Artificial Intelligence and the year 2047

[ciphergoth]

Clarification: By "smart" I mean general smarts: the sort of smarts that allow you to do things like pass a Turing test or solve open problems in nanotechnology. Obviously computers are ahead of humans in narrow domains like playing chess.

NB: your guess as to what will happen should also be one of your guesses about what might happen - thanks! This applies to wriggler, ablueskyboy, thekumquat, redcountess, thehalibutkid, henry_the_cow and cillygirl. If you tick only one option (which is not the last) in the first poll, it means you think it's the only possible outcome.

[Poll #1103617]

And of course, I'm fascinated to know why you make those guesses. In particular - I'm surprised how many people think it's likely that machines as smart as humans might emerge while nothing smarter comes of it, and I'd love to hear more about that position.

Comments

Separation anxiety.

[aegidian]

Blow Google, we're smart enough to create pocket calculators, orreries, and sharpened stone tools. And yes, since the tools assist us in performing the same tasks more efficiently, they do make us smarter.

We have machine aided smarts, which brings an interesting problem in demarkation - the tool is not smart, we have the smarts. How complex does a tool have to be for it to be considered separately smart from its user(s)?

Re: Separation anxiety.

[keirf.livejournal.com]

Is an army merely the extension of its general?

Re: Separation anxiety.

[aegidian]

In terms of the efficiency gain in achieving the General's (or the General's superiors') goals - yes.

Re: Separation anxiety.

[itsjustaname.livejournal.com]

I was using Google as an example because someone else did earlier, but it was general tool-use that I was thinking of.