Philanthropist. Founder and former CEO of Microsoft.
I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent...A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern.
Before the prospect of an intelligence explosion, we humans are like small children playing with a bomb [...] We have little idea when the detonation will occur, though if we hold the device to our ear we can hear a faint ticking sound
British mathematician and logician, a major contributor to mathematics, cryptanalysis, and AI
Even if we could keep the machines in a subservient position, for instance by turning off the power at strategic moments, we should, as a species, feel greatly humbled. … [T]his new danger … is certainly something which can give us anxiety.
American author, philosopher, and neuroscientist
It is sobering to admit that chaos seems a probable outcome even in the best-case scenario, in which the AGI remained perfectly obedient. But of course we cannot assume the best-case scenario. In fact, “the control problem”—the solution to which would gu
He accepts there are “legitimate risks that we should be thinking about now”, but is adamant these are not the dystopian scenarios of science fiction in which super-smart machines ruthlessly dispense of their human creators.
There is going to be interest in creating machines with will, whose interests are not our own. And that's without considering what machines that terrorists, rogue regimes, and intelligence agencies of the less roguish nations, may devise. I think the notion of Frankensteinian AI, which turns on its creators, is something worth taking seriously
AI is already more “intelligent” than humans in narrow domains, some of which involve delicate decision making. Humanity is not threatened by them, but many people could be affected by their decisions. [...] Consider automated trading systems. A bad decision in these systems may be (and has been) a financial disaster for many people. That will also be the case for self-driving cars. Some of their decisions will be critical and possibly affect lives.
Author, computer scientist, inventor and futurist
The existential threat from genetic technologies is already here: the same technology that will soon make major strides against cancer, heart disease, and other diseases could also be employed by a bioterrorist to create a bioengineered biological virus that combines ease of transmission, deadliness, and stealthiness, that is, a long incubation period. The tools and knowledge to do this are far more widespread than the tools and knowledge to create an atomic bomb, and the impact could be far worse.
Imagine a computer that wants to calculate π to as many digits as possible. That computer will see humans as being made of atoms which it could use to build more computers; and worse, since we would object to that and might try to stop it, we’d be a potential threat that it would be in the AI’s interest to eliminate
Gaining a comprehensive scientific understanding of human cognition is one of the hardest problems there is. We continue to make encouraging progress. But by the end of the century, we believe, we will still be wondering if the singularity is near.
Engineers first! Human rights. Gadgets. Jokes and pranks. Segways. Music and concerts. Gameboy
It's actually going to turn out really good for humans. And it will be hundreds of years down the stream before they'd even have the ability. They'll be so smart by then that they'll know they have to keep nature, and humans are part of nature. So I got over my fear that we'd be replaced by computers. They're going to help us. We're at least the gods originally.
Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind. No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future.
Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University
There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles--all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems.
Rodney A. Brooks
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, author, and robotics entrepreneur
If we are spectacularly lucky we’ll have AI over the next thirty years with the intentionality of a lizard, and robots using that AI will be useful tools. [...] Worrying about AI that will be intentionally evil to us is pure fear mongering
John Evans Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, Psychology and Education, Northwestern Univ
Machines cannot think. They are not going to think any time soon. They may increasingly do more interesting things, but the idea that we need to worry about them, regulate them, or grant them civil rights, is just plain silly.
How close to thinking are the machines we have built, or are going to be built soon? The answer is easy: immensely far. The gap between our best computers and the brain of a child is the gap between a drop of water and the Pacific Ocean. Differences are in performance, structural, functional, and more. Any maundering about how to deal with thinking machines is totally premature to say the least.
Computer scientist working in machine learning and computer vision
There are several real or imagined dangers about AI. Today, the danger of a Terminator scenario or something like this... those are not things that we’re worried about because we just don’t have the technology to build machines like that.
Research Professor/Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland
There is no indication that we will have a problem keeping our machines on a leash, even if they misbehave. We are far from building teams of swaggering, unpredictable, Machiavellian robots with an attitude problem and urge to reproduce
Entrepreneur and professor of Computer Science at University of Wasington
Predictions that superintelligence is on the foreseeable horizon are not supported by the available data. Moreover, it’s possible that AI systems could collaborate with people to create a symbiotic superintelligence. That would be very different from the pernicious and autonomous kind envisioned by Professor Bostrom
There are plenty of consequences of the development of AI that warrant intensive discussion (economical consequences, ethical decisions made by AIs, etc.), but it is unlikely that they will bring the end of humanity
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" blev skrevet 1887, men gælder
The flaw in "Arhmahgawd, we're so, like dead, or whatevah, you know, because, like, skybet.." makes the mistake of giving AI human traits, where only the paranoid survive. Same goes for aliens. Lets get the red pill out o' niaw'
Director, Intelligent Computing and Machine Learning Lab, Beihang University
People are worried about the free will of machines. So far, no scientific evidence can support such a statement. Even human beings’ free will seems to be an enigma, let alone that of machines. Deep diving AI researchers have a crystal clear picture of the industry status quo and risks that may not be manageable. The reality is far from what people might think of.
All species go extinct. Homo sapiens will be no exception. We don't know how it will happen—virus, an alien invasion, nuclear war, a super volcano, a large meteor, a red-giant sun. Yes, it could be AIs, but I would bet long odds against it. I would bet, instead, that AIs will be a source of awe, insight, inspiration, and yes, profit, for years to come.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win. CEO @Soc
I do think we will get ever precise capabilities in strictly defined systems (autonomous driving) where most of the hairiest and ambiguous rules will be ratified or voted on, but i don't see an "intelligent" brain anywhere around the corner
Computer scientist at the University of Texas, Austin
I don't think there's a single change that going to be black and white once we're on one side and now there's a change and we're on the other side. It's a cumulative effect of everything, AI is embedded in many of the technologies that have been changing our world over the last several decades and will continue to do so.
We can turn machines into workers — they can be labor, and that actually deeply undercuts human value. My biggest concern at the moment is that we as a society find a way of valuing people not just for the work they do.