[Tyler]

Fear artificial stupidity, not artificial intelligence
18 December 2014, 12:17 pm

Stephen Hawking thinks computers may surpass human intelligence and take over the world. We won't ever be silicon slaves, insists an AI expert.

Source: New Scientist - Robots

To visit any links mentioned please view the original article, the link is at the top of this post.

[DemonRaven]

I would venture a guess that since Stephen Hawking  relies so much on computers to talk for him and help him that perhaps some of his fears are self based. I personally would be more scared of the programmer of one then the actual machine. But for such a program to be dangerous would need to be able to access and control other computers and software systems. With out access to other computers and there for conceivably money, weapons and production it would be harmless.

[Art]

I have always wondered about the honesty or loyalty of programmers who program complex machines for corporations or the military.
Did they encode a backdoor? Is their creation completely failsafe? Can anything ever be trusted 100% with respect to computers or computer operated machinery?

[ivan.moony]

I think that machines which would use a force should not be trusted.

[Art]

So then, it must have been the programmers who started that now famous phrase, "May the force be with you!"

[Don Patrick]

I have always wondered about the honesty or loyalty of programmers who program complex machines for corporations or the military.
Did they encode a backdoor? Is their creation completely failsafe? Can anything ever be trusted 100% with respect to computers or computer operated machinery?

As long as they're not even trying to assure us how safe their safety measures are, I assume they have none to speak of. But I do believe that we should sooner be fearing a weaponised ED-209 malfunctioning than an intelligent HAL plotting against us.

I think it's really weird that this article uses arguments like the Chinese Room, "consciousness" and computers not having a mathematical understanding (whut?). I don't agree that any of those arguments are relevant, and only his conclusion on automated weaponry is within the writer's field of expertise.