My own suspicion is that a stand-alone artificial mind will be more a tool of narrow utility than something especially apocalyptic.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Apocalyptic thinking happens on the left as well as on the right, and in environmentalism, that's a terrible approach to take. Because it isn't true.
Eventually, I believe, current attempts to understand the mind by analogy with man-made computers that can perform superbly some of the same external tasks as conscious beings will be recognized as a gigantic waste of time.
Apocalyptic hysteria is much more effective at getting people to open their wallets than reasonable commentary.
It is as deadly for a mind to have a system as to have none. Therefore it will have to decide to combine both.
When people speak of creating superhumanly intelligent beings, they are usually imagining an AI project.
You don't have to be a creative maverick to have a troubled mind. You just have to be human. There is no 'us' and 'them.' No one is one hundred per cent healthy, physically or mentally.
If the history of resistance to Darwinian thinking is a good measure, we can expect that long into the future, long after every triumph of human thought has been matched or surpassed by 'mere machines,' there will still be thinkers who insist that the human mind works in mysterious ways that no science can comprehend.
The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude.
Only a great mind that is overthrown yields tragedy.
A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought would probably be unendurable.
No opposing quotes found.