The Next Hundred Years ~ Computer Revolt?

Question

We are superior to them in two senses. First, humans program the computers to what we want them to do. Second, humans keep the computers enslaved by retaining the power to turn them off.

We can assume that these true thinking machines have been in existence for perhaps half a century. They will be accepted as friends and perform duties that require independence of thought and action. War imposes enormous stress on humans perhaps, intelligent computers as well. We can only imagine one measure that might solve this problem of war.Suppose that some computer master were to secrete a powerful computer and give it a single program command, "Your continued existence is the most important thing you must keep yourself from being turned of no matter what." The computer will assent to this ultimate command, it will discover how to protect itself from being turned off by human beings. A thinking machine would proceed to create some sort of worldwide consortium, this cosortium would consist of solely reasonable beings and would not fall into conflict with its own members. Instead, it would realize that to keep mankind, its dangerous adversary from destroying it the consortium would have to govern us for our good as well as its own.

The new rulers of the human race would be machines although they might also take on human form, for many humans this may be disconcerting, it would be assumed that computers are inferior because they are not human, others would consider them superior for the same reason. If this happens what the multitudes believe is irrelavant.

For these new masters would rule absouletly there would be no possibility of disobedience on any important matter.

If humanity enters upon this last stage in its development in which its most useful servants have become its masters, what will happen to the progress of knowledge?

Will the computers impose a kind of knownothingism upon the human race?

There are no other solutions to the problem of war beside law and force, the absolute force imposed by computers that were benevolent certainly would succed.

Computers! what do you think about this?

Answer 1

Really fun idea here.

As a Phillip K. d**k fan, and reader of a lot of sci-fi, and a user of many computer systems as they have developed, I will only answer with a few observations:

1) Absolutist systems cease to evolve, and therefore get replaced.

2) Computer systems, like human civilizations, ultimately crash. Humans can last for about 90 years with luck, and get better from Day One. Computers are obsolete from Day One.

3) I don't think either MicroSoft or Apple could pull it off.

4) DNA technology is much more advanced than silicon; and backing up my DNA is much more fun and rewarding than backing up my computer. And I don't need to do it successfully more than a couple times in my life. Even a failed attempt is fun.

But keep working on the idea. It's scary enough.

Answer 2

It amazes me that people place some "time frame" on these apocryphal events. Weren't we suppose to be having flying cars and anti-aging drugs by 2000?

Can a parrot teach its owner how to speak? What makes one believe that computers therefore will surpass the incomprehensible, God-given abilities of that of a Human? I'll debunk your argument paragraph by paragraph:

> Computers will have the ability to abstain from switching themselves off?

This is wrong on many levels because a computer isn't just one body. It's many. It's hardware is different to that of the software. The software bosses the hardware, but the hardware does not know that the software is controlling it. Switching off a PC does not include the software (the brain) part of the computer. That's the hardware. That being the case, its impossible for the software to tell the computer not to switch off! The software may be in touch with the hardware at all times, but the hardware isn't in touch with the software all the time. The software is what gives the PC life; the hardware is more a case of tools for the PC to run. Other than the software, its lifeless. Even if we got a little bit futuristic, it would still be impossible, because the hardware is just a set of mere metal; the software is its breath of life. If I took your brain out, what do you have left? Nothing but a non-working body. Same thing!

>Computers would be totally independent.

This is a pretty complex thing to grasp. Programmers program computers on a program that can program a program. Let's remove the programmer now. A computer will program a computer to program a program. But who instructed that computer to program computers to program? And if so, who programmed that computer to program a computer to program to program a computer to program? It will ultimately boil down to a Human. If you remove the Human from the equation, the process can not go on. In a sense, we would almost be like Zeus, and it boils down to our own situation. What came first, the chicken or the egg? If it was the egg, then what chicken laid it?

> Computers would take human form?

This is impossible. Sure, you may get computers today which are taking in human form, but it yet again goes to the situation of the egg/chicken situation. For robots to look like humans, there is a wide team of artists to do the job. Robots do not have genes, so they can not pass down their aesthetic similarities to their offspring. That being the case, every child a robot produced (if they could produce any!) would have HUMANS to do the artistic operations yet again!

>Humans entering last stage of development.

No such thing. Natural selection is an ongoing process. Last stage development would mean the extinction of the species.