AI could solve all our unanswered questions. Why don't we work harder to create?

[Jumba]

I was reading up on string theory when it dawned on me. The sci-fi film a Chappie illustrates my question pretty well. In the film (for those who have not seen it) Chappie a robot with real artificial intelligence creates a way of turning consciousness into computer code, so humans can live forever.

This leads me to my question, why don't humans as collective pour all of our funding and resources into developing AI, to an adult level rather than the embryonic phase that's it's in order to just solve all of the questions. Surely AI at this level would solve all of our problems, questions etc way quicker than humans ever could. It could probably come up with a viable theory of everything based on all the current research done so far. This just makes perfect sense to me. Someone tell Elon musk and bill gates to pump they billions into the research of AI.

[Kyungrae]

They have to find people dumb enough to fund this.

[InCognito]

The human race won't fund something that is superior to them.

[Ice Cube]

The government wouldn't let people fund into something that would destroy their corruption

[Loot.]

Pretty weird .-.

[Sinister]

Maybe people dont want the answers to every question.

[[MPGH]Mayion]

This just makes perfect sense to me

Any fictional theory will.

It's not beneficial as you may think to create a super-magical AI system to answer all of our questions.
Not only are you going to waste resources, time and power to make such a thing when we could just benefit from them like usual, but you will also end up with well, just theoretical answers; nothing but an open field for philosophy to debate on with no real meaning behind really.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Classical computers won't be able to do such complex calculations in anywhere near the near future. We need quantum computers, and then we need such a surplus of computing power that it can research every possible avenue of thought, that the surplus computing power almost appears as infinite to us as of now (in classical computing terms). Programming such a thing would be quite a complex task, and would take need to take place incrementally.

I remember reading about the timeline for AI (something similar to this):

2010s: First step is basic AI which we have now
2020s: We'll have AI that can make our lives easier (and putting people out of jobs)
2030s: Then around we'll have AI smarter than the average human
2040s: After we'll have AI that can perform calculations in such a manner that leads to discoveries and breakthroughs
2050s-2070s: We'll reach the pinnacle of AI that we have envisioned so far in which it's all encompassing in our lives

The time scale is probably off, but it's easier to envision as decades. More money poured into AI and Quantum technology obviously accelerates the timeframe.

[Raple]

A form of consciousness that would be superior to our own would eventually realize that fact and turn on us.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Instead of giving all these philosophical (and somewhat pretentious sounding) "humans would never build something better than them" kind of answers, I would rather give something more constructive to real life.

Most businesses haven't found the TANGIBLE PROOF needed to route all their resources to developing AI. The economic benefits of AI in the future is very theoretical, not practical, not TANGIBLE yet. This deters most businesses from putting HUGE investments in AI.

Significant changes thanks to AI will happen decades from now. Investing in AI now includes a lot of unknown variables thanks to that such as "what is the limit to AI through digital technology?" or "when will an adult brain be possible?" or "does AI that can be as smart as humans HAVE to have flaws like humans like memory loss?" (as I just said) which makes the sales pitch of AI be a bit rather difficult to digest.

So rather than invest in something with many uncertainties on how much money can be made and an investment that will come WAAY down the line in the future, most businesses would rather focus most of their attention to profits for the present. Their objective is the bottom line, money to their shareholders, and it is the safer and more immediately beneficial to invest in short term than long term. So logically few companies would play the long game with money on the line.

Keep in mind that this is a capitalist country with independent companies who have their own objectives (most is to make money to provide for themselves and provide for others with their product/service [although the second objective isn't mandatory for a company that wants a future for themselves]) so you can't just put some socialism and sacrifice someone's dreams to fix the engineering of headphones to make sure they never break so you can go on your money-less crusade for whatever the fuck.

So before you say "if only companies didn't think of money all the time" think about how you would want to hit it big, provide for your family, get wealth to help others, and help others with the ingenuity of your product/service. Nobody who doesn't "think of money all the time" won't achieve this in the business world (Of course not ALL businesses are helpful and think about their families. Some can be corrupt, like people, and chose the scummy way and try to practically rob you. Just look at fast food, scammers, and funeral homes. They suck the money out of you. It may be to provide for themselves, but you know they are just greedy bitches).

Just look at electronic cars. They weren't mainstream up until now when companies can SEE the evidence and convince themselves that there is TANGIBLE proof. This allows the members of a company to convince everyone else in the company that electronic cars ABSOLUTELY ARE the way to defeat their competitors and get money in the next years.

Of course there are some companies who do see the potential profits in the future long before it becomes mainstream and who focus on making a piece of technology a reality. They are innovative. These companies get the biggest slice of the market share thanks to this. Think of companies like Apple or Intel who research and learn, founding significant technological inventions and who practically own the market they are in.

This leaves government, scientists, and technology researchers to be the ones working towards the future for most "down the line" inventions without the innovator's help and with most companies in their respective industries joining when they see TANGIBLE results (which are thanks to the governments, scientists, and technology researchers).

The reason why those people are the ones left is because they aren't like businesses who's PRIMARY goal is the bottom line aka money to their shareholders who logically see the short term option as the better option for them (as I said before).

Government's primary goal is to satisfy their people to let the people in charge get re-elected and as a result gain power and maintain it. Sometimes this means that governments will act in the long term or in the short term (if you aren't getting re-elected beyond 8 years, you probably won't look into something 20 years later), depending on the politicians involved. So the government can be reliable or unreliable to your cause, nothing certain.

Scientists and researcher's primary goal is to a) Get their money and b) do what they love.

Goal a) results in them being at the whims of whoever hires them, government or company. If they are allowed the freedom to research in whatever, however they like without any specific deadline, they have an easy time to discovering things because they can experiment freely, sometimes discovering something BIG like the discovery of Silicon Chips. If they NEED to make specific deadlines then they may flib. Thankfully the Scientific Method is aimed at getting the TRUTH, which makes sure scientists can't flib, so, through "social evolution" of sorts, the better scientists gradually trump all others.

Goal b) makes them more of a wildcard than governments and businesses in the patterns they show. Some may work against those who hire them out of principle, which makes them unpredictable, regardless of whether or not they are doing the right thing. This ties into what I said with the Scientific Method with them having an interest in getting the truth which is better than being caught flibbing in an attempt to make money.

- - - Updated - - -

TL;DR:

Businesses work towards getting money (which may provide for themselves, for family and friends, and to their future projects to help others [or just to get as much money as possible]) so they would rather go for the safer choice which is the short term option over the long term option. Doing so secures and maximizes their profits. AI is the long term option.

Government supposedly is supposed to be the long term guy. This is dependent on politicians getting re-elected and securing their power as well as gaining power. So it is kind of like how businesses try to get money for themselves and their shareholders except replace money with provincial power and make it long term. Of course, "long-term" may just mean 8 years max so politicians may avoid things going on 20 years.

Scientists want money and science. Their need to get research that gets them money and their need to get truthful info due to the Scientific Method clashes against one another. If they aren't truthful then they may get scrutinized and caught, removing their rights as a scientist but if they don't get what they're hired to find they may not get money. So it is kind of like how businesses try to get money for themselves and their shareholders except replace money with not getting their rights as a scientist removed.

[Trol553]

I think we are afraid of AIs itself ?

[Zek]

Because AI could be a threat to the human race.

[Jumba]

Instead of giving all these philosophical (and somewhat pretentious sounding) "humans would never build something better than them" kind of answers, I would rather give something more constructive to real life.

Most businesses haven't found the TANGIBLE PROOF needed to route all their resources to developing AI. The economic benefits of AI in the future is very theoretical, not practical, not TANGIBLE yet. This deters most businesses from putting HUGE investments in AI.

Significant changes thanks to AI will happen decades from now. Investing in AI now includes a lot of unknown variables thanks to that such as "what is the limit to AI through digital technology?" or "when will an adult brain be possible?" or "does AI that can be as smart as humans HAVE to have flaws like humans like memory loss?" (as I just said) which makes the sales pitch of AI be a bit rather difficult to digest.

So rather than invest in something with many uncertainties on how much money can be made and an investment that will come WAAY down the line in the future, most businesses would rather focus most of their attention to profits for the present. Their objective is the bottom line, money to their shareholders, and it is the safer and more immediately beneficial to invest in short term than long term. So logically few companies would play the long game with money on the line.

Keep in mind that this is a capitalist country with independent companies who have their own objectives (most is to make money to provide for themselves and provide for others with their product/service [although the second objective isn't mandatory for a company that wants a future for themselves]) so you can't just put some socialism and sacrifice someone's dreams to fix the engineering of headphones to make sure they never break so you can go on your money-less crusade for whatever the fuck.

So before you say "if only companies didn't think of money all the time" think about how you would want to hit it big, provide for your family, get wealth to help others, and help others with the ingenuity of your product/service. Nobody who doesn't "think of money all the time" won't achieve this in the business world (Of course not ALL businesses are helpful and think about their families. Some can be corrupt, like people, and chose the scummy way and try to practically rob you. Just look at fast food, scammers, and funeral homes. They suck the money out of you. It may be to provide for themselves, but you know they are just greedy bitches).

Just look at electronic cars. They weren't mainstream up until now when companies can SEE the evidence and convince themselves that there is TANGIBLE proof. This allows the members of a company to convince everyone else in the company that electronic cars ABSOLUTELY ARE the way to defeat their competitors and get money in the next years.

Of course there are some companies who do see the potential profits in the future long before it becomes mainstream and who focus on making a piece of technology a reality. They are innovative. These companies get the biggest slice of the market share thanks to this. Think of companies like Apple or Intel who research and learn, founding significant technological inventions and who practically own the market they are in.

This leaves government, scientists, and technology researchers to be the ones working towards the future for most "down the line" inventions without the innovator's help and with most companies in their respective industries joining when they see TANGIBLE results (which are thanks to the governments, scientists, and technology researchers).

The reason why those people are the ones left is because they aren't like businesses who's PRIMARY goal is the bottom line aka money to their shareholders who logically see the short term option as the better option for them (as I said before).

Government's primary goal is to satisfy their people to let the people in charge get re-elected and as a result gain power and maintain it. Sometimes this means that governments will act in the long term or in the short term (if you aren't getting re-elected beyond 8 years, you probably won't look into something 20 years later), depending on the politicians involved. So the government can be reliable or unreliable to your cause, nothing certain.

Scientists and researcher's primary goal is to a) Get their money and b) do what they love.

Goal a) results in them being at the whims of whoever hires them, government or company. If they are allowed the freedom to research in whatever, however they like without any specific deadline, they have an easy time to discovering things because they can experiment freely, sometimes discovering something BIG like the discovery of Silicon Chips. If they NEED to make specific deadlines then they may flib. Thankfully the Scientific Method is aimed at getting the TRUTH, which makes sure scientists can't flib, so, through "social evolution" of sorts, the better scientists gradually trump all others.

Goal b) makes them more of a wildcard than governments and businesses in the patterns they show. Some may work against those who hire them out of principle, which makes them unpredictable, regardless of whether or not they are doing the right thing. This ties into what I said with the Scientific Method with them having an interest in getting the truth which is better than being caught flibbing in an attempt to make money.

- - - Updated - - -

TL;DR:

Businesses work towards getting money (which may provide for themselves, for family and friends, and to their future projects to help others [or just to get as much money as possible]) so they would rather go for the safer choice which is the short term option over the long term option. Doing so secures and maximizes their profits. AI is the long term option.

Government supposedly is supposed to be the long term guy. This is dependent on politicians getting re-elected and securing their power as well as gaining power. So it is kind of like how businesses try to get money for themselves and their shareholders except replace money with provincial power and make it long term. Of course, "long-term" may just mean 8 years max so politicians may avoid things going on 20 years.

Scientists want money and science. Their need to get research that gets them money and their need to get truthful info due to the Scientific Method clashes against one another. If they aren't truthful then they may get scrutinized and caught, removing their rights as a scientist but if they don't get what they're hired to find they may not get money. So it is kind of like how businesses try to get money for themselves and their shareholders except replace money with not getting their rights as a scientist removed.

Got to give this answer the gold medal. Great response thank you.

Overall, whatever technology we work to create AI or automatic cookers, that help (sorry to be stereotypical) americans get fatter. I am starting to prefer the ideologies behind markism, and communism (not so much communism). I'd much happily exist in a giant world state, that set targets for groups of people within society to work on, and solve. I get not everyone loves science, I get not everyone loves technology. There is a place for everyones creativity for sure! What I hate is that religion, greed and power complexes are the reason that soceity is 100s if not 1000s behind its time. If we could surpass the inward mindsets that lead to war, corruption and chaos, we would be a much richer civiliasation. AI will definetly have its place in soceity, and I hope we achieve true AI in my lifetime.

[[MPGH]Dave84311]

haha I'm working on AI

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

haha I'm working on AI

Is @arunforce your AI program?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd much happily exist in a giant world state, that set targets for groups of people within society to work on, and solve.

That is an idea that many would disagree with.

In such a state would people be free to chose what they want to pursue?

Say, someone wanted to make a living as an entrepreneur with their own product/service in their head like "the swiss army knife of the kitchen which can do all the jobs of any tool in the kitchen" and wanted to start a business selling that product. It would make the lives of others around him easier and with that money fund further research into developing more products from his company. Could he do that?

In our society, yes they absolutely could. Although, it is up to them if they succeed or not.

In any communist state, they could not. They would probably have to apply to make their "career" decided by the government something in engineering. After that he would be at the whims of whatever quota (or as you put it "targets") he was told to achieve.

If this state maybe had an neighboring country it was at war with then this person's skills would go towards making weapons to kill, not pursuing his dreams.

If he was tasked to engineer this AI then he would build it, regardless of whether or not it interested him. If he wasn't interested in building AI then he may do a half-assed job (it is not like he has any incentive to do good). If he was interested in AI then hey, he found his life's calling, good for him.

Or maybe there is the off chance that the government he works for realizes that there might be people like him so they send him to work on products for the people, and that is where he makes his "swiss army knife for the kitchen".

As you can see in the communist dream, there are multiple possibilities, all due to the people being at the whims of their government. In all these scenarios, the choices of the government decides whether this person can pursue something he likes or be forced to do something he has no interest in or regrets doing, all options irrelevant to the actions of the person.

Whereas in a capitalist dream, it is all up to him and his ability to make what he decides to do a reality. We aren't purely capitalist because of course, this scenario isn't complex enough for real life so there are more socialist elements of the economy that are there to hopefully make the process of pursuing your dreams easier as well as reduce the corrupt elements in a purely capitalist market. While doing so, it still aims to maintain a free market for the most part where people can pursue their dreams and compete against others in that field to make the lives of the consumer the easiest in the most efficient way.

Let me reiterate that it ain't a completely perfect process as you see with the day-to-day failings like tax evasion, corruption, scummy business practices, loopholes in the law that happens and has happened in capitalism. However, in the BIG picture, capitalism is better suited to allow the individual control over their own destiny while communism puts people at the whims of the state which could be a gamble to do either good or bad.

Hope i make sense

- - - Updated - - -

BTW if it is TL;DR for anyone, just read last paragraph.