Technology neverending, is that ethical?

[Holiday20310401]

I can see technology getting very uncontrollable. The exponential growth of transistors, nanotechnology, just imagine the military applications, mind controlled robots, cloning, nuclear warfare becoming more global, etc.

Eventually I can just see a point when the rate of finding the morality of such technology will be so slow compared to the rate of technological growth that people would turn evil, because all doctrines would be obsolete.
I have no question I just wanted to talk about it.

[Zetherin]

It's definitely something interesting to think about. Should the technology singularity (Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) arise, computers will be at a level in which they can self-repair, beyond human intelligence. If this happens there's no telling what can actually occur.

This I found interesting, from the article I just posted:

"Berglas (2008) argues that unlike man, a computer based intelligence is not tied to any particular body, which would give it a radically different world view. In particular, a software intelligence would essentially be immortal and so have no need to produce independent children that live on after it dies. It would thus have no evolutionary need for love. But it would have an evolutionary need for power because the first AI that wants to and can dominate the earth will dominate the earth."

I'm just hoping I have my own personal Arnold from the future to protect me because there's a good chance this may occur in my lifetime

I completely agree that we must start taking all this into consideration, and try to apply some type of preemptive measure. However, technology is worldwide, and morality so varied, I highly doubt we could all come to a universal common ground - unless we had to (which would imply we're too late, as we're being destroyed by machines).

[Didymos Thomas]

I think we're already at that point.

We can destroy the entire planet in a matter of minutes if we detonate enough nuclear warheads. Humans should not have this sort of authority.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I think we're already at that point.

We can destroy the entire planet in a matter of minutes if we detonate enough nuclear warheads. Humans should not have this sort of authority.

No, we'd be at that point if the nuclear warheads chose to go off BY THEMSELVES

[GoshisDead]

This has been a theme in Popular literature for millenia. Technology has no morals, it just is. Morality lies in the use of technology.

[Didymos Thomas]

No, we'd be at that point if the nuclear warheads chose to go off BY THEMSELVES

Well, they can. Mutually assured self destruction was a real policy, and it is conceivable that humans devise automatic responses for warheads. We have the technology - I can program an alarm on my cell phone, why not automatic detonation under certain conditions for warheads?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Well, they can. Mutually assured self destruction was a real policy, and it is conceivable that humans devise automatic responses for warheads. We have the technology - I can program an alarm on my cell phone, why not automatic detonation under certain conditions for warheads?

No, I'm talking about artificial intelligence. It wouldn't be us programming the warheads to go off, the machine would be CHOOSING ON IT'S OWN whenever it wants, with it's own conscious. Imagine if you programmed your alarm on your cell phone for 9:30am and it just chose to go off at 2:30pm just to **** you over.

If we were at that point, we'd most likely already be dead.

[Didymos Thomas]

Self aware AI is terrifying. I guess my point is that I see no reason why we have to get that far before our pursuit of technology is unethical.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Self aware AI is terrifying. I guess my point is that I see no reason why we have to get that far before our pursuit of technology is unethical.

Oh, no, I completely agree we should be discussing the ethics of technology in order to form some kind of preemptive strike, or plan, when this does occur. However, my point was, judging by the variation of morality all across the world, it may be difficult for all of us to come to a common decision. After all, it does us no good if the United States and Japan agree on something, and 5 years later, a breathe of AI is developed in Russia. It almost seems inevitable there will be destruction.

[Didymos Thomas]

Same problem with nuclear disarmament.

But what's the alternative? We can either keep the course ourself, leading to certain destruction, or we can stop our pursuits and hope that other nations will follow our lead.

If we keep at it, destruction is inevitable. But if we stop our 'progress', then the chance of avoiding this annihilation must drop, at least to some degree.