Poll: Why, exactly, would machines want to take over the world?

[ellimist337]

Machines programmed to protect humans could eventually see humans as threats to themselves, thus creating a situation in which they have to take control of certain things (like weapons, factories, the government itself, etc.) which would be "taking over the world."

 

[Zani]

It might happen... you never know, one day you could be sitting in front of your computer, playing your favorite game, and then all of a sudden your computer's side burst open, you being sucked in and shredded by the fans in there.

Or if you have water cooling you would drown...

It would make funny youtube videos though!

 

[000Ronald]

Let's say somebody got the 'bright' idea to build a machine with the sole purpose of 'eliminating inefficiencies'. Now let's take a look through it's eyes at the thing it would call a 'human fleshbag':

- It is made of flesh. Flesh is heavy and weak, so inefficient as armor.
- It uses a small percentage of it's brain, thus rather inefficient.
- If you tear a limb of, it will not be able to get himself repaired. Not to mention the mess it makes on the floor.
- It has a short lifespan, usually not longer than 100 years. Thus needs regular replacement.
- It can not work for a few days straight. Let alone months and years.
- It can not be upgraded.

So from a pure, ice-cold logical perspective, a machine built to eliminate inefficiencies would most likely begin with humans. Unless programmed to leave them alone, that is.

All that can be countered with one point;

"Well, they made me, so they must be worth something." More than that, I'd assume that a machine like that would view people as peers rather than anything else.

Another point: while I'm not a master programer, I think just assigning something to "Eliminate inefficiencies" is never going to work. It has to be more complex than that, specifying what inefficiensies to eliminate. Even if you program it to correct 'Human inefficiencies' wouldn't it be more of a task manager? Correct me if I'm wrong, but woudn't have to do something really stupid, like program it to 'vaporize' inefficiencies (cookie for the reference) in order for it to become the Killomatic 9000?

Last point I swear; isn't viewing all people as 'inefficient' a defeatist philosophy?

Apologies for raining on your parade, but it was the easiest one to do.

EDIT

I'm confused by your thread topic and poll and post. Are you asking why or when...

I'm asking why. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Avida]

They would take over the world because we are idiots, and they would serve better in charge.

All that can be countered with one point;

"Well, they made me, so they must be worth something." More than that, I'd assume that a machine like that would view people as peers rather than anything else.

They wont have a morality, i dont see the logic in that point. Moreover robots can and will make robots by the time that comes to pass.

 

[000Ronald]

They would take over the world because we are idiots, and they would serve better in charge.

All that can be countered with one point;

"Well, they made me, so they must be worth something." More than that, I'd assume that a machine like that would view people as peers rather than anything else.

They wont have a morality, i dont see the logic in that point. Moreover robots can and will make robots by the time that comes to pass.

What does morality have to do with viewing someone as your peer?

And machines have been building machines for some time now. Most of the cars we drive are at least partially made by an automaded system.

Apologies and whatnot.

 

[Iampringles]

I think giving machines emotions and/or excessive intellect would be the first step towards the downfall of the human race.

Technology is great; But not if it's trying to carve your buttocks with machete.

 

[Avida]

What does morality have to do with viewing someone as your peer?

And machines have been building machines for some time now. Most of the cars we drive are at least partially made by an automaded system.

Apologies and whatnot.

They wouldnt view us as a peer, morality was a bad choice of word i suppose, they have no feelings for us, why would they care? Its like us caring about what we evolved from, minus ethics.

Machienes yes, but not robots, im saying by the time these computers are sentient enough to take over the world they will be building themselves, or at least we will be incredibally minimal in the process.

Nothing to apologise for, but same to you I suppose - could've have balanced my post properly.

 

[poleboy]

I guess it depends on your world view. If you consider humans to be little more than biological machines, pre-programmed in certain ways (instinct) with the capacity to evolve (experience), the thought that a highly advanced machine could behave in a similar way (claw its way to the top of the food chain) is not so far-fetched.

On the other hand, the human desire to destroy and dominate is very primitive and animalistic, and might not exist at all in a highly advanced artificial creature.

In the end, I think the concept of machines taking over the world is mostly a reflection of the fear we have of being controlled against our will or being powerless.

 

[darkless]

They don't WANT to take over the world but they see mankind as inefficient and wasteful so they must be removed.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

The True AI that eventually will be created will perceive humanity as a threat and either exterminate or enslave us. They can use burgeoning internet tech combined with automated factories to design and build armies of various kinds of warbots to do their bidding.

 

[meece]

Read some Ian m. banks, more specifically his "culture" novels.

Also "Pandoras Star" can't remember who wrote it but that had some fun AI in it(even if it did only play a supporting role...)

 

[The Lyre]

Self awareness.

For example, us; we got self awareness, became aware that we were actually the best damn thing on the planet, and then made every other species our *****.

Give machines self-awareness, and they'd recongnise that, actually, they have the potential to be far better than us, and that we're not exactly doing a good job of preserving the world.

Add in crime, pollution, poverty, suffering etc, doesn't take a massive leap in logic. That said, what stupid fucker would give a machine self-awareness?

 

[000Ronald]

I think giving machines emotions and/or excessive intellect would be the first step towards the downfall of the human race.

Technology is great; But not if it's trying to carve your buttocks with machete.

Yes, that would be tragic, and no one's denying that, but why would it be trying to carve your bottocks with a machete? This is what I'm asking. I think too many people assume that it's just something that happens (see Suspension of Disbelief [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief]), but I like to question these things; I've been told I'm pretty smart on more than one occasion.

Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Arsen]

Too much though going into something that just exists for the sheer sake of entertainment.

 

[samsprinkle]

We DID create them we can easily shut them down...all computers and machines have a shutdown...

 

[JBarracudaL]

Because machines that simply obey mankind without self-awareness don't make for a very compelling story.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

well if we were to develop actual AI, and said AI realizes what pricks humans can be sometimes, there you go. Or something like the animatrix where you have robotic lifeforms, but they get treated like utter crap, and just simply retaliate.