Odds are the aliens are machine based.

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Odds are the aliens are machine based.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Cactus Bob
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 166
Credit: 7,565,744
RAC: 1,778
Canada
Message 1689048 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 1:20:29 UTC

Look at our history. Computers were basically created 50 years ago. We really started to make big leaps with the advent of the transistor and the silicon chip. I suspect we are under 50 years creating a truly artificial intelligence. Once that happens Pandora's Box is surely opened. Homo Sapiens have been around only a few 100K in years. The advances we have made in the last 200 years are exponential to what we have made in the first 200,000 years.

I know I am not the the first to verbalize this theory but it is hard to ignore. We will create a sentient intelligence in the next 50 years and the BIG question is will we be able to control its program. Once it is able to effect is own programming will we not become obsolete. If this is the path most organic life forms will take, then maybe all organic civs are doomed.

I don't think we would have a chance against a machine based intelligence. They have so many advantages over us and if they decided to use those advantages we will be doomed.

AI is a slippery slope in my opinion amd we may be creating the next masters of the universe.

I know a few like Elon Musk and Steven Hawking have warned of this. I don't claim to be as intelligent as they are but I see the writing the writing on the wall. If we do go down that path would not other organic life forms do the same.

I look forward to other opinions on this and hope I am wrong in my assumptions.

Bob
--------------------------
Still an Organic Life Form
Sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes the bug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SETI@home classic workunits 4,321
SETI@home classic CPU time 22,169 hours
ID: 1689048 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3335
Credit: 1,322,163
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1689051 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 1:48:22 UTC - in response to Message 1689048.  

you can build a machine that will kill you--But, it will not be sentient.

Time to revisit "Can Machines Think ??" from the AI nonsense of 50 years ago.
ID: 1689051 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 9788
Credit: 5,166,960
RAC: 2,662
United States
Message 1689105 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 6:57:51 UTC

I thought the Borg in Star Trek, the Next Generation, were a pretty clever and scary villain of the future.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1689105 · Report as offensive
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15578
Credit: 55,124,593
RAC: 28,210
United States
Message 1689160 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 12:45:39 UTC - in response to Message 1689048.  

I think you're on the right track. Yes, I believe eventually we will create a sentient robotic being, and yes, it or "they" will be far superior to us in every way. And yes, I think that if an alien civilization exists, they too will create their own successors.

Though the fear is that they will see no benefit to our existence and wipe us all out, right? I'm thinking that true sentience will have compassion, empathy, and mercy. Just as we feel that it is a social obligation for the stronger to protect the weak, I think machines too can 'feel' it will be their job to protect us. Sure, maybe not all machines will think that way, but hopefully the majority will.


But even if we are unable to create true machine sentience, I think it may be possible to utilize advanced, self-healing machinery to extend our own existence. I'm thinking of The Last Question by Isaac Asimov right now.
ID: 1689160 · Report as offensive
Profile Cactus Bob
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 166
Credit: 7,565,744
RAC: 1,778
Canada
Message 1689269 - Posted: 8 Jun 2015, 21:10:16 UTC - in response to Message 1689051.  

you can build a machine that will kill you--But, it will not be sentient.

Time to revisit "Can Machines Think ??" from the AI nonsense of 50 years ago.


Not sure of what AI nonsense of 50 years ago is, I was 10 back then and didn't know or care about AI all that much. Do you feel it is not possible to program sentience. That like FTL some barriers are unbreakable?

I think it is possible but we will need a few more advancements in hardware and in how we code. Once we have an AI learn and improve itself (growth) I think that will be the first step. AI is not even at the 'new born' stage yet. I think maybe we are at the small insect stage and an insect can not improve itself more than it is. In 50 years the computer will be much different. Even now the definition of the computer is starting to blur.

IT wasn't too long ago that sustain flight was just a fantasy and not possible. OH and a few years ago (1977) the president of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) claimed There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home

Things will get interesting and I will probably not be around when or if this happens (unless I can upload my consciousness, but that is a whole different topic).

Bob
Sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes the bug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SETI@home classic workunits 4,321
SETI@home classic CPU time 22,169 hours
ID: 1689269 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 9788
Credit: 5,166,960
RAC: 2,662
United States
Message 1689348 - Posted: 9 Jun 2015, 2:23:57 UTC

I don't know about a machine ever having "emotions" as we understand them as humans. That's still a very ethereal part of the brain that isn't understood, but maybe one day...
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1689348 · Report as offensive
KLiKProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1289
Credit: 9,102,328
RAC: 17,561
Croatia
Message 1689435 - Posted: 9 Jun 2015, 9:56:41 UTC - in response to Message 1689269.  

you can build a machine that will kill you--But, it will not be sentient.

Time to revisit "Can Machines Think ??" from the AI nonsense of 50 years ago.


Not sure of what AI nonsense of 50 years ago is, I was 10 back then and didn't know or care about AI all that much. Do you feel it is not possible to program sentience. That like FTL some barriers are unbreakable?

I think it is possible but we will need a few more advancements in hardware and in how we code. Once we have an AI learn and improve itself (growth) I think that will be the first step. AI is not even at the 'new born' stage yet. I think maybe we are at the small insect stage and an insect can not improve itself more than it is. In 50 years the computer will be much different. Even now the definition of the computer is starting to blur.

IT wasn't too long ago that sustain flight was just a fantasy and not possible. OH and a few years ago (1977) the president of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) claimed There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home

Things will get interesting and I will probably not be around when or if this happens (unless I can upload my consciousness, but that is a whole different topic).

Bob

reminds me of the another one:
"When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1689435 · Report as offensive
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15578
Credit: 55,124,593
RAC: 28,210
United States
Message 1689442 - Posted: 9 Jun 2015, 10:22:07 UTC - in response to Message 1689435.  

IT wasn't too long ago that sustain flight was just a fantasy and not possible. OH and a few years ago (1977) the president of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) claimed There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home


reminds me of the another one:
"When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft


That's a myth, Bill Gates never said that. And it wasn't PC DOS that set the limit at 640k - IBM set the limits via their PC standard. IBM originally wanted 512KB user and 512KB system out of the 1MB addressable RAM. It was Bill Gates that convinced IBM to increase it to 640KB - and he said even then he knew that wouldn't be enough.
ID: 1689442 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 937
Credit: 1,109,543
RAC: 1,434
Message 1689620 - Posted: 10 Jun 2015, 3:28:20 UTC

There may be physical and/or societal limitations that prevent the creation of sentient machines. The sort of exponential growth in the power of computers, which is the basis for predictions about a technological singularity, may break down at some point. Other materially-based phenomena that grow, for a time, in an exponential manner are not expected to do so indefinitely.
ID: 1689620 · Report as offensive
KLiKProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1289
Credit: 9,102,328
RAC: 17,561
Croatia
Message 1689647 - Posted: 10 Jun 2015, 5:20:41 UTC - in response to Message 1689442.  

IT wasn't too long ago that sustain flight was just a fantasy and not possible. OH and a few years ago (1977) the president of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) claimed There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home


reminds me of the another one:
"When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft


That's a myth, Bill Gates never said that. And it wasn't PC DOS that set the limit at 640k - IBM set the limits via their PC standard. IBM originally wanted 512KB user and 512KB system out of the 1MB addressable RAM. It was Bill Gates that convinced IBM to increase it to 640KB - and he said even then he knew that wouldn't be enough.


Bill Gates never said that "640KB would be enough"...but he did say above quote!

research it...

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1689647 · Report as offensive
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15578
Credit: 55,124,593
RAC: 28,210
United States
Message 1689731 - Posted: 10 Jun 2015, 10:06:42 UTC - in response to Message 1689647.  

Bill Gates never said that "640KB would be enough"...but he did say above quote!

research it...


I have, and I have found that he never said it. If you know otherwise, please cite credible sources.
ID: 1689731 · Report as offensive
KLiKProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1289
Credit: 9,102,328
RAC: 17,561
Croatia
Message 1690041 - Posted: 11 Jun 2015, 7:42:19 UTC - in response to Message 1689731.  

Bill Gates never said that "640KB would be enough"...but he did say above quote!

research it...


I have, and I have found that he never said it. If you know otherwise, please cite credible sources.


here are just some:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/08/640k-enough/
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

just a 5s on Google!
;)

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1690041 · Report as offensive
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15578
Credit: 55,124,593
RAC: 28,210
United States
Message 1690079 - Posted: 11 Jun 2015, 10:15:50 UTC - in response to Message 1690041.  
Last modified: 11 Jun 2015, 11:10:05 UTC

Bill Gates never said that "640KB would be enough"...but he did say above quote!

research it...


I have, and I have found that he never said it. If you know otherwise, please cite credible sources.


here are just some:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/08/640k-enough/
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

just a 5s on Google!;)


I suspected we need to start our own thread.

The first link you linked to states that the quote wasn't first attributed to Gates himself, but rather to an editor of a magazine who claimed Bill said it.

And the second link is a list of misquotations:

"640k ought to be enough for anyone." There is no actual reference to this ever being said by Bill Gates. The earliest reference to Gates saying something like this appeared in the 1985 (not 1981) issue of InfoWorld magazine, and was regretful of the past rather than predictive of the future: "When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory.". However even this was without a precise reference and not part of an interview.


Your misquotation link is confirmed in the first link as it says practically the same thing.

You should have spent more than 5s reading to ensure your links proved the point you thought they did. ;)
ID: 1690079 · Report as offensive
Profile Cactus Bob
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 166
Credit: 7,565,744
RAC: 1,778
Canada
Message 1690200 - Posted: 11 Jun 2015, 18:01:56 UTC

It does look like this post has veered off topic to What did Gates say. What Gates uttered or did not utter has little to do with the topic. I brought up the DEC quote to demonstrate how the use of computers now could not be imagined back then. The same would apply to us now as to how computers will be used in 50 years.

I would much rather the future of computers be posted here than the past. AI in particular as it is most relevant to this thread. AI is a growing field and advances in it are happening all the time.

Bob
Sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes the bug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SETI@home classic workunits 4,321
SETI@home classic CPU time 22,169 hours
ID: 1690200 · Report as offensive
KLiKProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1289
Credit: 9,102,328
RAC: 17,561
Croatia
Message 1690431 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 10:04:54 UTC - in response to Message 1690200.  
Last modified: 12 Jun 2015, 10:06:24 UTC

It does look like this post has veered off topic to What did Gates say. What Gates uttered or did not utter has little to do with the topic. I brought up the DEC quote to demonstrate how the use of computers now could not be imagined back then. The same would apply to us now as to how computers will be used in 50 years.

I would much rather the future of computers be posted here than the past. AI in particular as it is most relevant to this thread. AI is a growing field and advances in it are happening all the time.

Bob

OK, back to AI...my oppinion we have AI, just we haven't learned it too much...AI is deep learning algoritms...but we haven't spent too much time developing it! Or learning it. :/

As a child is born, it has only few things writen in ROM:
- eat, piss & poop
- sleep
- metabolism
Everything else is learned!

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1690431 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3335
Credit: 1,322,163
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1690497 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 14:20:44 UTC - in response to Message 1690431.  

To get on topic.

What kind power source do you suppose that there robotic aliens would use ??
ID: 1690497 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,344
RAC: 206
United States
Message 1690525 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 16:11:09 UTC - in response to Message 1690497.  

To get on topic.

What kind power source do you suppose that there robotic aliens would use ??

The ones from Stargate Atlantis, of course ;)
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1690525 · Report as offensive
Profile Cactus Bob
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 166
Credit: 7,565,744
RAC: 1,778
Canada
Message 1690557 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 18:29:06 UTC - in response to Message 1690525.  

To get on topic.

What kind power source do you suppose that there robotic aliens would use ??

The ones from Stargate Atlantis, of course ;)


Hard to speculate this as form would dictate power needs. We humans use much more of our power needs on motion and temperature control than we use for our brains. The everready bunny uses batteries but not sure how good his AI is :).

Would an AI be stuck in one machine or would it be able to move about a network or be the whole network somewhat like a Borg. Any robotic form may be just a small part of this entity if AI is possible.

Haven't watched Stargate so that one went right over me. I'll Google it later.

Bob
Sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes the bug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SETI@home classic workunits 4,321
SETI@home classic CPU time 22,169 hours
ID: 1690557 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2269
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1690575 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 20:02:08 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jun 2015, 20:06:07 UTC

It is nice to see that other people are thinking about this question.

I happened to write a little about it here, but for now it became a little long and has therefore not been posted.

Just to say that we happen to be just flesh and blood. Still robots and computers are part of our everyday life as well. Also our curiosity, or wish to know about things, because of our brain which has developed over time.

Have you ever given a thought about why there are so many native races as well as languages being spoken on this planet? It is all about diversity. Rather than speaking about evolution for a given or certain purpose, we are seeing an abundance of many things we rather should not think of as being that important.

The same thing goes with what we are able to see in nature. The universe is consisting of huge amounts of matter which implies mass. Energy is the release of matter by means of particles from an object, possibly escaping with close to the speed of light at times.

There is of course a difference between fusion happening in the cores of stars and our notion of the creation of the universe by means of the Big Bang. In any case, it is all about matter and energy and reason for why it ever happened is a question possibly left for the philosophical mind, even if you happen to be an astronomer.
ID: 1690575 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2269
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1690587 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 21:07:16 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jun 2015, 21:08:44 UTC

Should better read as follows:

It is nice to see that other people are thinking about this question as well.

Makes the previous a little impolite, but was not intended.

Just back from the weekend shopping and only had a cup of coffee starting my day.
ID: 1690587 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Odds are the aliens are machine based.


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.