That's absurd, I'm sorry. Of course the world will become dominated by self-aware technology; it already is, after all. (Well - from our point of view, anyway. From the bacterial point of view it's pretty much bacteria all the way down.)
But to imagine that that self-aware technology will be anything but symbiotic with us is truly crazy. And certainly not something that bombs could fix anyway.
Also: what kind of lame anti-technology terrorist group posts its statements on the Internet?
Have you any argument to back up such a strong position?
>Of course the world will become dominated by self-aware technology; it already is, after all.
I'm not aware of any technological artifact that meets a reasonable definition of 'self-aware' - could you provide an example?
Why is it 'truly crazy' to imagine self aware technology could pose a threat to us? I don't think we've built any self-aware technology, and I suspect that if such technology is possible, its still a way off in the future. But if we did, I think we'd have to be extremely careful with it, and be very cautious of unintended consequences.
Its not unusual for people to consider the potential of such technology to be a threat. A commonly cited essay is Bill Joys wired article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
In the other direction, if you look at these guys, who are extremely optimistic about AI, they say one of their main research areas is on ensuring any such AI would be 'friendly': http://singinst.org/research/researchareas
I disagree with this 'ITS's assessment of the risks, as described in the Nature article. I completely disagree with their methods, obviously.
But I think that if self-aware technology was on the horizon, concerns about it potentially being a threat would be legitimate.
Asserting that it couldn't possibly be anything but symbiotic, without offering any evidence or argument to back that position up, is also crazy.
You're it. Assuming a definition of technology broad enough to include you being a survival mechanism for bacteria.
If you want my argument, the tl;dr I just wrote for the deleted post here is going to have to suffice. I haven't read Joy's article yet, although I've heard of it - thanks for linking it.
I guess the short answer to why I think it's going to be symbiotic is that it's going to be either symbiotic or not a competitor. I guess a better characterization of my belief is that I just don't buy AI being our future competitors either way. But I don't intend to lose any sleep over it, because I have enough short-term worries that I really don't care much. So AI could supplant me - fine! Then I wouldn't have to worry about college tuition for my kids. Sometimes leading a post-holocaust scratch-farming existence sounds relaxing.
(Nota bene: I grew up on a farm, so no, I don't actually think scratch farming would be low-stress; this was hyperbole just for humorous effect. Trust me; technology is our friend and I don't want to go backwards. Ever.)
Not too far from nanotech "grey goo" nightmares.
(I don't think that technology is inherently bad, but it's being developed by incredibly destructive social arrangements.)
Look, I'll be the first to agree that technology is dangerous and human beings are pretty stupid and shortsighted when using it (and when not using it, and before breakfast, and all other times), but I just have nothing but contempt for people who think the answer is to dissuade other people from being smarter than they are, by means violent or not.
If you (and by this I mean the generic you) think technology is dangerous, or some specific technology is dangerous, then by all means investigate how it is dangerous, how that danger can be avoided, and before all else become a better person and demonstrate by your life that a race to destruction is not where humanity should be. I know that's all kumbayah and people probably won't even understand what I mean, but seriously, the answer is just to become a better humanity. The answer is always to become a better humanity. I personally think we're doing OK on that, current news notwithstanding (because the current news is always alarming, but the trends are towards a more human humanity).
Well. This isn't an argument, just a viewpoint. I got work to do and probably shouldn't be engaging in philosophy.
Oh, except one more point: global warming is going to be expensive, but it's not going to kill us. It's not the first time Earth has run a fever, and we're not Venus yet. Even in the (I believe) colossally unlikely event that we crash our technological civilization or even drive ourselves and a bunch of other things to extinction, the planet's going to be just fine, and life will go on.
If I understand this well, to the creationists, this should be an insult to God; but, further, to the evolutionist, this is certainly an insult to evolution. And to the risk manager/probabilist, like myself & my peers, this is an insult to human Prudence, the beginning of the mother-of-all exposure to Black Swans. Let me explain.
Evolution (in complex systems) proceeds by undirected, convex bricolage or tinkering, inherently robust, i.e., with the achievement of potential stochastic gains thanks to continuous and repetitive small, near-harmless mistakes. What men have done with top-down, command-and-control science has been exactly the reverse: concave interventions, i.e., the achievement of small certain gains through exposure to massive stochastic mistakes (coming from the natural incompleteness in our understanding of systems). Our record in understanding risks in complex systems (biology, economics, climate) has been pitiful, marred with retrospective distortions (we only understand the risks after the damage takes place), and there is nothing to convince me that we have gotten better at risk management. In this particular case, because of the scalability of the errors, you are exposed to the wildest possible form of informational uncertainty (even more than markets), producing tail risks of unheard proportions.
I have an immense respect for Craig Venter, whom I consider one of the smartest men who ever breathed, but, giving fallible humans such powers is similar to giving a small child a bunch of explosives.
Edit: note that I obviously don't support any lunatics sending bombs
What makes you think no one will deliberately make self-aware technology that is hostile to us?
There are currently, and always have been, groups that take an "ends justifies the means" approach to achieving their goals--goals which often involve killing others. It's hard to believe none of them will use self-aware technology in weapons, or that we'll solve all the problem that lead to the existence of such groups before self-aware technology becomes common.
The answer isn't a futile attempt not to understand the world and its potential better, but rather to understand why crazy people want to kill people, and try to fix the disease instead of the symptoms.
But it's going to be a long freaking time before humanity is that mature, so yeah, in the meantime, maybe we're all going to die.
But probably not. And therefore we should continue trying to learn about the world and its potential, raise our kids to be better people than we are, and get on with things.
Groups such as the United States of America?
It took us thousands of years and the invention of the atom bomb to figure out how to live with other humans peacefully. Creating a potentially much more powerful conscious entity with its own volition, and without the weaknesses and limitations of flesh and blood humans, has a fundamentally unknown and therefore risky set of potential consequences.
> Also: what kind of lame anti-technology terrorist group posts its statements on the Internet?
That's a bit of a straw man argument. Everyone uses some technology, even the Amish. The question is what technology is beneficial to humanity, and it's fair to say we've invented more than a few things that hurt humanity more than they helped, like mustard gas and the electric chair.
It took ... the invention of the atom bomb to figure out how to live with other humans peacefully.
Exactly.
But much more saliently, we can't help engaging in memetic evolution any more than bacteria could help evolving into eurkaryotes. If a higher-level consciousness is possible at all, it's going to happen. It's going to happen. So instead of framing the issue in terms of "maybe there are roads mankind was not meant to go down", it's my fervently held opinion that the issue is really, "maybe we damn well be mature enough to survive when we reach the end of whatever road this is."
Because it's going to steam engine whether you want it or not.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/
Edit: Removed Internet psychoanalysis.
Good question. I'd say it depends where one draws the line. Some people draw it at horse-drawn buggies (and they may be right), others don't balk at electricity but reject some body-invading medical practices, others have very hard lines on human dignity.
I guess we'll find out, sooner or later, where the real line is by the collective "Oh, SHIT!" expletive when the tripwire is stepped on ...