Will sentient self-autonomous robots think like humans?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isopod
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ai
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
579 replies · 56K views
I'm more of a 20th-century travel writer slacker. My wife and I took the plane to New Zealand, with a stopover in Fiji.

It was a pretty funny stopover. We deplaned and walked down a covered walkway with a roof and railings, ie, if you wanted, you could jump off and escape into Fiji.

We met a passport control officer in Fijian attire who reviewed our passports, exited around his desk in a 180-degree turn, and entered an empty terminal where all the shops were closed. Most stopover airports direct everyone to a stopover area, as there's no need to check the passports of folks transiting through the country. It's like he needed something to do, or he was looking for someone wanted by Interpol or something.

This was in January 2005. New Zealand was incredible. We visited Hobbiton (a bit pricey with a limited stay), which was a half-hour bus ride to the site through a sheep ranch. We got to walk around the set and then had a beer at the Green Dragon Inn, with a time limit of 2 hours before the next batch of tourists came.

We really liked the South Island, took the ferry from the North to the South in our rented car, and circumnavigated the island, ending in Christchurch. Sad to go.

It was interesting how the constellations looked upside down and how kids had summer break in our winter, and how it started to get really cold at the close of February in the South Island. Oh, and driving on the left, and the roads that crossed the island closed at dusk.

End of my travel monologue.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jedishrfu said:
This was in January 2005. New Zealand was incredible. We visited Hobbiton (a bit pricey with a limited stay)
I was in Hobbiton in December 2004. We just missed each other.
 
bland said:
It's nuts to fear AI or any form of intelligence when the clear and present danger to the human endeavour is genuine stupidity.

I couldn't agree more. Especially when we can just flip the switch. It's not The Matrix after all.
 
sbrothy said:
I couldn't agree more. Especially when we can just flip the switch. It's not The Matrix after all.
Flip the switch. On the entire digital world. Right.

sbrothy said:
Ironically, whether your killed by a machine with a HELLFIRE missile from above or getting your throat cut in your sleep by a human basically makes no real difference.
Whether you and a half dozen people nearby get killed by a missile - or whether a global contagion is created by AI and it escapes containment, wiping out a sizable fraction of the planet - makes a big difference indeed.


Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog - Here’s why we should be worried about AI

"The Ukraine war makes clear that the future of war is drones. And the future of drones is probably autonomous – that is, AI – control. On pretty short timescales, especially given how the war is acting as an accelerant, it’s plausible that militaries will consist largely of networked, AI-controlled drone swarms. There are then obvious risks from control failure – and, indeed, other obvious risks if the swarms are aligned, but to bad actors."

"Designing viruses with long onset times, high contagion, and high lethality is possible now but requires very large resources and is highly visible to intelligence agencies. There are lots of ways in which near-future AI could make this simpler, cheaper, and less detectable. If it became possible for terrorists to design and synthesize lethal bioweapons via AI and online DNA-ordering resources, it would lead to civilizational disaster."

"Even without AI, the current geopolitical moment is the most dangerous since at least the early 1980s. There are a number of ways in which AI could destabilize nuclear deterrence. One is that rogue or bad-actor-controlled AIs could confuse or spoof various of the early-warning systems that detect nuclear first use. Another is that deterrence relies to a large degree on the fact that ballistic missile submarines are undetectable; AI might threaten that on several axes (tracking by drone swarms, for instance) and make a nuclear first strike an attractive option in the event of great power war."


https://leiterreports.com/2026/09/17/heres-why-we-should-be-worried-about-ai/


Sounds preposterous, right? Modern AI didn't even exist five years ago. It's younger than Covid-19 (i.e. the first ChatGPT). Now, there are estimations that it has its finger in the pie of 50% or more of global economy*.
*citation needed
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sbrothy and BillTre
DaveC426913 said:
"Designing viruses with long onset times, high contagion, and high lethality is possible now but requires very large resources and is highly visible to intelligence agencies. There are lots of ways in which near-future AI could make this simpler, cheaper, and less detectable. If it became possible for terrorists to design and synthesize lethal bioweapons via AI and online DNA-ordering resources, it would lead to civilizational disaster."
I would disagree.
It would take a good computer (with DB access), a large garage (like mine), and a bunch of equipment and materials, some of which will have access limited to universities and a set of labs.
The guy that wrote The Hot Zone also wrote a decent book about this.
Pretty gross like you'd expect from the Hot Zone guy.
 
BillTre said:
I would disagree.
It would take a good computer (with DB access), a large garage (like mine), and a bunch of equipment and materials, some of which will have access limited to universities and a set of labs.
The guy that wrote The Hot Zone also wrote a decent book about this.
Pretty gross like you'd expect from the Hot Zone guy.
Not sure what you're disagreeing to.

If it can be done with limited resources, it hasn't happened yet. Which is an indication that it's pretty hard.

Do you agree that it would be easier for an AI to come up with a lethal mechanism?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Not sure what you're disagreeing to.

If it can be done with limited resources, it hasn't happened yet. Which is an indication that it's pretty hard.

Do you agree that it would be easier for an AI to come up with a lethal mechanism?
Disagreeing just with this:
DaveC426913 said:
requires very large resources and is highly visible to intelligence agencies.
 
BillTre said:
Disagreeing just with this:
I think the thing is, there's a lot more to it than just the virulence of the bug. The stabilization and dispersion are big logistical problems.

If I understand correctly, Anthrax for example, will kill people but it's not suitable for widespread dispersal and infection.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I think the thing is, there's a lot more to it than just the virulence of the bug. The stabilization and dispersion are big logistical problems.

If I understand correctly, Anthrax for example, will kill people but it's not suitable for widespread dispersal and infection.
Yeah. For some reason anthrax requires some special milling equipment to make fine disposable particles. It takes some work to make a weapon of mass destruction out it. Not all bugs are like that.