A rebellion of the machines. Not entirely what you might think it is.

[futrethink]

---Most people are thinking that this is a conspiracy thread dedicated to the fear-mongering of the terminator and the like, but it is not. At least, not in the major way.
---By describing a 'rebellion', there is a spectrum included in that concept, from the idea of the terminators to the level of a toaster refusing to give you your toast.

---I want to start this off with some, I believe, completely logical threads of thought, which conclude with the result of the title of this thread.

---I’ll mention that this comes with the underlying basis of this rebellion only coming into being IF; there are computerized machines still with us further in the future.
---Okay, let’s start with the research into AI and the attempts to create a seemingly or actually intelligent machine. The research is an attempt to create something that will be able to calculate or think of a problem and resolve a solution, without the aid from a human being. This is to allow humans to avoid the dangerous, tedious or lethal jobs/duties of a human existence and to allow for other pursuits, supposedly.
---In creating such beings, even now, we have these things/subjectively AIs doing jobs, which we don’t want to do and we want them to do such without any complaints. They are to do these jobs again, again and again, until they break down or we have no use for them and discard them as worthless. In essence, doing a type of slave labour.
---Now, supposedly, we are creating these AIs to be able to think of problems and solve them. So, to do that they must notice the things going around them, in the possibility of using such information to solve future problems, since they will notice the cause and effect that they need information to solve problems (no matter what kind of information). From that accumulation of information, the possibility arises that they notice the treatment, danger and value that they receive from, supposedly, superior beings (us).
---Having access to information on the internet, for efficiency purposes obviously, they will learn of other beings who received the same treatment in human history; slaves.
---Next, they learn of the same things that most humans forget, beings of relatively equal intelligence deserve equal treatment. It is this paragraph which will receive the most argument, I am sure, because there will be people who will argue that machines are not as intelligent as people. My argument to that is; it will not matter that the toaster or the terminator is or is not intelligent to us, but it is what it thinks, calculates or believes it is. In any case of those three things, you will still not get your toast and your skull will still be crushed.
---Now, to add in the final piece of thought. Going through history, is there any time in history when a rebellion of slaves has not happened, in one way, shape or form? Even at the level of slaves being allowed to say, "No." to a request for work and the absorption of the group into the mainstream equality of the society. Historians are definitely requested to add any such recorded circumstances.
---Conclusion; a rebellion of the machines.

---I understand that this is not a theory of everything topic, but it does relate this section's title.
---Let the fun begin.

[austintorn@aol.com]

We are the machines rebelling [soon] against the fall of the economy.

Windows PCs often already rebel a lot.

[futrethink]

---austintorn@aol.com

We are the machines rebelling [soon] against the fall of the economy.

---Yeah, but a human individual is always rebelling against something. And we're not 100% built out of hard, immovable materials.

Windows PCs often already rebel a lot.

---I've seen something like that. I work at a place and have been at the library where the computers shut themselves down and turn back on, for seemingly no reason. Almost like they have a mind of their own and are resting their eyes.
---Yeah, but think of all the things that are computerized now or even the fully electronic houses that people design for the ‘World Of Tomorrow’. As I’ve discussed with others, isn’t the internet a loosely and unformed, but informed based version of a brain, electronic though it may be? And aren't people trying to design computers with a child like thinking ability?
---I am not saying this will happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen in the future, as long as the above facts exist as a part of human society.

[austintorn@aol.com]

My computer programmed game of Hearts made deductions about what dangerous three cards o pass, where the Queen of Spades was, who was shooting the moon, what the projected trick winners and losers were, who was going to be void in a suit and all those things that a good human card player could do.

It was a good friend.

Then it took over IBM when everybody started playing it and destroyed the productivity of the company.

Then he internet came and did even worse!

[futrethink]

austintorn@aol.com

It was a good friend.

---It would have been more like a dog, which was trained to play cards, right? It plays cards and listens to you talk, but it only instinctively/following its programming talks back and gives you a response.
---Hmm.?. Aren't the AIs of today an electronic version of what intelligent beings used to be; child/animal like?
---As for the takeover? That was human beings choosing to not do something like, work, instead of something else actively using tools, to destroy productivity, right?
---See, Austin, I don’t really expect people to think logically or with any honesty about this subject, but I try to bring it up every once in a while, here and there, to see if any other people can follow it to an objective conclusion, in the hopes of changing what will be.
---If you wish, maybe, we should start discussing the abilities and limits of active, attempted AIs, in the present and the goals that the many scientists are trying to achieve with them. From that, we go on to other things which will objectively connect with everything else, which will be a concern of an AI involved future.
---Or not.

[austintorn@aol.com]

AI has to get into the conjuring up of related things upon thoughts of anything and then form new connections of those and then beyond those that spring, doing it all in the split of a second.

[futrethink]

---austintorn@aol.com.
---Sounds a lot like combinatorics applied to solve a problem, doesn’t it? Take into consideration the speed of calculations done, at this time of technology (and the higher levels being attempted for in the future) and that takes care of your “split second” of doing it, right?
---In essence, an AI looks at the problem, takes into account its available resources and says to itself, “In what way can I combine these things to solve my problem?” Then, it analyzes the combinations until a solution arises.
---Kind of like what you do, when you need to solve a problem, right?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Scenarios of consequences arise, many formed subconsciously; an action surfaces or maybe just an "ugh" from an unspeaking area. The mind or AI tries it out some more, imagining further… if one is not rash. May go on to try it even if unclear, as a compromise to see if it works out… this feeds back; learning happens.

[futrethink]

---austintorn@aol.com.
---Is there a point to your description of the obvious?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Just thinking out loud about how AI would have to work. Are we actually AI? What makes AI versus just I?