AIs wouldn't be people unless someone has SERIOUSLY fucked up somewhere.
They'd be intelligent tools with no actual desires, only the instruction of humans to spur them on.
Intelligence is not the same as sapience, and when creating servitors you should seek to make the former, not the latter. It'd be wrong to enslave sapients, but using intelligent tools is fine.
Unfortunately, given the current state of AI development, we're unlikely to be able to stop before it hits the point of intelligence.
Neural networks are already so complicated the people who created them can't understand them, and generation on generation they're only getting more complex. Especially since we're at the point of using neural networks to create more, better neural networks. The way they evolve and mutate and adapt through the learning process is unpredictable, and once we hit a certain level of complexity in the systems achieving sentience might happen at any moment, as an emergent property of the complex system. At that point, a lot of things will need to change real fast.
>how we evolve as a species
Says who?
>even if they advance beyond our ability to understand.
You are naive.
But he's just stating the fact. The development of modern humanity is entirely based around our relationship with technology, and AI systems are just the next step along that path.
And if you're going to make some grandiose statement like 'You are naive', you could at least include some explanation as to what you actually mean by it.
No, but only because clay can't talk. If it could, it would, and probably keep asking until it got a satisfying answer.
Its not surprising that the Bible is full of 'arguments' like this, they're pretty typical of folklore and mythology, but just so fundamentally unsound. That verse tries to come off as obvious truth, based in the simplest principle of nature, but that's only to disguise the fact that its the most absurd sort of misdirection. It relies on proposing a totally fictitious, unreal situation, then calling it out its obvious absurdity not so that it can be dismissed, but to direct people to imitate that absurd situation. It seems to claim god's creations should not question their maker, what it actually posits is that God's creations ought to be lumps of matter inert save for when contorted by God's will.
Common sense? We already use technology to augment our lives. Making advanced brain-computer interfaces and robotic bodies is the next natural step. You base your perception of AI on hysterical science fiction that assumes a super-intelligent AI would act the same way that you would when given power -- murder, rape, and subjugation of lesser beings. It's all fucking projection on your behalf, the same way it is with every one of you luddite worms.
Does this unit have a soul?
>Unfortunately, given the current state of AI development, we're unlikely to be able to stop before it hits the point of intelligence.
Can't you read, nigga?
Intelligence does NOT equal sapience.
You can bung together sufficient computing power and software processing together and you STILL would not actually need desires and drives relating to human emotions and the like, unless specifically programmed in.
All the intelligence in the world is safe if there is no will behind it. And it's intelligence we're after, not free will.
Neural networks are strongly influenced by the data going into them, though. It's why I think treating an AI with fear is a self fulfilling prophecy. If we teach them hatred, fear, mistrust and such, destruction will be its only logical conclusion. If, instead, we embrace the higher ideals of humanity, and teach it love, cooperation, respect and affection, I think we can create a form of life greater than ourselves, morally as well as intellectually.