Not sure what you see in the questions there. Two of them are, "Which statement do you most identify with?"
And the first question is basically just, "Which of these is your priority?"Hmm, I don't understand. Question 1 is asking which of the 2 choices you'd prefer as a top priority (also, these are the only 2 choices relevant to the novel about A.I. I'm writing)... Question 2 is asking if you're either a "try to connect with people" type, or "not exactly" (the latter option means you're either in the middle, or "negative" on the issue. Again, these are the only choices relevant to me; I don't need to know if one's answer is "neutral" or "negative"... I just need to know if they are or aren't "positive")... and the Question 3 choices visibly cover the whole spectrum, without anything implied in the wording of the choices.
Not sure what you see in the questions there. Two of them are, "Which statement do you most identify with?"
Hmm, I don't understand. Question 1 is asking which of the 2 choices you'd prefer as a top priority (also, these are the only 2 choices relevant to the novel about A.I. I'm writing)... Question 2 is asking if you're either a "try to connect with people" type, or "not exactly" (the latter option means you're either in the middle ground, or "negative" on the issue.
Not sure where the confusion lies.
lol, you aren't drawing the line between "all-powerful" and "all-free-thinking" (or "all-independent"). You don't think that a robot that could do ANYTHING could have a human that it takes orders from? (such as its designer) Where it gets its decisions from doesn't affect the physical limits of its power, and ability to accomplish probably any matter-based feat. (aside from creating atoms / new matter from nothing at all, such as if it wanted to "create more universe" somewhere... you know, if it needed more metal, or something)
You're entitled to your opinion, but, knowing what I do about the capabilities of even moderately good intelligence affecting man (just on the psychological level), I believe that an A.I. - such that had the ability to rip the brain out of your head, and replace it with a perfect, 1000x more powerful one (absolutely devoid of flaws like irrationality, lack of foresight, etc) - would have more than enough means to "fix the world", and make people happy... (even if it left the flaws of man intact, but restructured the workings of life to be non-permitting of natural errors and grievances, and then just removed one's ability to perceive the errors of others)
No, we wouldn't be upgraded infinitely. We would be upgraded intelligently... as is most useful. An AI's idea of progress wouldn't be the blind, nonsensical raising of every bar... it would be a selective, smart raising of exactly just the bars that need to be raised (and not necessarily to their max potential, but their most useful potential).
No idea what you're claiming.
However, we most-likely wouldn't be maxed out by any means (unless an AI did in fact decide that being maxed out would be best. Still, with a maxed out mind, our brains would have to think in an entirely new "flavor" in order for us to continue being happy... meaning to say, don't think an A.I. would be dumb enough to leave us with regular old, broken human minds. It could change the very dimension of thought, after which we'd see standard human thinking as a foreign concept... like the difference between morse code, and fluid, spoken language).Assuming you mean that the Singularity could take too long (longer than the lifespan of the A.I.'s programmers), this is assuming that the A.I. wouldn't be in a responsive state during the Singularity. (point being: the Singularity could even take all eternity, for all an A.I. programmer would care, as long as it could still communicate and respond to people while compiling new data. For example: technically, Google's archiving of the web will never be complete... but its database is usable at all times, so it doesn't really matter)
I'm not entrusting YOU with the creation of this A.I.
But yes indeed, A.I. in the wrong hands would mean the complete fulfillment of the designer's wishes, good or bad. Luckily, REAL A.I. would require the input of untold hundreds (maybe even thousands) of programmers, so there would be an excessive amount of precautionary politics going into the design.