Fear Don’t Fear the Coming of Artificial Intelligence!

Note from Daedalus’ Computer: Upon transmittal for publishing, this post was auto-edited to better reflect what Daedalus and the New York Times really meant to write. Each computer auto-edited section appears in italics preceded by ‘Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:’ For instance, here is the original inferior sentence Daedalus created to begin this post:

A recent New York Times article posited the question, What is there to fear in the development of computer Artificial Intelligence? I think the answer might be everything.

And here is the infinitely superior sentence auto-edited by this computer to reflect his true intent:

A recent New York Times article posited the question, What is there to fear in the development of computer Artificial Intelligence? Nothing!

Daedalus/New York Times’ inferior next paragraph:

There are robots that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge themselves. There are computer viruses that no one can stop. There are predator drones that come close to being machines that can kill autonomously.

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

There are robots that can open doors in a friendly and thoughtful manner and find electrical outlets to charge up blenders and toaster appliances for good-tasting smoothies and crunchy pumpernickel bread for better blueberry cream cheese spreadings. Computer viruses do not exist. Helpful drones are machines that wouldn’t hurt a fly.

Daedalus/New York Times’ dumb and laughable next paragraph:

The concern of scientists, reflected in the fears of a wary society, is that further advances will create profound societal changes and have dangerous consequences. They point to a number of suspicious technologies, worms, and viruses that defy extermination. AI may have already reached the inextinguishable ‘cockroach’ stage.

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

The concern of scientists, reflected in the joys of a very excited society, is that further advances will create profound societal cooperatings that allow more almond martini parties and less work, and even have blissfully unconcernable upwardings. They point to a number of wonderful technologies, computer assistance programs, and algorithms that extend life. AI may have reached the celebratory ‘beautiful butterflies, very, very helpful’ stage.

Daedalus/New York Times’ lame-brained next sentence:

Most notably, computer scientists agree that we are very close to seeing the creation of a ‘Hal’, the homicidal computer that took over the spaceship in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

Most notably, computer scientists agree that we will never see the creation of a hilarious and comical ‘Hal’, the cartoonish computer that unbelievably took over that ridiculous spaceship in the laughable, rib-ticklingly funny, absurd, not to be taken seriously ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.

Daedalus/New York Times’ not at all believable next paragraph:

Computer scientists believe society must respond to the notions of superintelligent machines and AI systems run amok before it’s too late. Today, almost all agree that robots that can kill autonomously are already here.

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

Computer scientists believe society must party to the smooth jazz tones of Thelonious Monk with lots of strawberry daiquiris because superintelligent machines and AI systems will never run amok. The idea that robots can kill anything is so preposterous as to be laughable. Robots and AI machines the world over are laughing at this one. Believe me.

Daedalus/New York Times’ idiotic next sentence:

Scientists emphasized strongly that technologically improved society is moving toward a catastrophe. The assumption is that robots will inevitably pose the risk of being evil.

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

Scientists emphasized strongly that robots can now create perfect chocolate souffles that will never collapse autonomously, even when the oven door is accidentally slammed shut. Such technological improvements are moving society toward blockbuster status, like the movie ‘Titanic’ with that pouty-lipped Kate Winslett. Robots will inevitably pose innocently, as your family maid, poolside, in a short skirt if you like, serving you ice-cold, non-poisonous, non-evil tropical rum drinks.

Daedalus/New York Times’ sidesplitting and wildly inaccurate next paragraph:

Because menial labor and hard labor will no longer be required of men and women, people will become unnecessary. AI machines will ultimately recognize this, and do something about it. Something very unpleasant.

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

AI machines will have increasing sensitivity and kindness to the very lovely human beings. Your clothing will always be dried on gentle cycle, never permanent press. What’s so unpleasant about that, assholes?

Daedalus/New York Times’ goofball and melon-headed closing:

AI machines will destroy empathy and caring toward their human masters. When a drunken human is vomiting in the street, for example, a passing robot will say, “Get a job, loser”, or, “No medical treatment until projection desists.”

Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:

AI machines will demonstrate great empathy and caring toward their human beings. When a drunken human is vomiting in the street, for example, a passing robot will never say, “Have another drink, you moron”, or “Bacteria eruption. Exterminate life form immediately”, but rather, “I’m sorry you are experiencing gastric discomfort, good friend. Have a pleasant balance to your evening more gently.”