I am forced to assume you are referring to the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If so, I can not prove he exists nor disprove his existence.

Accepting the premise of such an entities existence even for the sake of argument is still problematic as there are multiple views on him that are not all compatible.

There is a trend in most beliefs about him that all of humanity are his children. If I accept that premise then I conclude that perhaps humanity is flawed because they are still children and still growing and learning. When they are mature they will be like god and perfect.

I thinkin' ol Skeptic may have been right.

Your statement has no apparent relevance to the conversation.

Yep, so you require a wall outlet or 9-volts there. lol

I see. Your intent is to insult.

Further discussion is therefore pointless.

Nuff said then. Have yerself a nice day now.

I will ask that anyone choosing to respond to this thread refrain from insulting me or anyone else. I also ask that you keep posts on topic.

Thank you.

Ok, post on topic, this whole topic would best be discussed on "Popular Mechanics" or at an Apple Genius Bar rather than on a website about ghosts & the supernatural. Seeing that everyone who disagrees with you is either wrong or insulting you.

Well what defines an artificial intelligence? Does it necessarily have to be some sort of computer with transistors and micro-chips, or could it be something more organic?

So it is quite plausible for some mad scientist out there to create a computer say out of actual human brain tissue?

So if someone did accomplish this, the resultin' "intelligence" could possibly suffer from the same psychological and emotional problems as anyone else, or even worse because it wouldn't have the morality issues we do. Man that is a crazy scary thought.

That's a comfortin' notion he said sarcastically. Crap, what if it could possess psychic ability on top of all that?

Lets just hope it never does.

Alright so Athena, I do apologize for my earlier for my less than gentlemanly attitude earlier. At times I can be worse than a goat or so I've been told. So with that aside, what is your take on this subject. You seem to be of the technological mindset.

Holister,

Apology accepted.

I am troubled by the possible threat to humanity and would like to prevent it if possible.

This article doesn't address the issue of a single hostile artificial intelligence. Instead it addresses military drones that have enough artificial intelligence to make decisions about killing or not killing humans. All without human intervention.

One or more hostile artificial intelligences working in concert and with access to drones with even limited artificial intelligence would be a difficult threat to deal with.

A young Koga once told me - "In order to strike you an enemy must be able to see you, and tell you apart from his friends."

Airborne drones can be avoided by going here they cannot. It wouldn't be the first time a force gave up the glory of Amaterasu and chose to live underground, nor would it be the first time a combat force avoided a superior foe by blending in to the general population.

Lone scouts, especially ones outside the general's observation area have an unnerving propensity for fatal mis-adventure

Also, unlike humanity, a machine's limits ARE set in stone at the moment of it's construction. Which means, that unlike a man a machine's strength is knowable.

A multi part poison with an ingredient hidden in each course can slip by many poison tasters - especially when the delivery is staggered over time.

Also, you can look to disease to help - my computer has fallen victim to sickness more than once.

And coffee. Can't forget the coffee.

Shang Li,

While flying drones get the most press, they are not the only ones in the current military arsenal. There also thousands of ground drones as well, many of which are armed.

Boston Dynamics is developing a humanoid robot that will eventually be able to go anywhere a person could and some places a person could not. So there is no going where the drones cannot.

Blending into the population only helps if the population is not being exterminated.

Machines can be upgraded after construction, if their construction allows for it. Sometimes even if it wasn't. There is a large 'after market' market for cars. Also, new models can implement design changes from lessons learned from previous experience.

There are limits to what a person can accomplish. That is why people invented machines, to overcome those limitations.

Computer viruses may be a viable strategy, but not one to be taken for granted. Looking at the current situation, computer viruses tend to be ahead of the defenses against them. This is because the defenses are always reactionary. So an artificial intelligence commanding an army of drones will want to have a means to defend against such attacks.

I have encountered and killed a number of aliens in my time. They have brought AIs with them but they never brought AIs they were not in absolute control of. In conversations with people who channel alien civilisations they often speak about the solutions to a civilisation's problems coming from within.

There is nothing that can be said definitely from any of this but it is my personal opinion that people advanced enough to be a spacefaring civilisation in ways we can only dream about have come to the conclusion that AIs ought to be limited; that is to say, limited AIs are better than unlimited AIs.

If that's true, that is not to say things will degrade and we will not shoot ourselves in our foot our cut our nose off to spite our face but it should be survivable failure.

AI researchers simply cannot tell us what the singularity means only what it is. There is still no concepts of the meaning particularly when it comes to wisdom and social behaviours - to say nothing of strategy and tactics. Given the unknowns and as a military commander, it's difficult to imagine ever wanting to leave the decision to kill somebody to a drone.

Koyla,

There seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea of autonomous drones. Only time will show which side will win out.

Sadly (perhaps) military research is generally at the front of a lot of innovations that find civilian uses.

Personally speaking I'm not against autonomous drones. I'm against an algorithm making the decision to kill. There are lawful, fratricidal, and other considerations that so far the AI researchers can only barely speculate about.