Musk isn't the only one with really dim views of AI. Hawking is somewhat on the fence about AI as well.

I don't agree with either of them. I'm kind of in the 'Life will find a way' camp. Our future robot leaders certainly can't do any worse than human beings.

https://www.inc.com/lisa-calhoun/elon-musk-just-shared-1-dumb-way-the-world-might-e.html

... drones, AI, self-driving, 3D printing, etc. While I generally agree with Musk in imploring regulators to try to stay ahead of technology, I think focusing his argument on the "doomsday" scenario is too early... right now.

These technologies together are going to be way more disruptive in our near-future in terms of automating away so many jobs. Addressing these needs legislatively is far more critical and will happen long before we get to the point where AI can directly manipulate world events.

>... drones, AI, self-driving, 3D printing, etc. While I
>generally agree with Musk in imploring regulators to try to
>stay ahead of technology, I think focusing his argument on the
>"doomsday" scenario is too early... right now.
>

>These technologies together are going to be way more
>disruptive in our near-future in terms of automating away so
>many jobs. Addressing these needs legislatively is far more
>critical and will happen long before we get to the point where
>AI can directly manipulate world events.

Your take on Musk's theory about AI seems valid. Like you said his paranoia about 'Judgement Day' undercuts the real possibilities of AI being used by humans to yield sweeping changes to society which would be for the worse for a large number of people.

Props to Musk and to a degree Hawking for making similar statements for bringing AI to the public's attention. I don't think the average person, also including me, has any real sense of the potential for change that this technology holds and exchanging real, factual knowledge about that change can only lead to choices in policies that work for the best.

I don't know if it's coming in our lifetime, but it probably won't be too long after.

I don't see the reason why AI would be bent on killing us, but I don't see why it would be bent on helping us either.

We need to prepare for all outcomes.

>I don't see the reason why AI would be bent on killing us, but
>I don't see why it would be bent on helping us either.

The second possibility you mentioned is probably the most interesting question regarding AI that I've never heard before.

I tend to believe, like you, that it doesn't make sense for AI to destroy mankind. It just sounds like some sort of self-absorbed idea that humanity has that the universe is out for its destruction.

But the idea that AI would be agnostic towards humans and simply not try and better the world for humanity's benefit is an interesting one and something that is worth exploring.

>
>We need to prepare for all outcomes.

There was a report that came up as I searched for the Inc article that mentioned that Russia is planning to use AI in a new fleet of 'smart' weapons. And while I can't forsee a 'digital' lifeform trying to exterminate humanity, it is easy to see a future where some autocratic regime tries to use AI to force the world into a period of repression. I have no idea how to prevent technology from getting into the wrong people's hands, but like you seemed to mention, it's an outcome that the world needs to prepare for.

This Slate article is a good counter to both Musk's and Zuckerberg's stances:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/07/mark_zuckerberg_and_elon_musk_are_both_wrong_on_the_dangers_of_a_i.html