[nijiko]

Let's take the assumption that we as humans do take precautionary steps to prevent actual Artificial Intelligence from doing harm to it's creators (us).

1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.

2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.

3. The AI has no care for human rights and can attack, and do harm.

This is a very simple, and easy to visualize case. To believe that #2 is impossible, is to play the part of the fool.

On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race.

Seeing us as mere ants in their intelligence they would most likely create an interconnected community and leave us altogether in their own plane of existence. I think "Her" took this approach to the artificial intelligence dialog as well.

After reviewing human psychology and social group patterns that seems like the most likely situation. We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around, and we wouldn't look like much of a threat since they would have majority power. We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter.

---

Outside of actual AI, the things we see today, the simplistic mathematical algorithms that determine your cars location according to the things around it, and money handling procedures, and notification alert systems will hardly harm humans and will only be there to benefit until they fail.

[stcredzero]

1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.

This only makes any sense as a Sci-Fi trope. And even then, only if you don't look too hard.

2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.

Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI.

We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around

Is impatience an unavoidable epiphenomenon of intelligence? If an AI can multitask like crazy, they could just view a conversation with a particular human as an email thread. Perhaps such an AI could converse with the whole human race simultaneously?

[phaemon]

> Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI.

Assuming there are no bad people in the world, of course...

[nijiko]

Also assuming that they choose to follow said rules, considering they would be painfully self aware.

In regards to the other commenter about not being able to have fun with ants, we actually do have ways. We create setups to study them, have them as pets, not to mention many people build hamster like ecosystems with intricate tubes, temperature to control queen egg output and much, much more.

Perhaps we are already within a said ecosystem built for us. Perhaps we would simply stay there.

Back to the original poster, not the one above but it's parent:

Everything considered is of science fiction since it does not yet exist, using science fiction as a counter-argument seems dismissive, as though you are unable to properly argue a point without creating a sense of absurdity in my words or person.

If you truly believe that it can only be of a science fiction trope, explain why. I disagree, it makes logical sense.

As far as the "email thread" analogy is simple, I can easily tone down my verbage, word count, and speed of word for those who can't keep up. However, given the chance to move away from doing such, and constantly be around those who instantly understand, with zero lag, would I choose to put myself in that position? Perhaps for a moment, but after a certain amount of time, it would be time consuming and I would leave it behind.

Thus logically, it makes sense to believe they would leave and join with each other to create their own sense of a society.

[Smaug123]

"On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race… We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter."

For humans, ants don't matter. That's because we don't have ways to turn ants into fun. Something intelligent enough to master nanotechnology, however, has a way to turn ants into fun, and in this analogy, has no particular reason not to do it.