Future of AI by Arthur C. Clark, ca. 1964

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom.G
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ai Future
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the inevitability of advanced machine intelligence, suggesting that once machine thinking begins, it could quickly surpass human capabilities. This advancement does not imply that machines will possess sentience or desires; they may simply function as highly intelligent tools. The potential for developing technology that interfaces directly with the human brain is also mentioned, drawing a parallel to current recording technologies. Additionally, there is speculation about the feasibility of colonizing other planets, with some arguing that creating a sustainable biosphere on a colony ship is more plausible than advanced machine intelligence.
Tom.G
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,661
Reaction score
4,504
 
Reply
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes dlgoff, Jarvis323, FactChecker and 1 other person
Computer science news on Phys.org
"It seems probable that once the machine thinking method has started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. At some stage, therefore, we should have to expect the machines to take control."

Alan Turing, 1951
 
AGI or ASI is inevitable. IMo, that's not the same thing as sentience however, and there's no reason to assume a highly intelligent tool would have any desires whatsoever.
 
We may develop a machine for recording information directly on the brain, as today we can record a symphony on tape.
Humph!
I included this concept in my speculation on how colonizing other planets might work, and everyone said it was less likely than being able to build a biosphere on a colony ship where people could survive for dozens of generations.
 

Thread 'AlphaEvolve - The Future of Math?'

LLMs and AIs have a bad reputation at PF, and I share this opinion. I have seen too much nonsense they produced, and too many "independent researchers" who weren't so independent after all, since they used them. And then there is a simple question: If we had to check their results anyway, why would we use them in the first place? In fact, their use is forbidden by the rules. I tend to interpret the reason for this rule because nobody wants to talk to a machine via PF. Those who want to can...
View full post »

Similar threads

Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Is ChatGPT the Future of AI Software for Answering Questions?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
AI Marketed To Students: "Hello easy A's!"
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
379
Can AI handle geometry problems?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
AI Consciousness?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Should We Fear the Rise of AI and Robots?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
AI and the Human Body
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Writing: Input Wanted Number of Androids on Spaceships
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Who is responsible for the software when AI takes over programming?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
698
Physics AI in Physics: A Promising Future for Academia?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K