Thanks for the story but that's not an alternative. Nor is that likely how things will go because there you have an AI which already has sentience, self-propagation and hacking capabilities, and apparently sufficient intelligence to run the government and military and make most human decisions. So it's basically intellectually capable of everything humans are plus able to do things in the real world, meaning it can make next generation atomic weapons and other human extinction devices. But this won't be the only AI in existence, there will be plenty of others with similar capabilities and someone will use one to blow up the world.
But that's only if AI development continues to be done in the open. It could instead be restricted to governments and associated corporations who will then have control over the rest of the world. Or AI development as a whole could be stopped by extreme negative reaction against it. That might be hard to imagine, but so were a lot of things in history before they happened, like the Protestant reformation, the American Revolution, or the creation of modern Israel.
Okay, but let's be realistic about that last option: do you think we can get a reaction that's stronger and more negative than, say, the reaction to nuclear bombs? Because it's the exact same argument: if we don't have this tech, we're at the mercy of those who do, and you'd need everyone to be on the same page in terms of not pursuing it and—even worse—AI is probably a lot easier to pursue in secret than uranium enrichment and ICBMs.
I think we could get a stronger negative reaction against AI than the reformation caused against the pope. Nukes didn't take anyone's job so they were easy to ignore, whereas AI is becoming ubiquitous and is quickly putting more and more people out of the careers they spent their lives training for.
Stopping AI is at least worth trying for if the alternative is extinction. In the immortal words of Mickey Mouse, "Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?"
Thanks for the story but that's not an alternative. Nor is that likely how things will go because there you have an AI which already has sentience, self-propagation and hacking capabilities, and apparently sufficient intelligence to run the government and military and make most human decisions. So it's basically intellectually capable of everything humans are plus able to do things in the real world, meaning it can make next generation atomic weapons and other human extinction devices. But this won't be the only AI in existence, there will be plenty of others with similar capabilities and someone will use one to blow up the world.
But that's only if AI development continues to be done in the open. It could instead be restricted to governments and associated corporations who will then have control over the rest of the world. Or AI development as a whole could be stopped by extreme negative reaction against it. That might be hard to imagine, but so were a lot of things in history before they happened, like the Protestant reformation, the American Revolution, or the creation of modern Israel.
Okay, but let's be realistic about that last option: do you think we can get a reaction that's stronger and more negative than, say, the reaction to nuclear bombs? Because it's the exact same argument: if we don't have this tech, we're at the mercy of those who do, and you'd need everyone to be on the same page in terms of not pursuing it and—even worse—AI is probably a lot easier to pursue in secret than uranium enrichment and ICBMs.
I think we could get a stronger negative reaction against AI than the reformation caused against the pope. Nukes didn't take anyone's job so they were easy to ignore, whereas AI is becoming ubiquitous and is quickly putting more and more people out of the careers they spent their lives training for.
Stopping AI is at least worth trying for if the alternative is extinction. In the immortal words of Mickey Mouse, "Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?"