Serious question::. Is Google becoming Skynet?

[CDSmith]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=is+go...wDw&gws_rd=ssl

A lot of people seem to think so.

Self-driven cars
Robotics
human-like robots
hotel message delivery bots
Purchasing robotics companies
Google wireless
Nest aquisition
Google Fiber -- starts with a connection that's up to 1,000 megabits per second.
Instant downloads. TV like no other. And endless possibilities.


Why Is Google Building A Robot Army? | Popular Science

Meet Google's Robot Army. It's Growing.

In fact over the past year eight of the 12 companies Google has acquired have "robotics" in their name or descriptions. "Search Engine" is about the least thing Google represents these days.


Are we witnessing the beginnings of Skynet?

[The Porn Nerd]

Yes.

It is inevitable. You cannot live/function within a system of never-ending growth, acquisition and competition (Capitalism) without the End Game being a few major players controling everything (and everybody) else.

But hey, these mega-Corps are the "Job Creators" right?
Org laff x 1000.

Next up: Arnold as Google Spokeman.

[Best-In-BC]

LOL, Dont beleaive everything Joe Rogan says

[2MuchMark]

Of course. Though I don't think it will just be Google. I expect there to be a few other technology powerhouses out there soon. Tesla already has a self driving car ('ish), Apple is working on a car too, and Japan is robot-crazy.

Soon Robots will serve us, and soon after that we will serve them.



And speaking of Robots...

[Rochard]

People are worried about our government having access to all of this information. Yawn. Google has everything anyone could ever want to know about us, and gaps are filled in by your phone company. All the government needs to get that data is a single piece of paper.

Skynet is already here.

[Joshua G]

i would call it the next evolution of life, from organic intelligence to machine intelligence. only the machines have the ability to travel the universe to unlock the remaining mysteries of science. homo sapiens will be amoebas by comparison.

[AdultKing]

You can't have an interconnected, networked, computing centric world - let alone the IoT - without the inevitable consequence of data being exploited for profit or other purposes.

[wehateporn]

Windows 10 wants to be Skynet, they will need to do battle, nuke each other or something

[AmeliaG]

Kinda yeah.

Also, are there GFYers who don't get the Terminator reference? This thread implies kinda yeah on that too.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Best-In-BC

LOL, Dont beleaive everything Joe Rogan says

Stephen Hawking?

[AdultKing]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Also, are there GFYers who don't get the Terminator reference? This thread implies kinda yeah on that too.

I'm guessing those young upstarts have never seen it

[dyna mo]

nope. not a chance. in fact, the skynet analogy is misconception.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by AdultKing

I'm guessing those young upstarts have never seen it

So this is like my dad showing me stuff like Rebel Without a Cause and Singing in the Rain as a kid? Ouch.

[AdultKing]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

So this is like my dad showing me stuff like Rebel Without a Cause and Singing in the Rain as a kid? Ouch.

sorry had to laugh at that.

[daddy_fu]

Originally Posted by **********

Tesla already has a self driving car ('ish)

On that note, the Tesla was recently hacked by security experts. A bunch of other cars have been hacked recently as well. That's what we should be worried about. Malware in our cars!

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

nope. not a chance. in fact, the skynet analogy is misconception.

While I applaud your conviction pardon me if I remain unconvinced. After the extended news special I saw last night I'm of the mind that the jury is still out. They're into much more than most people realize, and a huge % of it is alarmingly Skynet-like, if not in reality then in impression.

Plus it always gets me how quick people are to say things like "never gonna happen".. and then it happens. :D

(like a black man being elected president, for example)

[sandman!]

yesssssssssssss

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

So this is like my dad showing me stuff like Rebel Without a Cause and Singing in the Rain as a kid? Ouch.

Have I told you lately how awesome you are?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

While I applaud your conviction pardon me if I remain unconvinced. After the extended news special I saw last night I'm of the mind that the jury is still out. They're into much more than most people realize, and a huge % of it is alarmingly Skynet-like, if not in reality then in impression.

Plus it always gets me how quick people are to say things like "never gonna happen".. and then it happens. :D

(like a black man being elected president, for example)

According to david deutsch, one of the top minds in science - ever, and he's participated much in the realm and coined the term AGI artificial general intelligence, the quest for self-awareness (= skynet) is fundamentally flawed.

Deutsch explores why artificial general intelligence (AGI) must be possible, but hasn't yet been achieved. He calls it AGI to emphasize that he's talking about a mind like ours, that can think and feel and reason about anything, as opposed to a complex computer program that's very good at one or a few human-like tasks.

Simply put, his argument for why AGI is possible is this: Since our brains are made of matter, it must be possible, in principle at least, to recreate the functionality of our brains using another type of matter — specifically circuits.

As for Skynet's self-awareness, Deutsch writes:

That's just another philosophical misconception, sufficient in itself to block any viable approach to AGI. The fact is that present-day software developers could straightforwardly program a computer to have 'self-awareness' in the behavioural sense — for example, to pass the 'mirror test' of being able to use a mirror to infer facts about itself — if they wanted to. As far as I am aware, no one has done so, presumably because it is a fairly useless ability as well as a trivial one.

We could make a machine to be "self-aware" in a technical sense, and it wouldn't possess any more human-level intelligence than a computer that's programmed to play the piano. Viewed this way, self-awareness is just another narrow, arbitrary skill — not the Holy Grail it's made out to be in a lot of science fiction.

Deutsch persuasively argues that, as long as we're focused on self-awareness, we miss out on understanding how our brains actually work, stunting our ability to create artificially intelligent machines.

What matters, Deutsch argues, is "the ability to create new explanations," to generate theories about the world and all its particulars. In contrast with this, the idea that self-awareness — let alone real intelligence — will spontaneously emerge from a complex computer network is not just science fiction. It's pure fantasy.



David Deutsch On Artificial Intelligence


Philosophy will be the key that unlocks artificial intelligence | David Deutsch | Science | The Guardian

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Have I told you lately how awesome you are?

Tell me...I'm overdue.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

i would call it the next evolution of life, from organic intelligence to machine intelligence. only the machines have the ability to travel the universe to unlock the remaining mysteries of science. homo sapiens will be amoebas by comparison.

Unlocking mysteries of science is not an end in itself.

Fuck machines, I will kick any butt that comes between my existence. I don't care are the kicked ones smarter, more rugged or whatever. I will prevail. That is evolution. There is only one defining thing in evolution; existence.

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Also, are there GFYers who don't get the Terminator reference? This thread implies kinda yeah on that too.

highly doubt it. Thread has skynet in the title so it can't be more obvious.


Anyway, the new terminator has a nice google style touch in it, with a corporate presentation and the fact that everything gets connected. (android on phone, google, youtube).

I've got a seperate gmail account just for my phone. And im always logged out of everything when on my pc. Only have google, twit and fb accounts for biz, and only login to them when i work on those projects. Loads of people stay logged in all the time without knowing it / caring for it. Google has a more complete personal profile of them then these peoples' spouses have.

[The Porn Nerd]

As long as that dog Linda Hamilton isn't a part of our Skynet future I can deal with it.

OPR

If the Google Terminater looked like Kristanna Loken I'd fuck it til my dick turned to rust.
(I assume I will have an extendable metal dick by then. Bye-bye Viagra and penis pills!)

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

According to david deutsch, one of the top minds in science - ever, and he's participated much in the realm and coined the term AGI artificial general intelligence, the quest for self-awareness (= skynet) is fundamentally flawed.

Deutsch explores why artificial general intelligence (AGI) must be possible, but hasn't yet been achieved. He calls it AGI to emphasize that he's talking about a mind like ours, that can think and feel and reason about anything, as opposed to a complex computer program that's very good at one or a few human-like tasks.

Simply put, his argument for why AGI is possible is this: Since our brains are made of matter, it must be possible, in principle at least, to recreate the functionality of our brains using another type of matter ? specifically circuits.

As for Skynet's self-awareness, Deutsch writes:

That's just another philosophical misconception, sufficient in itself to block any viable approach to AGI. The fact is that present-day software developers could straightforwardly program a computer to have 'self-awareness' in the behavioural sense ? for example, to pass the 'mirror test' of being able to use a mirror to infer facts about itself ? if they wanted to. As far as I am aware, no one has done so, presumably because it is a fairly useless ability as well as a trivial one.

We could make a machine to be "self-aware" in a technical sense, and it wouldn't possess any more human-level intelligence than a computer that's programmed to play the piano. Viewed this way, self-awareness is just another narrow, arbitrary skill ? not the Holy Grail it's made out to be in a lot of science fiction.

Deutsch persuasively argues that, as long as we're focused on self-awareness, we miss out on understanding how our brains actually work, stunting our ability to create artificially intelligent machines.

What matters, Deutsch argues, is "the ability to create new explanations," to generate theories about the world and all its particulars. In contrast with this, the idea that self-awareness ? let alone real intelligence ? will spontaneously emerge from a complex computer network is not just science fiction. It's pure fantasy.



David Deutsch On Artificial Intelligence


Philosophy will be the key that unlocks artificial intelligence | David Deutsch | Science | The Guardian

Our future mechanical overlords have obviously sent an emissary back in time to pay you to nay-say everything. :D


I really just want to know when I can expect delivery of my new Cherry-2000 model wife. Amelia won't accept my proposal so I'm waiting on Google to fulfill option B.

[Wizzo]

Google is simply a search engine company, Alphabet on the other hand!

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Our future mechanical overlords have obviously sent an emissary back in time to pay you to nay-say everything. :D


I really just want to know when I can expect delivery of my new Cherry-2000 model wife. Amelia won't accept my proposal so I'm waiting on Google to fulfill option B.

Nay say? I apologize for contributing to your thread by answering your "serious" thread topic question and providing excellent and serious supporting quotes and links in a well-thought out way in attempt to share views as per your op.

Lesson learned.

[Jesse Sharpton]

Machines taking over. I don't like it but it's the truth.

[adultmobile]

The New World Order Message In Terminator Genisys Movie Reveals Global Plan ? Now The End Begins : Now The End Begins

[bronco67]

[MFCT]

It might as well be.

To include something to your list....as of version 40, Firefox sends metadata of your browsing and downloads to Google. To protect you from unwanted software downloads. (1)

Now if its actually something you don't want to browse or download, or something some corporate entity doesn't want you to browse or download, who's to say? Why, Google of course.

All this information about you will no doubt be carefully archived by Google, cross-referenced with everything else it has on you, and added to its pool of information on you where it will remain forever.

Considering you can end up in jail for using Windows 10 (2), I don't think Firefox goes quite that far. YET. Maybe they're saving that goodie for version 50.

You cannot get away.

(1) https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/
(2) Windows 10 is spying on almost everything you do ? here?s how to opt out | BGR

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Nay say? I apologize for contributing to your thread by answering your "serious" thread topic question and providing excellent and serious supporting quotes and links in a well-thought out way in attempt to share views as per your op.

Lesson learned.

The mechanicals have absconded with your sense of humor as well. Damn!

I'll try to keep this thread alive in hopes that someone, anyone, will know how to save you.


My thread topic was hardly "serious". Loose analogy at best, but the obvious and not-so-obvious directions Google has gone in lately, as in the last five years give or take, is about the closest thing anyone (espcially tin foil hat wearers) has seen of a company making "skynet-like" moves. I've got your literal "Noop, won't happen, here's why" input, and I thank you for it. Now all I need is the conspiracy crowd to nay-say your nay-say and this could go 5 pages easy. Don't bail now!


I was however serious about wanting a cherry2000 wife. Google seems like my best shot.

[dyna mo]

I see, I also apologize for not having a sense of humor CD Smith. Maybe one day I'll get one. Either way, I participated in your thread and offered up some interesting reading on the subject, which I've already apologized for. This was the 4th or 5th " serious " thread asking for my opinion that I fell for at gfy yesterday and ended up getting duped into contributing a thoughtfully worded post answering the topic question in each of them. Lessons learned. I won't be taking serious requests for opinions seriously from now on. Because as you point out, you aren't interested in others views on the subject.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

The New World Order Message In Terminator Genisys Movie Reveals Global Plan ? Now The End Begins : Now The End Begins

Oh wow, I don't begin to know where to start with that.

Genisys (Google) in the movie is an app, albeit the world?s most popular one, and it works on the premise that the Internet will be used as the all-seeing eye to keep track of everything we see, say and do. It offers convenience and safety to the plugged-in world. What they don?t know, however, is that Genisys (Google) is not really Genisys (Google), it?s SkyNet, the watchdog of the evil machines and it will be used to enslave the humans once they have all plugged into it. The people, seeing nothing but cool technology and benefits, rush to embrace it, eagerly sign on to connect with the Genisys (Google) app, and you know how it all ends.

Okay I addedin the (Google). :D

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I see, I also apologize for not having a sense of humor CD Smith. Maybe one day I'll get one. Either way, I participated in your thread and offered up some interesting reading on the subject, which I've already apologized for. This was the 4th or 5th " serious " thread asking for my opinion that I fell for at gfy yesterday and ended up getting duped into contributing a thoughtfully worded post answering the topic question in each of them. Lessons learned. I won't be taking serious requests for opinions seriously from now on. Because as you point out, you aren't interested in others views on the subject.

More apologies are in order, I suppose for my ill-timed serious yet-as-I-thought-it-was-obvious tongue-in-cheek topic-I-thought-everyone-could-have-some-fun-with. Next time I get the rare urge to actually post one of these Dyna Mo I'll be sure and send a pm to check your mood first.

And where did I point out that I'm not interested in others' views, on this or any subject? I'm looking over the thread and all I'm seeing are light comments about how in spite of your very literal take on it there does seem to be... say, didn't I just read a link title in some article that said a guy in Germany got killed by a robot? lol

Oh come on, you know it's funny. LAUGH

If I'm guilty of anything it's that I failed to include smilies and orglaughies in the opening post to spoon-feed those who don't/won't get the irony of the inclusion of "serious" in the title. Seriously, I'm not going to let you get all pissy with me, Mo. Not today. It's 34C out, I have the A/C on and am cool cool cool, and while you know I often admire your rapier sarcasm I also believe my death from evil robotics is at least 6 months away, maybe more. Thus it's too nice a day for hurt feelings.

Friends?

[dyna mo]

I'm glad we're friends CD. i thought i was having fun in your thread. i posted my answer to your topic question and included what i thought was super fun reading on the exact subject matter. for those contributions i was called a naysayer (a negative person) lacking a sense of humor.

i'm at a loss here on why this went in this direction. what's difference i guess.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Wizzo

Google is simply a search engine company, Alphabet on the other hand!

A rose, or in this case machine overloards, by any other name...


Have any of you been watching this AMC series "Humans"?



Pure fantasy or not, having lifelike androids for maids, nannys, and yes, fuck toys, is something that a lot of people would want once it becomes available.

But is artificial sentience possible? For every so-called 'reliable source' that claims it isn't there are at least the same number of links out there claiming it is...

Artificial Sentience -- is it possible? The answer is yes.

Talking to Robots: Artificial Intelligence Is Possible

Are We Smart Enough to Control Artificial Intelligence? -- Even if the odds of a superintelligence arising are very long, perhaps it?s irresponsible to take the chance. One person who shares Bostrom?s concerns is Stuart J. Russell, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley. Russell is the author, with Peter Norvig (a peer of Kurzweil?s at Google), of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, which has been the standard AI textbook for two decades.

?There are a lot of supposedly smart public intellectuals who just haven?t a clue,? Russell told me. He pointed out that AI has advanced tremendously in the last decade, and that while the public might understand progress in terms of Moore?s Law (faster computers are doing more), in fact recent AI work has been fundamental, with techniques like deep learning laying the groundwork for computers that can automatically increase their understanding of the world around them.

Bostrom?s book proposes ways to align computers with human needs. We?re basically telling a god how we?d like to be treated.

Because Google, Facebook, and other companies are actively looking to create an intelligent, ?learning? machine, he reasons, ?I would say that one of the things we ought not to do is to press full steam ahead on building superintelligence without giving thought to the potential risks. It just seems a bit daft.? Russell made an analogy: ?It?s like fusion research. If you ask a fusion researcher what they do, they say they work on containment. If you want unlimited energy you?d better contain the fusion reaction.? Similarly, he says, if you want unlimited intelligence, you?d better figure out how to align computers with human needs.

Bostrom?s book is a research proposal for doing so. A superintelligence would be godlike, but would it be animated by wrath or by love? It?s up to us (that is, the engineers). Like any parent, we must give our child a set of values. And not just any values, but those that are in the best interest of humanity. We?re basically telling a god how we?d like to be treated. How to proceed?


If a serious discussion is truly desired on this the least everyone can do is quit with the "this one guy says it's not possible so it's not possible" and admit that other qualified experts on the same subject are saying it just might be at some point. Is the "skynet" analogy accuate? Probably not, but that part of the it really should be obviously taken as the comedic element here. It's a loose analogy, as I've already admitted, but it's about the closest one we have that most people 'get'.

And the fact is we as a species have made more technological leaps and bounds in the past 50 years than in all the rest of human history combined. Thus I find it odd that anyone, but especially highly educated people (like Deutche, for example), presume to declare what is and isn't possible and say it in absolutes. We're witnessing only the infancy of robotics, and programming for that matter. I can only wonder at the ego one must possess to loudly proclaim something, anything, in this insanely-advancing industry as "impossible".

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I'm glad we're friends CD. i thought i was having fun in your thread. i posted my answer to your topic question and included what i thought was super fun reading on the exact subject matter. for those contributions i was called a naysayer (a negative person) lacking a sense of humor.

i'm at a loss here on why this went in this direction. what's difference i guess.

Perhaps 'nay-sayer' was a poor choice of words then? I tend to use that term every so often when someone jumps in a thread with the age-old "It'll never happen". I suppose I was hoping that my inclusion of "you've obviously been paid off by our future overlords" would tip you off that I was having a bit of sport with you.

Instead you went from zero-to-bitch in under ten seconds on me.


Okay we're friends again. I invite you to check out those links I just posted, found by googling (oh god!) "Is artificial intelligence possible". There are of course thousands more links in the results, and much of it supports what you/your guy was saying.

But this debate over true AI might be a falacious one anyway, because the real question might be something more like 'is it possible to program a computer (or super computer network) to control our lives?' -- and to that I'm going to have to side with yes, yes it is. Will we all have chips in our heads, hands, etc, and will our activities and behaviors and buying habits be tracked, recorded, and more importantly... controlled?

It might not take a true sentient AI to do all that.

[arock10]

I've been saying this for years

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

https://www.google.ca/search?q=is+go...wDw&gws_rd=ssl

A lot of people seem to think so.

Self-driven cars
Robotics
human-like robots
hotel message delivery bots
Purchasing robotics companies
Google wireless
Nest aquisition
Google Fiber -- starts with a connection that's up to 1,000 megabits per second.
Instant downloads. TV like no other. And endless possibilities.


Why Is Google Building A Robot Army? | Popular Science

Meet Google's Robot Army. It's Growing.

In fact over the past year eight of the 12 companies Google has acquired have "robotics" in their name or descriptions. "Search Engine" is about the least thing Google represents these days.


Are we witnessing the beginnings of Skynet?

You forgot to mention GoogleBots.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

You forgot to mention GoogleBots.

Ha ha. Yes, I probably should have included "etc, etc" at the bottom of that list. All those invisible 'bots' chewing up the net endlessly indexing indexing INDEXING! We can't forget those.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Ha ha. Yes, I probably should have included "etc, etc" at the bottom of that list. All those invisible 'bots' chewing up the net endlessly indexing indexing INDEXING! We can't forget those.

They are the primitive AI that will evolve and be uploaded into the T-100 models.

[NatalieK]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Have any of you been watching this AMC series "Humans"?

Yes, we've been watching the series, quite good, reasonably gripping, although the end of this series was a tad boring


Wonder if they'll use androids for sex in brothels, like in 'Humans'? Would you trust an android with your family, as a nanny?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

A lot of people seem to think so.

Self-driven cars
Robotics
human-like robots
hotel message delivery bots
Purchasing robotics companies
Google wireless
Nest aquisition
Google Fiber -- starts with a connection that's up to 1,000 megabits per second.
Instant downloads. TV like no other. And endless possibilities.

Next step: the US nuke control and let's the rock'n'roll begins



Our future looks very bright on the picture

[aka123]

Russia practices using nukes even against non-nuke countries, like for example against Poland. The scenarios are not really the kind that "our holy motherland is on the bring of destruction", more like "Lebensraum, heil Putin".

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by aka123

Russia practices using nukes even against non-nuke countries, like for example against Poland. The scenarios are not really the kind that "our holy motherland is on the bring of destruction", more like "Lebensraum, heil Putin".

Absolutely not. Using of tactical nukes against ground targets in Europe and against aircraft carriers in the sea came from the old Soviet defense doctrine. I mean this is not something new which was invented by your lovely Putin. In fact its the only purpose of the tactical nuclear weapon and yes, Russia has the biggest tactical nuke arsenal on the planet. Nothing personal, just a business

P.S. Don't worry. Tactical nukes are not as powerful as the strategic ones. For example, Tochka - the one which should be used to eliminate the US missile defense complex in Poland delivers a nuke of 100 kilotons only (just about 4x times more powerful than the one which was dropped to Hiroshima).

[aka123]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Absolutely not. Using of tactical nukes against ground targets in Europe and against aircraft carriers in the sea came from the old Soviet defense doctrine. I mean this is not something new which was invented by your lovely Putin. In fact its the only purpose of the tactical nuclear weapon and yes, Russia has the biggest tactical nuke arsenal on the planet. Nothing personal, just a business

Absolutely not what? You being assholes is absolutely not a new thing?

My point was the threat of Russia in terms of nukes. And you just confirmed that. Nuking other countries is just "a business" to you.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by aka123

Absolutely not what? You being assholes is absolutely not a new thing?

My point was the threat of Russia in terms of nukes. And you just confirmed that. Nuking other countries is just "a business" to you.

Nuking other countries? How many of them were nuked by Russia? Maybe Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Are you sure it was Russia?

Personally I don't see any threat there. Russia will not attack anyone w/o a reason. Only if it will be attacked first (to protect our citizens). And yes, it's just a business and a matter of life and death - you better kill rather to get killed. Isn't it? Right now the US missile defense complex in Poland is a direct threat to Russian national security, so course it will be nuked in case some kind of global conflict. That must be obvious even for an idiot. But once again, nobody will attack it w/o a reason.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Nuking other countries? How many of them were nuked by Russia? Maybe Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Are you sure it was Russia?

Personally I don't see any threat there. Russia will not attack anyone w/o a reason. Only if it will be attacked first (to protect our citizens). And yes, it's just a business and a matter of life and death - you better kill rather to get killed. Isn't it? Right now the US missile defense complex in Poland is a direct threat to Russian national security, so course it will be nuked in case some kind of global conflict. That must be obvious even for an idiot. But once again, nobody will attack it w/o a reason.

Yes, of course there will be a reason. For example Hitler had plenty of reasons. Usually there is no lack of reasons.

Besides, you have already attacked into another country lately and even right now. Crimea you did already annex and the rest of the Ukraine is work in progress. And you weren't attacked first.. so, so much for your bullshit not attacking to somewhere unless getting attacked.

[just a punk]

LOL, how old are you, kid?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

LOL, how old are you, kid?

In adult forums we usually use counterarguments instead of asking age. And this is adult forum in any sense.