Kate Riley wrote:
>Therefore, if the AI decided that the human species should be >obliterated,
>I would be justified in calling it a bad judgement call >and taking arms
>against it.
Perhaps the decision to destroy humanity might be a good judgement call from the A.I. perspective! From the human perspective it would be seen as bad judgement! The A.I. may feel extermination is the best course of action so that with humanity out of the way it can develop it's potential without any restraining.
Whether it has been given access or hacked acess to weapons systems such as nukes and especially nanotech will determine whether it has a good chance of taking humanity out.
I'm not giving up in a fight like this! My friends and I will load up our hunting rifles and do battle. I fully expect to get off at least one shot before the killer goo shreds me or the nuke goes off overhead! It's the thought that counts. :)
Imagine a scenario where humanity dukes it out with a reneagade A.I. that has gained access to some weapons of mass destruction and does a failed "Pearl Harbor" on us only to be destroyed by the retaliation. Imagine the setback for civilization technologically and culturally if this happened. Social prejudice could make A.I. r&d nearly impossible after that which would set back technological progress. The cybernetic equivalent of Dune's "mentat" might be developed to replace the need for A.I. in our society. People on the list have already discussed how uploading could be a means of offsetting the power of A.I. among us.
best regards,
John Grigg