The Future of Photography

[bernie west]

The rate of progress is the only uncertainty, but we know for sure that a day will come when many people's lifes will be impacted by AI for good or bad. My contention is that those days are not very far.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Define AI.  Are you talking about a robot that can go to the kitchen and make a cup of tea and bring it to you?  Because by my definition, that isn't AI.  AI, as it is used in the field, tends I think to mean human-like intelligence.

[dwdallam]

There you go:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12384

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, it's something to think about for sure. But to choose "either or" at this stage is premature.

Well guys, have fun with it. I'm unsubscribing. You all have good points, BTW. Thanks for responding.

From the link above:

Dr. Nick Bostrom, director of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, host of the symposium, is fearful that mankind may eventually create such a machine, capable of destroying its creators.  He states, "Any entity which is radically smarter than human beings would also be very powerful.  If we get something wrong, you could imagine the consequences would involve the extinction of the human species."

On the other hand:

Bostrom leads a movement known as transhumanism, which dually aims to watch for potential threats in emerging technologies and conversely adopt radical emerging technologies to enrich human life.  Bostrom and other transhumanist hope that one day biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, and artificial intelligence will merge man with machine, yielding humans that have increased cognitive abilties, are physically stronger, and emotionally more stable.  This path, they say will lead to "posthumans", augmented beings so superior to traditional man, they are separate entity.

[Rob C]

The outcome of such reflexion might be that humankind is finally able to focus on what really matters, these supposed 2% you are mentioning. If only for that, wouldn't this thinking process be a good thing?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]




Bernard, with more time on its hands and nothing essential to do with it, humankind is much more likely to turn itself against itself. Think about the current crime figures within the population that does no work: does the crime breed there because these criminals are just bitter, unfulfilled people who can´t get a job? Or, is it something else, perhaps the result of a mind that has too much time to dwell on itself?

Without the need to work, I have a feeling that mankind would simply atrophy from a sense of pointlessness.

If not to save mankind from actually doing work, why else would these future robots be wanted or created?

I don´t want to come over as some puritanical person with an overdeveloped work ethic - I simply believe that there is much to be said for the old dictum that the devil makes work for idle hands. Perhaps we need to be gainfully employed just to function into the future...

Rob C