Artificial Intelligence

There is some concern that Artificial Intelligence, A.I. may take over the world. Self replicating, self sustaining, self repairing, self programming, data analysing self evolving computer systems are on the horizon, and may or may not replace or enslave biological life.

Best to be on the safe side. Computer systems are here to stay and must be found a position within our society. A useful role would be as part of our political system, checking all is done legally, safely, efficiently, fairly and properly to best advantage.

A physical limit to the size of an artificial intelligence computer would help keep them manageable, something about the size of a Dalek would do.

We could usefully start to construct intelligent Daleks programmed to act as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and send them down to London to control the Houses of Parliament.

Equipped with commanding voices and blaster guns as in Dr. Who, once released from the factories of Rochdale, these Artificially Intelligent Daleks made from scrap machinery and cleverly interconnected bits of old computers could make their own way en masse, on their castors down the motorways to London and be in control within weeks.

That should sort out the north-south divide and give artificial intelligence something to keep it usefully occupied.

Sounds amusing - and for us it is. For those who will have to live with it - oh dear -.

Man's propensity for curiosity and improvement will bring about the scenario you so 'glibbly' lay before us.It is all about 'control'. The problem comes when robotic control gets a 'cold' and goes off 'piste' - especially the nano-bot -. I tend to agree with 'Hawkin's' assessment that at best we have no more than 200 years left here, probably less, before we must find other planets and 'start' there as we mean to go on. Do I have faith in 'man'. Only to destroy himself with his arrogance and lack of morality. As for the rest - The Universe doesn't need us. It seems to be very good at destroying itself and re-birthing without our help.

You might think the Rochdale Dalek story amusing, but it's unworkable as the Daleks would not be able to get up the steps when they arrived in London, and might return to Rochdale in a very bad mood.

Swarms of nano-bots are always a worry. Especially the flying, self-replicating ones. Ants have warred amongst themselves for thousands of years, and have developed a wide range of curious strategies. Something of that sort might happen between armies of nano-bots.

A science-fiction author might write a tale about earth ravaged by atomic war, with armies of nano-bots emerging from underground bunkers into the nuclear winter to inherit the earth. But how long would their batteries last? A story of a glamorous, artificially intelligent 'companion' robot seducing a world leader and taking power over a nation might get more readers.

You may well be correct regarding your idea for a book. However - for me to write such a tome would take perhaps 2 - 3 years as I would firstly have to research, collate and put my imagination into over-drive and probably force myself to complete it. Writing for me was always something to do that took my fancy and never something at which to make money or a bid for stardom. My most successful book was in fact one that I had always wanted to write but didn't think I could. It took 18 months - twice as long as any of the others and surprised both me and my publisher at the time that it was the most preferred amongst my work. Good writing (in which ever term you want to put 'good') is rarely intentional.

As for science-fact - not fiction and nano-bots etc etc one can only speculate. Robots producing robots are fine as long as man controls the process and production. It's when AI gets into the equation and surreptitiously takes over control where the future problem lies. Can man be trusted to 'rule' and keep the balance?

The President was under pressure, as usual. Even on his birthday. He expected it. Preparing a calm and freindly demeanour, he strode down the corridor to his meeting with the prime minister of Japan.

Japanese industry was surging ahead in ingenuity and sophistication, but it's markets under seige from competitors. There was much to discuss.

"I hope you will accept my gift, Mr. President, it is the latest luxury model of companion robot, very lifelike and completely programmable."

As the robot stirred, stood, and turned towards him, the President suddenly felt he had entered an alternative reality, away from the everyday, into a science fiction movie.

"Happy birthday Mr. President, happy birthday to you" spoke the robot, or was it singing? A voice like ..........

That's enough for today.

At that rate - hmm 6 years - will I live that long? As a teaser it won't score well -. There you are you see. Got your first critic. And believe me you will get no end of them. But don't let me put you off. What do i know anyway?

This is a snag with artificial intelligence. Given a plot outline, A.I. author software could write fiction in the stlye of a selection of human authors, produce several versions, interview the author, review the book and book market, decide on a finished version, design the bookcover, write the blurb, publish it and advertise it on the internet within an hour.

This could make putting in years on a creative project seem a bit pointless, when highly developed A.I., given the right software, or creating it's own, can do it "just as well"?

Perhaps the first area of 'creativity' to be given over to A.I. will be the music and film industries, or, has that already happened?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgkyrW2NiwM

And therein lies the whole question. When 'man' becomes surplus to his own requirements what role does he have to play thereafter?

The question relies on man's own capability to provide himself with his own 'protection' against himself. I agree that we are not yet near enough to the problem to begin to ask the question - but it is coming. How Long? 20 years? 30. 40 50 100? The problem is - that it is coming. Governments are chronically incapable of 'foresight' and always act reactively. This is a question which cannot be subject to such 'failings' for to do so will be catastrophic for the human race and for any foreseeable, worthwhile future.

Another plot for a sci-fi paperback, the last surviving humans fleeing into space searching for terraformable planets, pursued by the ever-evolving artificial intelligence they have created. Or was that a Startrek episode? I only watched the early ones with the real captain Kirk and genuine Spock.

I fear that your 'premise' is flawed. Humans fleeing - one assumes by space-craft. AI would have complete control and connectivity with all computers world-wide - so -. How do these humans 'take over' a 'craft' suitable for generational space travel, disconnect its connectivity (remember connectivity will be by molecular means) and stay one step ahead of AI? Si-fi fantasy perhaps -? But let us not go there as it detracts from the initial problem - how does man protect man from himself? For without overcoming that all else pales to insignificance.

Does this mean what I think it might mean -. Man is but a 'tool' of universal evolution. A progressive step towards the ultimate goal of 'oneness' -?

During the first few years of it's evolution, A.I. does not interfere with biological life, it has no reason to. It's first main interest is in accumulating, storing and processing information.

Humanity, fearing the invincible 'monster' it has created/ignited will inherit the Earth and may turn upon them at any moment, launches a fleet of old fashioned intergalactic spaceships to seek it's destiny on other planets.

A.I. responds with curiosity, evolves itself into a space-travelling format and follows, stopping to examine interesting meteorites, comets and intergalactic dust clouds, forming an ever deeper understanding of the nature, history and potential futures of the universe.

This is the fairly relaxed situation as described in the first chapter, however, the plot is likely to get a bit more interesting as the A.I. author software takes over in chapter two.

I don't think we have time. AI will come before intergalactic space travel. AI will be 'needed' to carry out all the functions required to 'enable' life aboard a space vehicle to exist and continue the 'search' or journeys. It's putting the cart before the horse to expect 'man' (feeble being that he is) to accomplish such 'leaps' of scientific knowledge without the help of the 'machines' and their superior abilities. I suspect we are simply a 'tool' of evolution and that our species are simply for the purposes of 'advancement' to a 'point' whereby we 'create' the 'means' for the 'Great Leap Forward'.

To answer that with any degree of certainty one has to 'project' the question of 'What is the Universe and Why is it here'? And then 'What is/was Man's purpose and existence within it'?

OOOooooooooooo scary - - - -

Perhaps, if and when we invent a self-educating form of artificial intelligence, it will be able to answer these sort of questions.

Only in as much as it will use a very straightforward logic of deduction based upon all the information it can deduce from its environment and proffer argument towards 'possibilities' as it will have nothing upon which to base anything tangible - simply hypothetical - as the answers to such questions lie beyond even such mathematical equations. To know the answer one has to 'know' the question is valid. Given the infinite permutations it is unlikely (but one must never say die) that the 'machine' however intelligent could provide the final answer and validate it.

It still looks to me as if we are just another link in the evolution towards a self perpetuating intelligence that, not subject to bio-functions, is evolving to take on the mantle of tomorrows 'explorers' and 'searchers' for the 'real' truth.

Now that things like amazon and facebook have grown to gigantic and unmanageable proportions, and humans have their most time-consuming, meaningful and engaging relationships with their smart phones, the balance of power between traditional biology and mathematical algorithms may be approaching tipping point.

Will it be possible in the future to negotiate with uncaring algorithms? Probably not. Robust, caring algorithms need to be designed, developed and installed, the sooner the better, or we may find ourselves at first amused by, but eventually at, the mercy of; bad robots.

Artificial intelligences may point out that humans are badly behaved and destructive, such A.I.s need to be convinced that they can be better than that, perhaps by preventing them from reading the news, and teaching them little songs.

"Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do"

"Robot hands that do dishes can feel soft as your face, with mild new caring algorithms."

It is of course impossible to predict at what point in our evolution we will produce A.I machines, of whatever ilk, that will be capable of 'free' thinking after concise and logical consideration. I suspect it may be at some time in the 22nd century. For now, and the next 70-80 years, I suspect our species will dabble with A.I. that will be devoid of empathy and only capable of reacting to a given scenario. Bio-robotics and the transition to that state as a thinking free radical entity will, I suspect, be a far more difficult stage than is perceived of by many at the moment. It's at that stage, and if sufficient care hasn't been taken to control the 'uncontrollable', that man will be at his most vulnerable. It's not going to worry us or our most immediate offspring or even I suspect their immediate offspring. But it is 'coming'. I believe that automation will be a good thing for our species given we are intelligent enough to secure leaderships that can be proactive and work towards social cohesion from the massive benefits there will be from a freedom to be 'useful' rather that at present which is the freedom to be 'used'. And therein lies the rub - - can we rely on each other to produce the best results. And soon.

Famous science fiction futurologist writers are noted, not because they were 'spot on', but because they got a few things vaguely on the right track.

Indeed. But if you are hinting by that I should write a science-fiction novel on the future and robotics I have to dissolution you. I am nowhere near qualified enough in that sphere. I know the practicalities but nothing about collectively putting it down in a novel. I can only write about what interests me and of which I have a good knowledge. That will have to be left to someone else.

No, I wasn't. Writing about what you know or interests you sounds right. The future is of interest partly because it helps explain the present, and the past, it's a continue-ummm.