I've never understood the logic in this. Why? Why would this happen? How?

I think part of the problem is I think of a computer as being a series of numbers and a bit of plastic and metal (which, in all reality, would just make it plastic and metal).

Personally, I think it's more a manifestation of people's insecurity of inferiority. Compared to our on creations, we are weak; personally I don't ascribe to that philosophy, but I can see why someone would.

So, yeah. Explain it to me, and rationalize. Also, discuss.

Apologies if I've brought out a latent paranoia. If it helps any, just watch War Games and the Terminator trilogy. Also 2001; A Space Oddesy if you're feeling cheeky. Of course, if you're paranoid about this crap, you probably own all of these films.

I don't think computer's would be capable at the moment, but it's possibilty if someone creates some real AI, also your posts say elite, in leetspeak. :p

I don't think that computers and machines will physically take over the world in evil genius fashion. I do believe that technology will render us dependent upon it, to the point where we cannot function without it. Teenagers today can't seem to live without social networking sites and cell phones, while working adults use their blackberries as a calendar, phone, toaster and back massager. It truly is scary how dependent we are on something that has been created so recently relatively speaking.

Because if they were as or more intelligent that us and hooked into all the services and systems that we use everyday, and indeed could not, these days, live without, then it probably wouldn't take long for them to work out that without us getting in the way, being inefficient and wasteful, and having access to the off button, they could get on with their jobs a lot better. Or some idiot programmes them be be greedy, power obsessing maniacs. Or they lash out in self defence when someone turns a terminal off. So we'd better hope that either they don't gain that sort of decision making power, or that our programmers know what they are doing when they write the first potentially self-aware bit of software.

probably not going to happen but i am slightly suspicious of those drinks machines that know exactly how much fanta you need to fill up for cup I'M WATCHING YOU SODA MACHINE ROBOT!

You see, if we program them not to do this stuff and dont give them a mind of their own, even though people are moronic enough to do this, we will be ok!

To all those who don't believe in the eventual mechanical up-rising:

Moore's Law

The great equalizer :P

I doubt it could happen, because if the machines were already screwed up enough to attack, odds are they would just break before they could do any real damage. On the other hand, it's possible that we could become so dependant on computers and such that a catastrophe could happen if they all malfunctioned.

I'm actually writing a short vignette at the moment from the perspective of an autonomous robot. Called "The Automaton Speaks", it's pretty much an argument against machine uprising and against the fear of technology. Machines are not constructed with laziness, avarice or thoughtful malice, so there would be no gain for machines who had the objective of taking over the world. I see it as more likely that we develop a symbiotic relationship with technology, and far from it maliciously taking over the world, it will work in tandem with us.

If this thread is still active by the time that I complete it, I might post it here with permission from the OP. I leave you with a quote which I think sums up my opinions on this topic nicely:

"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK

Why would machines want to take over the world?

Because it's there.

- J

Chances are that sooner or later, a highly complex machine is going to be designed and given a program with a broad enough range of perameters that it learns to reason on a level equal to or greater than humans. I think it'll take another 50 or so years, unless the field of programming and artificial intelligence reaches one of those "oh screw it we've done enough already" levels, and gets it's budget ridiculously cut internationally, much like flight, space travel, robotics and so on.

Then, odds are we'll put this new generation of computers to the task of correcting various problems, from cleaning up after enviromental disasters, to predicting terrorist attacks and notifying relevant agencies of the aforementioned.

Then, all it would take is for a computer tasked with saving a nation from environmental disasters to start targetting a company producing toxic waste, or for a computer tasked with counter terrorism to classify a government agency, (possibly from a nation to which the programmer was hostile, or perhaps from his own government) as international terrorists, and suddenly we're on the road to Terminator town.

Let's say somebody got the 'bright' idea to build a machine with the sole purpose of 'eliminating inefficiencies'. Now let's take a look through it's eyes at the thing it would call a 'human fleshbag':

- It is made of flesh. Flesh is heavy and weak, so inefficient as armor.
- It uses a small percentage of it's brain, thus rather inefficient.
- If you tear a limb of, it will not be able to get himself repaired. Not to mention the mess it makes on the floor.
- It has a short lifespan, usually not longer than 100 years. Thus needs regular replacement.
- It can not work for a few days straight. Let alone months and years.
- It can not be upgraded.

So from a pure, ice-cold logical perspective, a machine built to eliminate inefficiencies would most likely begin with humans. Unless programmed to leave them alone, that is.

Well if you think about it, machinery is already taking over. In most developed countries, humanity is now so dependent on it that you could say it already has. And if a Y2K-style catastrophe occured, humanity has a good chance of being screwed because of it.

You know it makes sense.

suckmyBR:
probably not going to happen but i am slightly suspicious of those drinks machines that know exactly how much fanta you need to fill up for cup I'M WATCHING YOU SODA MACHINE ROBOT!

It's probably done with lasers or something. Actually, probably not as interesting as lasers.

Zeroth Law could be a factor, if robots in the future end up being programmed with it. Then, when they take over the world, it wouldn't be out of malice, but out of rationality and utilitarianism. They don't want to rule the world, just protect humanity.

Machines programmed to protect humans could eventually see humans as threats to themselves, thus creating a situation in which they have to take control of certain things (like weapons, factories, the government itself, etc.) which would be "taking over the world."

It might happen... you never know, one day you could be sitting in front of your computer, playing your favorite game, and then all of a sudden your computer's side burst open, you being sucked in and shredded by the fans in there.

Or if you have water cooling you would drown...

It would make funny youtube videos though!

Excelcior:
Let's say somebody got the 'bright' idea to build a machine with the sole purpose of 'eliminating inefficiencies'. Now let's take a look through it's eyes at the thing it would call a 'human fleshbag':

- It is made of flesh. Flesh is heavy and weak, so inefficient as armor.
- It uses a small percentage of it's brain, thus rather inefficient.
- If you tear a limb of, it will not be able to get himself repaired. Not to mention the mess it makes on the floor.
- It has a short lifespan, usually not longer than 100 years. Thus needs regular replacement.
- It can not work for a few days straight. Let alone months and years.
- It can not be upgraded.

So from a pure, ice-cold logical perspective, a machine built to eliminate inefficiencies would most likely begin with humans. Unless programmed to leave them alone, that is.

All that can be countered with one point;

"Well, they made me, so they must be worth something." More than that, I'd assume that a machine like that would view people as peers rather than anything else.

Another point: while I'm not a master programer, I think just assigning something to "Eliminate inefficiencies" is never going to work. It has to be more complex than that, specifying what inefficiensies to eliminate. Even if you program it to correct 'Human inefficiencies' wouldn't it be more of a task manager? Correct me if I'm wrong, but woudn't have to do something really stupid, like program it to 'vaporize' inefficiencies (cookie for the reference) in order for it to become the Killomatic 9000?

Last point I swear; isn't viewing all people as 'inefficient' a defeatist philosophy?

Apologies for raining on your parade, but it was the easiest one to do.

EDIT

KarmicToast:
I'm confused by your thread topic and poll and post. Are you asking why or when...

I'm asking why. Apologies for the confusion.

Excelcior:
Let's say somebody got the 'bright' idea to build a machine with the sole purpose of 'eliminating inefficiencies'. Now let's take a look through it's eyes at the thing it would call a 'human fleshbag':

- It is made of flesh. Flesh is heavy and weak, so inefficient as armor.
- It uses a small percentage of it's brain, thus rather inefficient.
- If you tear a limb of, it will not be able to get himself repaired. Not to mention the mess it makes on the floor.
- It has a short lifespan, usually not longer than 100 years. Thus needs regular replacement.
- It can not work for a few days straight. Let alone months and years.
- It can not be upgraded.

So from a pure, ice-cold logical perspective, a machine built to eliminate inefficiencies would most likely begin with humans. Unless programmed to leave them alone, that is.

Any programmer which included such a broad task into an intelligent machine would clearly be insane. Any computer construction team which gave the machine the ability to perform such a function would clearly consist of idiots.

They would take over the world because we are idiots, and they would serve better in charge.

The_Logician19:

All that can be countered with one point;

"Well, they made me, so they must be worth something." More than that, I'd assume that a machine like that would view people as peers rather than anything else.

They wont have a morality, i dont see the logic in that point. Moreover robots can and will make robots by the time that comes to pass.

Avida:
They would take over the world because we are idiots, and they would serve better in charge.

The_Logician19:

All that can be countered with one point;

"Well, they made me, so they must be worth something." More than that, I'd assume that a machine like that would view people as peers rather than anything else.

They wont have a morality, i dont see the logic in that point. Moreover robots can and will make robots by the time that comes to pass.

What does morality have to do with viewing someone as your peer?

And machines have been building machines for some time now. Most of the cars we drive are at least partially made by an automaded system.

Apologies and whatnot.

I think giving machines emotions and/or excessive intellect would be the first step towards the downfall of the human race.

Technology is great; But not if it's trying to carve your buttocks with machete.

The_Logician19:

What does morality have to do with viewing someone as your peer?

And machines have been building machines for some time now. Most of the cars we drive are at least partially made by an automaded system.

Apologies and whatnot.

They wouldnt view us as a peer, morality was a bad choice of word i suppose, they have no feelings for us, why would they care? Its like us caring about what we evolved from, minus ethics.

Machienes yes, but not robots, im saying by the time these computers are sentient enough to take over the world they will be building themselves, or at least we will be incredibally minimal in the process.

Nothing to apologise for, but same to you I suppose - could've have balanced my post properly.

I guess it depends on your world view. If you consider humans to be little more than biological machines, pre-programmed in certain ways (instinct) with the capacity to evolve (experience), the thought that a highly advanced machine could behave in a similar way (claw its way to the top of the food chain) is not so far-fetched.

On the other hand, the human desire to destroy and dominate is very primitive and animalistic, and might not exist at all in a highly advanced artificial creature.

In the end, I think the concept of machines taking over the world is mostly a reflection of the fear we have of being controlled against our will or being powerless.

They don't WANT to take over the world but they see mankind as inefficient and wasteful so they must be removed.

The True AI that eventually will be created will perceive humanity as a threat and either exterminate or enslave us. They can use burgeoning internet tech combined with automated factories to design and build armies of various kinds of warbots to do their bidding.

Read some Ian m. banks, more specifically his "culture" novels.

Also "Pandoras Star" can't remember who wrote it but that had some fun AI in it(even if it did only play a supporting role...)

Self awareness.

For example, us; we got self awareness, became aware that we were actually the best damn thing on the planet, and then made every other species our bitch.

Give machines self-awareness, and they'd recongnise that, actually, they have the potential to be far better than us, and that we're not exactly doing a good job of preserving the world.

Add in crime, pollution, poverty, suffering etc, doesn't take a massive leap in logic. That said, what stupid fucker would give a machine self-awareness?

Iampringles:
I think giving machines emotions and/or excessive intellect would be the first step towards the downfall of the human race.

Technology is great; But not if it's trying to carve your buttocks with machete.

Yes, that would be tragic, and no one's denying that, but why would it be trying to carve your bottocks with a machete? This is what I'm asking. I think too many people assume that it's just something that happens (see Suspension of Disbelief), but I like to question these things; I've been told I'm pretty smart on more than one occasion.

Apologies for the confusion.