> But, hey, just tell yourself that The Good Rev has simply watched too much teevee, and
> that programmers will create AI out of altruism and without bugs, and that the pentagon
> won't be involved at all.  Keep telling yourself that, right up until you are run over
> by your own car, along with everyone else.
i was just trying to point out that if (ok, when) AI breaks loose, it most probably won't be in the
scifi/pop.science style of "attack of the toasters" that you seem to be implying.
in my post i did nowhere make a statement about whether AI would be benevolent or malevolent, nor
about how "smart" it would/could become.
> 1. HAW HAW!  Credbility approaching zero.
fine. then don't believe me. i'm sure you have a perfectly good reason to believe that anything
that comes out of Microsoft has to be bug-ridden and crash-prone in exactly the same way as the OS
everybody is running on your desktop PC.
to summarize, i wasn't in particular disagreeing with you, i was just trying to point out that AI,
when its time comes, will most probably not look the way you are describing it, and will not be
programmed by Bill Gates.
what you say here:
> But for what it's worth, I'm basing my conclusions on the STUPID SHIT THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.  I
> have NO reason to believe that mankind - even programmers - are gonna suddenly stop being half-
> bright, jumped up monkeys.
wouldn't that rather more likely imply that the Big One AI -- call it Skynet, whatever -- would
more probably spring out of one of these monkey's basements, like a virus gone wild?
currently there are a lot more kids/hobbyists/hackers that don't know what the fuck they are doing
than there are scientists working for corporations (that possibly also don' know what the fuck they
are doing). and when dealing with computer science, today's kids are not much less smart than
todays scientists.