2 December 2014
Last updated at 08:02 ET
By Rory Cellan-Jones
Technology correspondent

Prof Stephen Hawking, one of Britain's pre-eminent scientists, has said that efforts to create thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence.

He told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."

His warning came in response to a question about a revamp of the technology he uses to communicate, which involves a basic form of AI.

But others are less gloomy about AI's prospects.

The theoretical physicist, who has the motor neurone disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is using a new system developed by Intel to speak.

Machine learning experts from the British company Swiftkey were also involved in its creation. Their technology, already employed as a smartphone keyboard app, learns how the professor thinks and suggests the words he might want to use next.

Prof Hawking says the primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far have already proved very useful, but he fears the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.

"It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate," he said.

"Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete, and would be superseded."

But others are less pessimistic.

"I believe we will remain in charge of the technology for a decently long time and the potential of it to solve many of the world problems will be realised," said Rollo Carpenter, creator of Cleverbot.

Cleverbot's software learns from its past conversations, and has gained high scores in the Turing test, fooling a high proportion of people into believing they are talking to a human.

Rise of the robots

Mr Carpenter says we are a long way from having the computing power or developing the algorithms needed to achieve full artificial intelligence, but believes it will come in the next few decades.

"We cannot quite know what will happen if a machine exceeds our own intelligence, so we can't know if we'll be infinitely helped by it, or ignored by it and sidelined, or conceivably destroyed by it," he says.

But he is betting that AI is going to be a positive force.

Prof Hawking is not alone in fearing for the future.

In the short term, there are concerns that clever machines capable of undertaking tasks done by humans until now will swiftly destroy millions of jobs.

In the longer term, the technology entrepreneur Elon Musk has warned that AI is "our biggest existential threat".

Robotic voice

In his BBC interview, Prof Hawking also talks of the benefits and dangers of the internet.

He quotes the director of GCHQ's warning about the net becoming the command centre for terrorists: "More must be done by the internet companies to counter the threat, but the difficulty is to do this without sacrificing freedom and privacy."

He has, however, been an enthusiastic early adopter of all kinds of communication technologies and is looking forward to being able to write much faster with his new system.

But one aspect of his own tech - his computer generated voice - has not changed in the latest update.

Prof Hawking concedes that it's slightly robotic, but insists he didn't want a more natural voice.

"It has become my trademark, and I wouldn't change it for a more natural voice with a British accent," he said.

"I'm told that children who need a computer voice, want one like mine."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540#

I see Stephen Hawking as an extraordinary visionary, but I don't think AI will "replace" humans any time soon ~ and I repeat my comment from the Brain sensing headband thread: "Maybe it's just me ... but I'm a little uncomfortable with some of today's technology advances ~ there are just too many opportunities for misuse ~ "

Sooz

I think the point being made is that if AI reaches the point of independant "thought" we're totally screwed if it runs amok.

Agreed, oskar ~ we all know that technology is neither fail-proof nor fool-proof ~ if I had my druthers, I'd have the technology experts focused on creating protection from hackers rather than on the same-but-different "human thinking" ~

Sooz

I think the point being made is that if AI reaches the point of independant "thought" we're totally screwed if it runs amok.


But why would it?

Thought is one thing, motives are another, and drives are different again. And have I mentioned instincts?

Does the word "nuclear" ring a bell?

Not at all.

Why would it?

Nuclear energy was a good thing until the politicians/military got hold of it. As were gasoline (napalm), phosphorus, fertilizer, etc.
Same will happen to AI. You can count on it.

They already have.

It was the "independent thought" bit I was commenting on.

How would you prevent it? The same way hackers have been stopped in their tracks?

Stop what?

All I'm saying that even if you built a machine that was more intelligent than human beings that wouldn't be enough for it to "run amok" or do anything that it wasn't programmed to do in the first place.

Intelligence without motivations doesn't produce anything

For example, if you look at Sci Fi accounts of computers becoming intelligent - like "Terminator" - they typically assume that such machines would have the instinct to survive (for example). Why would they?

Computers are multiple times faster than humans.
If AI gets to the point of being able to think (and they will by somehow linking them to a human brain) we're in deep doodoo.

If they're much faster than humans, then in five years they'll all be senile. They'll wake up every day and not be able to find their bios or their boots. Won't remember where they filed their folders. They just won't have the drive they used to have. So we're gonna be ok.

I can't see why Oskar.

Just because we think (or some of us do) doesn't mean a machine that thinks would think anything like us.

It probably wouldn't be interested in Kim Kadashian's ass for a start.

But, come to think of it, nor am I .... maybe I'd better read Gramp's post again.

AI computers will be put to work by people to figure out better ways to further their own interests vs somebody else's interests, just like now. So everybody will get screwed over faster and better. That's the cynic's view.

But the folks who are interested in figuring a way to cure cancer just for the hell of it will use them to do that better and sooner.

I would worry that people, having artificial Intelligence at their beck and call, would get out of the habit of using their own. Knowing without the work of learning isn't necessarily a good thing.

Knowing?

Nah! you've got Wiki for that.