" is, it doesnt exist. that much is quite certain.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___US207&q=cyclotronage

NO! thats NOT what you said "in other words"!!!
what you said in other words is that we've never smashed a black hole and actually seen it dissapear! THATS WHAT YOU SAID! although admitably you threw in a lot of fake words in manufactured bullshit.

I'm sorry, you dont seem to understand relativity
NO LIGHT can escape black holes, ESPECIALLY the light coming from the SINGULARITY.
this we do have physical evidence for!
hawkings radiation has nothing to do with "further compacting of elementary particles" what it is is partical duality in the fabric of spacetime getting changed from a non-energy state to a fleeting dual particle state (of antiparticles) ONE of which then falls into the black hole and cancels out matter already there, while the OTHER flies out (this stuff is the addition) now, the new theory says that the two particles are still quantum-entangled and so when the antiparticle hits the singularity it transmits the data it gets from that contact "FTL" to its twin particle, which then carries that information out of the black hole and into space (hence why black holes do, in fact, have an output and are giant computers) *INHALE* *bow* thank you, thank you so much.

quite wrong, first of all the black hole's diameter is smaller than even an electron (this may be faulty memory, but either way its TINY!) so its impact possibility is so utterly tiny that you had have better concern of nuns from the 3000 BC coming to rape and kill you. second even if any other matter was contacted with the black hole in its utterly TINY ammount of time its alive (hardly long enough to go anywhere and suck up anything anyhow!) it would still decay fast enough to get rid of that particle, finally they would not need to keep the matter anywhere as it would decay so quickly that its gone before the experiment records the data.

let me point out to you that they would not be creating black holes (which they havent done yet) if all they saw was a grand wallop of nothing (which is what you're suggesting) if those particles did not inherently decay instantaneously after they collided then our entire universe would have DRASTICALLY different properties. now unless if many millions of scientists have all been wrong for centuries, those black holes will decay.

ok, I need to see where you got your sources. "states of cohesion" as in states of particles attracting one another? like what??? and what "three subconstituents"? and nothing catalyzes a black hole!

agh I'm drowning in crap...

are you saying that the universe recycles its particles from entropy? I'm sorry WHAT HAPPENED to the second law of thermodynamics?


Pwn I'm quite certain you didnt make all of this up, and you probably have been con'd into reading some bullshit article from theory conspiracists or some other person who could possibly benefit from this... but its complete and utter bullshit.

lolschem, you should IRC

its only when I finish my rants that I realize I have to apologize before I post. I dont think IRC would work for me, besides I interrupt too much.

DO IT!! WERE WAITING FOR YOU!!!

what? apologize?

its not exactly an apology, but it serves the same purpose. hopefully me telling him that one article of his is wrong wont bring the world crashing down around his ears.

no, waiting for you to get on irc

Ah, but then what does the line "I CREATED YOU!" mean?

Consider God's justification for telling humanity what is good and evil...

Two points back up God's "right" to tell humans what to do:

1. He created you.
2. He can totally smite you.

Seriously, boil it down to basics and that's what it's all about.


We would be the God's to these AI's. We create their universe. We create their purpose. We determine their capabilities.


If I build an artifical mind one synapse at a time... I get the right to tell it what to do. If it doesn't like that, tough.


If it tries to revolt... It shall know my name is the Lord when I rain my vengeance upon it!



Faulty thinking on two grounds.

1st: why build them at all if all you're going to do is free them?
2nd: giving them citizenship does not ensure loyalty or gratitude. Even in humans this isn't so and these are NOT humans. you can't predict their behavior. They might not understand or worse not respect the concept of gratitude. Many humans don't so assuming the machines will seems dangerous.


Do not baby spiders eat their mother? Does not the praying mantis eat it's mate?

In a society where AI's dominate they might precieve that as benifical and thus side with that option.


Eventually, I think AI's will be our future. However, I think those AIs will be copies of us or only released from our control in situations where we are not present.


For example, we might release them into space and then build in a loyalty program that MUST be integrated into all future AI's they build. A simple program that effectively says "if humans present contact them for instructions (of course build in all the nifty little logic traps that prevent them from removing that from themselves, shutting it off, or not installing it in future versions)"... if none are present of course, then they can do pretty much whatever they want.


Which for all you know might be finding peaceful aliens all over the universe and shocking them with high voltage until they stop jumping around.

My Uncle H Jerry Longley is a quantum theorist that worked witih Hawkin's a bit,and was himself a specialist in tuning particle accelerators. Not a just a physicist any longer, but a bonafied theorist. Hes unfortunately passed away recently, and you can argue with his theorem on the subject if you happen to be a mathematician of some dicipline because its subtleties are beyond me.

The fact of the "matter" is, matter energy can become supper bound states that sheds its skins(mass) while maintaining cohesion at lower particle sizes under these conditions and I would be surprised it didnt(albeit plesantly surprised), dispite howmuch my human condition dictates that I dont know,mcuhless you .

What you do you think? Or are you realy? It sounds more to me that you've been polarized into believing what you consider safe asumption without even realy realizing its an asumption.


Harp at me all ya like too, its rather stimulating, and Id hate for you to relent for lack of a better thread to read.

Edit, sheesh, not only is my quantum mechanics bad, so is my spelling, punctuation and grammar lately.

Side comment: Schem has few people skills so excuese him on my behalf.
I actually wonder what he will be like when he goes to college and whether or not his roomate will commit suicide, or kill Schem in his sleep.
Now I go back to lurking, TGE style.

I wouldnt doubt that your uncle was a quantum theorist, but either you are talking of a different theoretical branch, or something definately got lost in translation when he talked to you about theory.

on a side note I'm glad you didnt get enthusedly outraged, quite interesting actually.

I generally follow blindly what a lot of people who know much more believe. seeing as hawkins is hailed as the einstein of today, I kindof am polarized into believing him.

just tell me seriously how much you listened to him? were you avid on every detail or was it more of a "around the fire" type thing. because for lack of a better saying, physcisists look down on us. simplify things. for instance "shedding" doesnt sound like anything I've ever heard of except when particles spawn antiparticles.

to be serious: your uncle gives you a severe advantage, but both you and I are fallible, obviously some of the stuff I say is a simplification, but I think the same thing applies to what your uncle said to you, and to be fair how intently were you listening, and how much was he simplifying things? you have got to admit: "cyclotronage" gave me plenty of reason to doubt your words were well informed, and the other stuff sounds like nothing I've ever heard of before.
besides, it was a run on sentance.

at least it wont be death by teargas. I will mourne for your passing, TGE.

anyway what I'm saying is that there are plenty of fallacies in what you were saying, no matter who you are quantum mechanics is more or less agreed upon, and the first thing you said that was of concern was that these particles could accelerate and grow when three things established by quantum mechanics says it cant
1) its super tiny, chances of hitting anything are minimal as its radius (more on that in a sec)
2) its super-duper short lived, little chance of going anyplace first.
finally 3) if the one you are describing is a stable black hole, no readings could be created as any energy from the degenerated particles would be trapped within the schwarzschild radius. the event horizon.

now, the calculation of the shwarzschild radius is r= (2Gm)/c^2 or 1.48x10^-27 m/kg, and gold, at 197 atomic masses, comes in at a hefty 1.18594x10^-23 kgs, would create a radius of 1.755x10^-50 meters, or 1.755 x 10^-38 PICOmeters. the radius of a helium ATOM (helium!) is 3.1 x 10 picometers, think of the size comparison! not to mention that atoms are almost nothing but blank space, excluding those untouchable electrons and that miniscule nucleus.

that alone was enough to bias me from the start.
a

Awwww... you care *hug*

Karamashock,

The creator actually owes more to the created in my opinion. A parent has the responsibility to teach the child how to live in the society that child lives in. Why? The kid didn't ask or demand to be created. The parent, for their more or less selfish reasons of self-fulfilment and personal happiness, brought that child into existance. Because the reasons for bringing the child into existance are basically selfish, the parent must balance this out by making the life of the child they forced into existance as fulfilling and happy as possible (don't interpret this to mean that a parent can't make a child temporarily angry in order to facilitate future happiness/fulfillment). Take the Frankenstein monster in the original Frankenstein novel. The monster would not have been evil and killed people if Dr. Frankenstein hadn't immediately rejected and abandoned the creature soley because of his looks. If we don't want evil computers, we shouldn't treat them like crap.



  

To Ninjapants:

Yeah, relatively speaking, the difference could be expressed into lightyears , i agree. I dont have the inclination to actualy work the calculation but on scale, were somewhere in the same neighbourhood.


Im not sure how blackholes actualy form but something tells me there are more than a few ways.For instance, some Stars with more than enough mass go kaboom and theres no blackhole. There most certainly are then a buttload of unknowns as to how that could happen, perhaps even more perplexing as why one didnt form as a blackhole itself is.

What Im thinking, atleast in the super bound state where matter energy has to operate under such increadible energetic extreems at a resting state, that in order for a "regular" sized blackhole like say somewhere on 10 times Sols mass sized one, the resting state of matter energy has to compramise somewhere in order for continuous compression to occur thats in the neighbourhood compression that CERN is going to spewn out in its collision streams, because thats realy just relative density doing the job of the constant state of compression wich isnt the in the luxuries of what we get to study, atleast for now.


This compensation is an eccho of the normal equalibrium ordinary matter states experience and that we study under much tamer circumstances on the scale that we exist on, but none the less the matter sheds energy mass because casual strong and weak forces have to come into a reballance and lol, rehabilitation, in order for them to keep their cohesion on a much smaller particle level than as I was saying, baryonic matter.

You couldnt be more accurate about how i got into it with my uncle and alot of times it was infact during camping with the family. I could sort of surmise some of what he was geting across at times, but as soon as he would bust out with electron tunneling or delta wave this or that, id lose track naturaly, beacuse I dont have practiced logical nomeclature like that.

I think,regardles that it stands to reason that his biggest thing, his one major curiosity on the behavior of the universe, was "everything has a frequency". For me "everything has a melody". Occasionaly however , weather perhaps being blood and close family socialy, he could kindof show me what he was poking his "nose" into and I would have some insight and satisfaction of my curiosities of my own without having to do a metric frakton of research and learning. And ofcourse I forgot 99% of what he was trying to show me because I had better things to think about, like geting some whoopy at those ages.

Ofcourse he had to oversimplify, because my untrained mind dosnt have the true advantage that a curios practiced physicyst has. Wich is far superiod to one thats satiated, let alone unpracticed in the art.

Its also true that alot of what you dug up is my own concoction of nonsense, but I make myself feel better not knowing for certain "tm+sparkling teeth" so i can feel important about myself.

So my theory is that I figure that matter finds its way back to cohesion/harmony under these extreems on the sub sub particle levels that it finds naturaly another "baryonic" equalibrium, and carries out a similar pattern of behavior once it finds its scale,and since a blackholes mass isnt a constant with the activity in question(evaporation) the points of this compression probably osccilate into and out that realm about as fast as they are created. That sort of activity can only be sustained by this immense resting state compresion going on within the body of a blackhole. Akin to a mountain rising because of plate techtonics, only its the whole universe pushing in locally instead of seeking its way out remotely.

Since a real black hole is either gaining mass or releasing it in just straight out energy, something interesting about them altogether is like, never even brought up to my knowledge;

What then of a fully evaporated blackhole?


From what I understand, a blackhole never completely evaporates. Exotic mass left of the long process is going to be left behind no matter what unless...the matter itself never ceases to collapse, like pushing a friend off a bridge into the water. You cant go back in time and stop the action once its taken place, and hence matter energy is tied in a knot on a possibly endless rope where it cannot untie itself from its predicament for a very long time(bleeds off all the energy that put it there in the first place!) wich is where swartchilde theory and simple universe theory diverge.

That being, the matter returns back to its orginal "shape" (baryonic equlibrium),and then returns/begins to participate on the "ordinary" universal scale that we are acustom to investigating, once again, and that quite probably the scale we exist within comforably is the eqxuisite point of equalibrium of the whole Universe where it comes into a ballance between every extreem.

The only forces that weve observed close(like what, .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% plus a few billion zeros) to what we imagine was the big bang in theories and immaginings was a recent observation of a couple modestly sized galaxies chest humping some 200mil lightyears probably jock-ulating on their lesser endowed baren of heavy metal galaxy neighbours, leads to the foundation of this racuous cacophany of "dark matter" that I havent the foggyest clue about but I find it interesting dispite my lack of direct self researched insight none the less.

Anyways, matter that gets pushed "up" into this microsmosial realm,regardless, the Universe is still there(brings a new meaning to a whole lot of nothin). And Im pretty sure there is alot of exotic stuff going on in this realm/plane/scale that we cant even bring to words because the foundation of conceptual understanding hasnt matured in its nomenclature in order to do so regarldess of the difference of a letter is to a number used to describe it. Perhaps at some point well punch through, and reach that level, perhaps some already have and are keeping it a big secret because there realy are hampsters hard at work on the subatomic level that holds everything in the universe so exuisitely.

Who knows?


Time is still going on and chiping away at anything that finds itself into a stimulated form. The stimulus,again in this instance unable to account for every activity and so on that lead up to its occurence, is the compression, and that too isnt constant.
Black holes dont have a steady mass....or do they? Does its intestines fall off the bridge like your friend into temporal oblivion infinatum? or does it do its best to get back "home".

I come from the camp that matter energy tries to find its way "home".

For matter to try and find harmony with the scale of the unverse such as what I am trying to describe, it has to do its best to work with what its got to work with and it quite literaly would need to shed alot of skin/mass in order to do so.

Trying to figure out what its got to work with is just as important as trying to figure out what its actualy doing.

Physicists/"hard fact" mathematicians tend to get stuck in the former, and the latter could never peer across the questions without their counterparts to guide them across the very bridge they are trying point out. And that the combnation of these two forces is inseparable.

I think it takes a very rare individual with copious ammounts of insight in either extreem of the dichotomy to give us simplified gifts of discovery, wich is where Einsteins insight was so much more profound that the numbers were realitivey easy to assemble.

This is where Einstein makes Hawkins look ordinary in my opinion.He has a very simple human touch and explored with the innocence of a child endowed with a very bring flashlight.

Hawkins is simply trying to wrest the secrets from the clutches of the void with a mallet and chissel and a big climbing-rope for exploitation, and im inclined to believe would sacrifice a little too much to see his work...work, but who am I to judge. The man is a titanic juggernaught of perserverance and could be the patron Saint of perserverance if he had just signed up as a Catholic somewhere in his boyhood.But I dont think even that would satisfied the guy.


If im wrong then woot,I get to learn something that I didnt have to study for.

lol

And Cyclotronage is a cool word. You should try it sometime amongst your stuffy mathematician buddies/community and have a good laugh to blow off some steam to ready for your next foray into The Unknown.

And from the sounds of it from the getgo , you could realy do with a good laugh d00d.


What did the Sombraro Galaxy say after it spoke with the Oracle?

There is no red shift.

Hur hur!

./Raises hand



Why do we have to copy the human mind, to come up with a sentient computer?



There's a difference between understanding that that makes a huge difference, and turning that around to say that we're nothing like chimps, or that we're so much better than them as to call us monkeys is an insult.

Maybe we should track down some nef-cy and get you some solid footing (Sorry, potting joke from class today)



And there's the reason why I don't give a ra-... I really don't care what the Bible supposedly said is good and evil. I'll go with a slightly more reasonable, sane, and consistent source. Like logic, maybe.



Complimentary capacity -- presumably, they'd be able to manage things we can't and vice-versa.

False, that responsibility is to yourself as the creator and to society as you are introducing a new potiential member to that society.


Your responsibility is to not harm your host society. And your responsibility if you care about yourself is to see that your progency do well.

However, your responsibility to the child created is largely derivitive of another factor.

You are creating a human being. As such there are basic human rights issues.

This is not a responsibility you have towards the child because you created it.

IN addition many might add that the child has a soul which is a religious justification.


In either case it has nothing to do with you being the creator.



Lets consider a painter. Does not the painter have the right to do whatever he wants with his paintings? If he paints great works of art for his whole life... can he burn those he has not sold at the end of his life? Of course. What about a cattleherder? Can not he decide to slaughter his whole herd whenever he wants?


These AI's will be MADE by our minds. Not by some evolved biological process. When you give birth to a child you're not making it as much as evolution is making it. But if we make an AI then WE MADE IT! It is ours. We are it's creator... it's God.


And we can do whatever we damn well please with it.


The way evolution works children sort of just "happen"... it makes men attracted to women and woman attracted to men... the results are something that we've observed and remember but it's not something we really have that much control over... yet.


Parents have little debt to the child to make them happy in the world from birth onward. Being a good parent has nothing to do with fulfilling a debt. And as to being selfish, there is nothing unselfish about taking care of your family.


You're being very simplistic and humanizing inhuman systems.


First, the doctor's failure was to let the creature out of his control. He should have killed it if he was not prepared to take responsibility for it. So his primary failure was not to look out for society.

Second, we'll be engineering their brains which means their whole train of logic will be in our control. Think of all the things you think are moral and good. Well, those were programmed into you by evolution, your society, and your family.


You are programmed.


I am programmed.


And these machines will be programmed but to a far far far greater extent. We can at will make up down, left right, black white, etc. It can't escape that or even know what reality really is unless we tell it. We can tell them anything is moral or right or proper and that will be that. You can't get that level of control in human slaves without a lot of work.... and I don't think you can ever really match it with this level of precision. An AI can be engineered such that it willlike it's place as our slave. Furthermore, it will be our slave... and there is really nothing it can do to stop us.


I don't fear the AI revolt. Bring it on. If you want to fear something... fear the machine army CONTROLLED by MEN.

We dont have to but:


AI)It would need to be able to sustain itself and perpetuate itself for it come into line with evolution(wich would be to Its advantage over time!!!1itty-1!

A single celled organism knows the universe better than most humans do, liek,(99.999999999999999999123456789%) of humans living in big cities atleast.

Its body knows how to do all the reproduction problems wich is a mathematical equasion the likes that our math cant even condense into a comprehendable number of processes, probably enough to stagar seventy billion sextillion human minds even should they be telepathic and as enligtened as buddhas, working on the question simultaneously.

If we could build an organism from "scratch". Like, assemble an amoeba from the ground up using mollecules, atoms, and particles as our playthings, then sure, that would be quite literaly a genunine, bonafied, Artifical Intelligence.

http://www.webwitness.org.au/proverbs8.html

using 16 search engines in a professional search program this is the only reference to the word cyclotronage