The Sentient Machine

We are 50 years in the future....​

Computer technology has adhered to Moore's Law and has advanced to the point that now we humans have developed computers with synthetic neural networks. These neural networks are nearly as complex as the human brain and can complete any task a human brain can with more accuracy at greater speeds. We have created a machine now that thinks for us. Many people protest the launch of this system claiming that it will endanger the world as we know it by producing a power greater than our own. Some use Darwin's natural selection, and claim that these networks will eliminate us because we will be a threat once they become aware that we are trying to control it. Some protest because of religious reasons; saying that those who created these networks are 'playing God'.​

The futurists here at Sythe are here to make a logical debate on this advancement in science.​

Points to be addressed:

- Is this machine truly sentient?
- What are the possible outcomes of creating a thinking 'being'?
- What are the dangers associated with a machine having sentience?
- If this is not a danger to humans then how will it effect society?
- What will become of humans if we are no longer the most intelligent 'beings' on earth?
- And any others you wish to address as part of your debate.​

 

Well for starters, let's just remember that any machine on this magnitude will need masses of power. So when the machine goes on rampage, pull the plug and re-install the OS.
I think that the machine may be still crossing the border into true sentience, and still in the most basic form of it.
After a big initial scare, everybody will realize that they can simply pull the plug on these things to make them stop, and humans will enslave them

Approx 50 years later, Robot-rights activists will begin to rally for computer rights and after an additional 50 years they will win. Pulling the plug will be considered attempted homicide or something.

This is just from looking at what people have done to minority groups in the past

 

This is very possible outcome, but this would mean robots and computers could actually think on their own. I highly doubt that will happen. I don't believe it to be possible because humans program these robots and they can make them react and maybe think, but robots will never be able to learn and adapt. That is the main reason humans will never be controlled by robots. We can change and adapt to whats happening. We don't have a set code for when something happens where we will react accordingly.

 

Did you even read the OP? Or are you just that stupid? This is about computers/machines gaining sentience or the ability to become self-aware through thought.

 

I don't think they can become self aware.

 

It doesn't matter what you think. In this thread we are to assume that they are self aware and that we should respond accordingly.


I feel that humans would eventually understand that creating 100% self aware machines is a downfall to humanity.

 

^this

I think that by creating this we are knowingly putting ourselves lower on the food chain.The scientist who are creating this are putting not only themselves at risk but the entire human race. This is a huge step further in technology but also comes with a huge risk. I dont think the human race would let a lower species come up and be top in the food chain, so why would the machine let humans come back to the top? moderation should be considered when tampering with things at this magnitude.

 

Is it possible to create a "self-aware" machine?

I mean, variables are limitless, and that'd be impossible to do with coding/scripting

 

Once again, we are to assume it in this thread. Responces such as "not possible" aren't welcome because we are assuming "what if".

 

If hypothetically we created a sentient computer that replicated the ways the human brain act (only it's actions were more precise), would it undergo evolution? Since all life (I think) undergoes evolution, can you consider it a life form?

As for danger, since this sentient being is more or less a really smart computer, and is immobile, if we set in place systems to make it remain immobile, how can it still harm society? It may be able to hack into government databases if we can't work out how to prevent that, but, it certainly won't get up and start shooting us.

Would a good comparison with an artificial sentient being be a really smart man in a wheelchair? Stephen Hawkings?

 

Well making something digital immobile wouldn't really stop it. Have you ever watched Eagle Eye?

 

Not only this, but all computers rely on power to function. In the long run, even if a computer was specifically designed to destroy all of humanity, you would eventually have to recharge the battery, or simply force a power outage.

Eagle eye is intended to be full of action. If you could just hit the emergency remote shutoff button while drinking a smoothie, it would be a very boring movie.