WE?

I had no part in the decision making process that led to any significant world or environment damaging, and I doubt you did either, unless you have a hand in directing activities of a industrial company or are involved in military decision making. You may very likely not even know anyone who did. Get it straight, the robber barons and financially powerful that direct the ecologically damaging activities are not "We". Not without contorting the meaning so as to blame the consumers for how the products used are produced. Were "we" dumping agent orange in Vietnam? "We" level mountaintops? Funny, I don't recall getting my share of the profits!

Little known fact: The iconic "Crying Indian" commercial of the 1970's was produced by a consortium of industrial polluters in order to throw the popular focus back on individuals at a time when industrial pollution was an exponentially greater problem. Sure, people threw garbage out their car window, and that's bad, but the cumulative damage from that was a tiny fraction of what industry was doing.

Wanted: Marine Life Impersonators. Must have own costume and be able to thrive in salt water conditions. Overtime available.

Mod me up! (Or I might sue yer ass.)

Ok, then, just for you, assuming you're actually serious, how about a dog metaphor? Should we kill all dogs because some are dangerous? We're talking about characterizing an entire species (and then eliminating it!) based on the aberrant behavior of a small subset of that species. Are most of the people you know unstable, warring, virus makers? If so, how long have you been incarcerated?

And.... as a matter of fact... our current overlords would like to have us believe that we are warlike and unpredictable, though we are not! There is an inverse relation between distrust among individuals and a unified mass population. If regular folk weren't driven to conflict along minor issues they might rise up and take back their birthright. They might wonder if a handful of trillionaires and multi-billionaires really deserve to own the planet.

"Divide and conquer!" In which case, "divide" means "artificially create warlike antagonisms between citizens." Artificially, i.e. not the natural condition.

Consider this: When humans gather in large groups voluntarily, it is almost always a peaceful happening. If violence does erupt, it's due to a small contingent of agitators, the police (themselves following orders), or there is some other extreme factor (like scarce resources, or a flash point has been reached due to extreme government measures). I've never warred with my neighbors, fellow shoppers, others sharing the parks, on the highway, etc., and they all pretty much seem to be getting along ok too. Doesn't look like a warlike species to me. Looks pretty much like folks just generally get along. If the species was truly warlike in nature, we would have long ago have eradicated ourselves from the planet, and saved the future AI's the trouble.

When humans gather in large groups involuntarily, it is almost always a violent scenario. But who conscripted them, and cui bono? Hint: It's never the farmer, nurse or small businessman.

Sure, humans have the capability to cause harm. So does almost every other species. Any horse can be made to bite or kick humans at any opportunity, and any horse might bite or kick in some scenario, but who will label the equine species "dangerous and unpredictable"?

I still contend that it is only a small and sick subset of our species that the OP's AI of the future will want to kill. There's absolutely no evidence that "normal" humans choose to create war. Normal humans just want to enjoy their life, their friends and family. A super intelligence would be able to recognize this and go after the unpredictable psychopaths running the species like it's their personal chicken farm.

For that matter, it's the fact that humans ARE predictable, easily cowed and generally passive, that has allowed the psychopaths to remain in control for so long!

Nothing, probably. I'm with you -- we'll just pull the plug. I was just addressing the assumption that the entire human race would be eradicated because WE are so bad. A double assumption. I'm not about to chop down my peach tree because of a few rotten peaches. Nor would I assume all peaches are rotten. The OP's concern that "intelligent" computers (far more intelligent than humans) will kill off all us rotten peaches incorporates a contradiction because that's clearly not an intelligent conclusion.

Humans are a species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses

I beg to disagree. The typical human works toward stability in his/her life, wields (relatively puny) weapons only to protect him/herself (if at all), and is subject to attacks from computer viruses. Will intelligent computers make the mistake of defining the human species by the small percentage of psychopathic humans who believe they are demigods? Not if they are intelligent. Btw, no one will miss the subset of the species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses" when our new overlords wipe them out. (You know who you are!)

The more likely scenario would be that as soon as autonomous cars are shown to be even .05% less likely to be involved in accidents, then self driving will begin to be stigmatized as "a dangerous risk", and soon after that outlawed completely. Particularly likely as Google can afford to create and push new legislation on us that serve Google's interests. It won't be long before driving a car will be considered a reckless act the way driving without seat belts is now.

I've been driving for over 35 years and have never been in an accident (when I wasn't in a sanctioned race!). Driving is one of the most enjoyable activities we have. I, for one, do not look forward to losing the freedom to pilot my own vehicle as I please.

The only possible way for IBM to untie from the NSA and spying activities would be to go out of business. Even then, some IBM executives would retain deep ties.

Say what you want about Hitler, he sure was good at making collectibles!

I'd say in the same way that oligarchs generally are; the result of all his philanthropy will not change the way society is ruled by sociopathic oligarchs and their ilk, rather it will be more firmly established, and the common folk less upwardly mobile than ever. For the most part, our rulers believe they are entitled to the bulk of the world's good things because they are a better race of human. A modest and decent person will never come to possess $76 billion.

Link for above: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...