A worthy question is whether humans will outlive AI, though the worthiness of the question is perhaps different than what you think it is. All in all, important AI Ethics ramifications arise.
If you are uncomfortable with that particular phrasing, you are welcome to reword the question to ask whether AI will outlive humans. I am not sure if that makes answering the question any easier, but maybe it seems less disconcerting. I say that because the idea of AI outliving humans might feel a bit more innocuous. It would almost be as though I asked you whether large buildings and human-crafted monuments might outlive humankind.
Whereas the question certainly seems to be answerable in only a distinctly binary fashion, namely just yes or no, I will grant you that a counter-argument can be sensibly made that the answer is something else.First, you might reject the word “outlive” in the context of the question posed. We can take this messiness and seek to expand it into a more expressive expression. Suppose that we are asking this instead:
I don’t want to go too far afield here, but we also might want to establish some parameters about the timing of the outliving. Suppose that a meteor strikes the Earth and humans are nearly instantly wiped out. Meanwhile, suppose the AI continues for a while. Think of this as though we might have already-underway machinery in factories that keeps humming along until eventually, the machines come to a halt because there aren’t any humans keeping the machines in running order.
I mention that if you pick “neither” you ought to also provide an explanation for your answer. This is so that we can know why you believe that “neither” is applicable and also why you are rejecting the use of yes or no. To make life fairer for all, I suppose we should somewhat insist or at least encourage that even if you answer with a yes or no, you still should proffer an explanation.
The thing is, we ought to also consider the ugly underbelly when it comes to dealing with sentient AI: You might find of relevant interest a famous AI conundrum known as the paperclip problem, which I’ve covered atIn short, a someday sentient AI is asked to make paperclips. AI is fixated on this. To ensure that the paperclip making is fully carried out to the ultimate degree, the AI starts to gobble up all other planetary resources to do so. This leads to the demise of humanity since AI has consumed all available resources for the sole objective handed to it by humans.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Md. watchdog: Reports from Pr. George’s school board ethics panel are unreliableThe IG's investigation was prompted in part by a group of parents and activists who accused the ethics panel of using “taxpayer funds to conduct an apparently improper investigation.”
Read more »
Audio long read: Hybrid brains – the ethics of transplanting human neurons into animalsListen to an audio version of a recent Nature feature.
Read more »
AI Nightbirds Analysis | HackerNoonThe amazing artwork of AI Nightbirds needs to be explained, this is where I come in. I will break down the main points of AI Nightbirds and my thoughts overall.
Read more »
Role of AI in Manufacturing industry: Top Use Cases, Benefits, and More! | HackerNoonBusinesses can achieve their top- and bottom-line goals by using smart AI solutions, this article explain the role, benefits, use cases and more about AI.
Read more »
AI Predicts Alzheimer’s Disease from a Single Brain ScanAn AI algorithm has a 98 percent accuracy rate in predicting Alzheimer's disease from one image alone, explains tweetycami
Read more »
2022 Season Preview: The 10 Biggest Questions Surrounding Ohio StateCan anyone stop Ohio State's offense? Can the Buckeyes' defense show immediate improvement? We take a look at the 10 biggest questions entering Ohio State’s 2022 season.
Read more »