Robot apocalypse ..The war has started

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

A single function machine with a clear understanding of role and context is not so interesting. A swarm of these machines fulfilling simple roles in a more complex common purpose is much more interesting.

nature does not have an efficient way to do long distance communication. perhaps the most advanced is human language but that is limited to maybe 10 meters and a relatively slow amount of data transfer.

the machines we already have have conquered that problem. So an AI is unlikely to be a swarm of AIs but one (or a small number) which is connected to an can control millions billions even trillions of 'fingers' which will be the physical robots and factories and assemblers it controls.

If you want to imagine robots walking around think millions of them, all look individual maybe with tasks and things they do but controlled by one mind.

Malthusian

michaels wrote: »

Looks like we won't stand much chance against skynet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36650848

AI beats human opponents in computer game? They've been doing that since the 80s. Flying fighter jets is exactly the kind of thing I would expect an AI to do better than humans. They don't black out, for a start. I'm surprised this is news in 2016. And that the AI apparently needed a 2-1 numbers advantage over its human opponents despite already having the advantage of being the defender.

"It's like a chess master losing out to a computer" says a military aerospace analyst. Er, even if we pass up the pedantic point that a chess master is the chess equivalent of League Two (we all know he meant grandmaster), that ship sailed years ago.

The difficult bit in Skynet taking over the world is not programming an AI that can shoot down human pilots, it's programming an AI that wants to. At the moment the AI still needs to be uploaded to the jet by a human and told who to kill by a human.