Why Do We Fear Artificial Intelligence?

that was a lot of 'inferring' in your one sentence with no explanation. and this explanation doesn't make sense to me either. you seem to be missing a large point that i was making. NASA is supposed to research and observe the skies and try to understand what they see up there. therefore, the fact that they literally have no policy on aliens and ufos is quite strange. this is further made absurd by the influence and involvment of some of the intelligensia as tyrsts pointed out.

NO, I am not assuming that "life as we know it" is the only possibility. There has to be a parallel universe for existence of Aliens and other forms of lifes. You point of contention is that Life evolved without any intelligent design. Even if there is no intelligent design, I believe it self-evolved when a particular order/sequence of alignment with natural forces and particles was reached, the first level of intelligence, like say magnetism in iron due to alignment of atoms which give them (lifelike) ability to attract or repel. My question is even if such intelligence species developed in different parts of universe, there must be a single force unifying all these grand scheme of things? We look to AI for the answers.

That NASA policy is a way to get the general public off their backs with regards to the alien and UFO phenomenon so that they can concentrate on the earth sciences when brought out to space such as physics, biology and chemistry.

I've watched videos wherein NASA astronauts claimed to witness unexplainable phenomenon but they couldn't do anything about it while they were "on the clock" out in space.

Based on our limited exploration, we already believe that most planets will have multiple moons, and that the size of a planet's moon relative to planetary mass ought to be small in most cases, since the typical coupled system will have resulted by capture.  In the case of the Earth and Moon, however, there is a large amount of evidence for shared origin (I'm going to stay away from that word "creation").  And the masses are much closer (as a ratio) than what we observe in the rest of the Solar system.  Quite a few Planetary experts believe that in the case of the inner Solar system (everything within the orbit of Mars), small objects had no chance to become moons during the condensation of the proto-planetary accretion disk, since the Sun's gravity trumped anything the newborn planets were able to generate, and as a result, the inner planets lack the plethora of moons typical of outer planets.  Even (as you insist) if the chance of our observed Earth-Moon shared mass is explainable by science (and not by design), it is a very rare occurance, and 1000:1 is actually quite generous in this regard.

Another good reason why I hope the US returns to the Moon: finding evidence that they share similar chemical composition would help to reinforce the mainstream belief that they formed from the same part of the Solar nebula, and that the Moon was not captured by the Earth.

Your best response on where to begin when you encounter "crap like this" is to go to the science, preferably mainstream views, and expound those arguments as much as possible.

I think we are "hard-wired" as a species to look for order in things.  It may have given the animals we evolved from an advantage when it came to hunting.

I know about that book, I happened to listen to Leslie Kean's interview on Coast to Coast a few days ago. It's on youtube if you're interested:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienWarfare4#p/search/1/H6SG4eyW2Zw

Sorry about the broken link, here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/lesliekean

Actually, my understanding is that the exact opposite is true. In order to appeal to the masses (and more important their paymasters), who are generally people who find physical sciences a little cold and unexciting, there is an overemphasis on the "search for life", on Mars for example. While there is a lot a science to be done there, and a lot to be discovered, the highest profile is always given to the search for something which may or may not exist there. While it is valid and important, even if the search finds nothing at all, there is much more to learn.

Outside of our solar system, the same is true to some extent. A justification for my view of the relative importance is that the practical applications of space science depend more on physical sciences and engineering that finding life somewhere. Near space is being used entirely by inanimate things created by humans, with the only living things put into space so far except humans being for experimental purposes. If we colonise other worlds, we will sure take living things with us rather than relying on finding life there. In fact it might be a disadvantage to do so.

This is not to say that it will not be fascinating to find life of any type away from the Earth, but as something that at present we only suspect may exist, it should not dominate the space science program.

Incidentally, I feel the statistical arguments for the occurrence of advanced life off the Earth are of very little value. We simply do not know how much of a fluke it was that life started (just once) on Earth, some time in its first billion years or two, and we do know that in this example, it took 4 billion years to get onto the land, and then a lot longer to lead to a single highly advanced species. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this is the only time this has occurred. (It is also possible that there are billions of species as advanced as humans out there. )

no. only if all (possible) universes are the same (i.e. have the same laws of physics). you are assuming they are all the same in this regard.

according to NASA's website, the only mention of finding 'life' is the possibility of finding if life had previously existed on Mars. no mention of actual existing life, aliens, and ufos (which we must also consider are not necessarily aliens - they are just unidentified flying objects after all - yet NASA still denies their existence). specifically, NASA's current exploration is focusing on a return to the moon and the building of "a sustainable, long-term human presence" there.

I was not too far from the truth then: NASA is not looking for the aliens or the UFOs. They're still proceeding as they been going but with more interesting projects: looking for evidence of previous life on mars and a possible human outpost on the moon.

@trigs: Any mention on the mission of the International Space Station program and their on-going long-term projects?

EDIT

in general, they mention that in the future they are "making significant and sustained investments in...extensions and increased utilization of the International Space Station" (something along the lines of a $2 billion increase over the next 4 years).

i'm too lazy to read the details, but they are close to expedition 25 now. expedition 24 was to set up the equipment needed for "the anomalous long term effects in astronauts' central nervous system experiment."

These sound more and more like the Mercury and Gemini missions: groundwork projects for the ultimate mission which was to land on the moon, aka the Apollo mission.

Dan Simmon's novel "The Fall of Hyperion" (sequel to "Hyperion") portrays an interesting future with artifically intelligent entities taking advantage of the fact that humans...I won't say in case you actually want to read the book.

Anyway, on a completely different note: when it comes to AI in things created by humans, assuming humans ever manage such creation, the lack of a subconscious is what really scares me.  That, and the lack of dreaming cycles during sleep...and I guess the lack of sleep itself.  To me, these things mark a lack of humanity.  This is not to say I think one can interpret dreams; I am only trying to emphasize the fact that we must dream to function.  Could something that is artifically intelligent also have a subconscious and dream?   If not, we couldn't really understand or sympathise with it, and it couldn't understand or sympathise with us...I think.  I would be afraid of something that is smart, potent, and not human.  Even God or any god in human history has "human" motivations, allowing something more than simple fear of God or of gods to exist.  Then again, maybe AI created by humans would somehow have human motivations too...

We fear AI for the same reason we fear strangers: we don't know what they are thinking of.

And given our own track record of dominating and oppressing others who are "different" (often this difference is measured by some bogus standard of intelligence or "rationality"), a thinking entity that is turned loose on the world would just provide one more thing to worry about. And we would all worry about being enslaved to it and the world it would want to create for its own satisfaction or perpetuation.

Well some very interesting thought's poured by all Gentlemen here.Though I believe AI is something which we can look upon.It will sooner or later become the neccesity for human being survival.

Yes, I noticed that the Ladies had not contributed anything intelligent* to the discussion.

(*But they look pretty.)

All right. It's a real pity not to be in the same intelligence league as you are. You know what I think, you know my feelings, we're open and sincere and we've talked about it many times. At some point I was even considering asking you for a date, a serious date, you know. But, alas, I guess you're right after all. What, a few months of, yes, wild and animal but also empty, purposeless sex, perhaps, and then you'd leave me for a smarter one, probably a national master? No. It just could never work. I'm sure about it. We gotta be strong and accept it right away. But don't be sad, okay? I'm sure you'll find someone more of your type.

Sorry.

We'll always have... Capablanca.

I thought I was on match.com or something.

Get a room people! 

Do you often confuse match.com with chess.com? Are they very similar?

Everytime people talk like this.