[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
The global economy and planetary ecology will continue to become more complex and will reach a point where humans simply aren’t able to properly administer it. At some point well before that, AI will be developed that will be better at parts of the administration than humans. We’ll start to lean on it more and more, always keeping a human in the loop, of course, because we don’t trust the machine.
But someday that person in the loop will contradict the machine, and many people will die. And the next person will be that much less willing to pull the plug. And at some point, pulling the plug will be like pulling the plug to a global pacemaker. Without the AI making the calls, the system just falls apart.
[/QUOTE]
I am reminded of a slogan from the beginnings of the environmentalist movement in the 1970s: “The engineer is the master of technology only in the sense that the fish is master of the water.”
Not quite, for example the stock market crash of the 80’s was attributed to computers that were found to be more accurate than humans, problem was humans did not take into account that other machines would react the same and then we got black Monday. Because the crash was found to be a technical issue and not an economical one, panic was avoided. A repeat to that has been prevented thanks to automatic triggers. (I have to insist here that there is no good reason given so far that this would be impossible to apply in future AIs)
As long as I don’t see a specific OSs or AIs of the future becoming a monopoly, I will think the Una Bomber was Bananas.
Sorry, stuck in Nanowrimo mode, no care for rules and spelling here.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
What I really want now is to stop dreaming of those darn electric sheep.
[/QUOTE]
You could always dream up a replicant to shove them off of your ledge every time they tried to jump the fence…
[for this joke, you have to have read the actual book]