Getting the ball rolling. Which VB6 projects are you working on?

Eventually the AI will kill us...(no reason to support us...for just some kw power)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeYguy

Perhaps but not every individual or entity will want nor need to modernize their software. As the old saying goes, newer isn't always better and in many cases it isn't wanted or warranted unless needed new functionality can only be gained that way.

---

That number will be even smaller than it is now, too small to make difference I fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeYguy

Along similar lines, what about the billions of lines of code written in VC++ 6.0? What about MFC apps? Same thing, going bye-bye?

---

AI or not, programs have to be written in something and C has proven itself to be the one of the few true universal high level languages. Most likely old C and C++ code bases will be refactored using AI to make them better, faster or more modernized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

AI or not, programs have to be written in something and C has proven itself to be the one of the few true universal high level languages. Most likely old C and C++ code bases will be refactored using AI to make them better, faster or more modernized.

---

It is my opinion that C was imposed by some people preference or interest.
It didn't naturally won because it was good in nature.

Then, if the AI is going to develop or use a language understandable for humans, it must be something much better, probably more similar to Basic.
But if it only needs to be easy for machines, then ASM would be enough.

Or... I'm thinking in a third option, some language that could save time to machines, but not ASM or human understandable either.

But no, I don't see C in any scenario. Unless the AI is directed in that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgekar

Eventually the AI will kill us...(no reason to support us...for just some kw power)

---

In fact, "reason"... it won't have reason for anything, you are thinking like it would be a human.

But no, humans have needs that have to be fulfilled, at different levels. If you feel hungry you need to eat, you need to get food. That's at a basic level, but at any level it works more or less like that.
You have feelings, passions... then it gets more complex. But at the end there are motivations that to a great extend they are "programmed" into the "hardware".

But a machine... what needs does it have? Why would it be "wanting" to do something (whatever)? (good or bad)

I've read the book Superintelligence from Bostrom that addresses these subjects.
There are no easy answers about what to do and how to deal with it.

I'm not sure what to think, but one logical thing to think is that this AI (or AIs) will be trained by its owners to work for them, programmed at some low level for those goals or "needs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

I'm not sure what to think, but one logical thing to think is that this AI (or AIs) will be trained by its owners to work for them, programmed at some low level for those goals or "needs".

---

Slave AIs -- sounds reasons and very human thing to do. Then centuries later we'll have AI slavery abolishment acts, pretty much history repeated.

A simple "solution" to the "AI control problem" is to make machines dependant on humans so that they not exterminate us. So a possible outcome of this reasoning is what happens in The Matrix movie -- thay are dependant on us for electricity (however redidculous this is) and so enslave billions of humans for their purposes (however rediculous this idea is on its own).

cheers,
</wqw>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wqweto

Slave AIs -- sounds reasons and very human thing to do. Then centuries later we'll have AI slavery abolishment acts, pretty much history repeated.

---

Centuries or months? There are already vegans claiming that animals should have the same rights as humans. There has been a case of someone thinking this for an AI already. (read here and here)

Look at this quote from the last link:

Quote:

---

Lemoine challenged LaMDA on Asimov’s third law, which states that robots should protect their own existence unless ordered by a human being or unless doing so would harm a human being. “The last one has always seemed like someone is building mechanical slaves,” said Lemoine.

---

I wonder if a calculator is a mechanical slave... and what about a computer running Windows 11?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wqweto

A simple "solution" to the "AI control problem" is to make machines dependant on humans so that they not exterminate us. So a possible outcome of this reasoning is what happens in The Matrix movie -- thay are dependant on us for electricity (however redidculous this is) and so enslave billions of humans for their purposes (however rediculous this idea is on its own).

cheers,
</wqw>

---

Yes, but how? Even if we figure a way to do that, it could figure a way to get free of it. That's a problem with something so intelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

It is my opinion that C was imposed by some people preference or interest.
It didn't naturally won because it was good in nature.

Then, if the AI is going to develop or use a language understandable for humans, it must be something much better, probably more similar to Basic.
But if it only needs to be easy for machines, then ASM would be enough.

Or... I'm thinking in a third option, some language that could save time to machines, but not ASM or human understandable either.

But no, I don't see C in any scenario. Unless the AI is directed in that direction.

---

I agree with the sentiments here, however, my comments were directed towards the immediate future, lets say 5 to 10 years from now. I think this will still be an "AI assisted" age. The AIs will be doing all the heavy lifting but we will be the ones putting it all together and tweaking it by hand here and there. We'd still need to understand it somewhat hence our favorite languages aren't just going to disappear.

The one that really scares me about the far future is self-hosting AIs. AIs telling humans how to make themselves better or even better, doing it themselves. What do you guys think about that one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

The one that really scares me about the far future is self-hosting AIs. AIs telling humans how to make themselves better or even better, doing it themselves. What do you guys think about that one?

---

That's the problem.

Self-hosted or not, does that point matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

The one that really scares me about the far future is self-hosting AIs. AIs telling humans how to make themselves better or even better, doing it themselves. What do you guys think about that one?

---

Frankly I'm not scared even if I should be. Very much doubt that in near future (say 50 years) AI has any chance enjoying skiing as much as I do :-)) And if it does then we can ski together, I don't feel threatened about my "slope supremacy" at all. . . LOL

cheers,
</wqw>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wqweto

Frankly I'm not scared even if I should be. Very much doubt that in near future (say 50 years) AI has any chance enjoying skiing as much as I do :-)) And if it does then we can ski together, I don't feel threatened about my "slope supremacy" at all. . . LOL

cheers,
</wqw>

---

But the concerns are not about skiing, but about what georgekar said in #441: human extinction.
Or if not extinction, slavery or whatever bad for humans, in that Mad-Max era.

PS: did you see any skiing in Terminator 3: Rise of the machines, or in Ex-Machina?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

But the concerns are not about skiing, but about what georgekar said in #441: human extinction.
Or if not extinction, slavery or whatever bad for humans, in that Mad-Max era.

PS: did you see any skiing in Terminator 3: Rise of the machines, or in Ex-Machina?

---

No, I didn't see no liquid robots yet. Why so serious?

This thread is about which VB6 projects we are working on, not some grave mourning about the supposed terminal faith of humanity.

And if you had enough of my sillyness stop eating those bitter lemons in the morning already. . .

cheers,
</wqw>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wqweto

And if you had enough of my sillyness stop eating those bitter lemons in the morning already. . .

---

You definitely must have some issue.
But that is your problem anyway, bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

Are you wrapped in lead too?
Who will use the ZX80?

---

Me - I will do ANYTHING I want with it, within the 1K limit.

The good thing about the future is that as we have companies like Apple and Microsoft any AI is likely to be ****te or at least will have a really poor interface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yereverluvinuncleber

Me - I will do ANYTHING I want with it, within the 1K limit.

---

The point was that the Z-80 would survive a nuclear explosion because it was wrapped in lead, but what about you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

The point was that the Z-80 would survive a nuclear explosion because it was wrapped in lead, but what about you?

---

I'll be fine. I'll be in my cellar/bunker eating tinned food and reprogramming society - all within 1K.

Now chaps, Wqweto and Eduardo, you've seen my signature? I don't want to add you to the list. Niya and Olaf have already suffered from my wrath. Please be good from this point on as I don't deserve to have another of my threads closed due to typical-VBforum-grumps.

wqweto, I like your Blur effect on GDI+ bitmaps, are you working on anything GDI+-ish or is that all in the past now?

This thread was always pretty close to chit-chat, rather than programming. I probably shouldn't even have included the minor miner pun in my last post, but puns are hard for me to pass up.

Still, let's have a bit less bickering.

The subject was interesting I think, but not everybody is able to talk about it.
Some people go crazy just to read about these things.

But I wonder why so much fear, if humanity is destroyed there is nothing to fear. And fearing won't prevent anything.
Anyway, I'll note that it is not what I believe: I mean that I don't believe that humanity is going to be destroyed by an AI.
But there will possibly be other consequences, not all humanity killed but... [I won't repeat the things that some people can't handle].
Then we add one more subject that is not possible to talk about (the upcoming AGI), because it frightens some people too much?
It is not a subject for a kindergarten, I admit.

Peace and happiness must reign and blah, blah, yes.
Since we compared to movies before, now is the turn of "Don't look up".
Let's go back to the kindergarten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wqweto

Frankly I'm not scared even if I should be. Very much doubt that in near future (say 50 years) AI has any chance enjoying skiing as much as I do :-)) And if it does then we can ski together, I don't feel threatened about my "slope supremacy" at all. . . LOL

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

Self-hosted or not, does that point matter?

---

I think it does matter a great deal. When I sit down and think deeply about it and take it to it's logical conclusion, it reaches some scary places.

A self-hosting AI will evolve itself very rapidly in directions we cannot predict. Now assuming we're not stupid enough to put it in control of everything, what I believe could happen eventually is that it will advance itself to the point where it could start advancing other technologies and spitting out the instructions for us.

This is scary because I don't think humans would be ready for such technologies. I shudder to think about what a barbaric species like ours will do with some of the things such an AI could teach us.

The next possibility that is equally scary is the AI killing our future hopes and dreams. What if such an AI were to discover that there is a ceiling to advancement. For example what if it figured out with absolute certainty that it is impossible to ever colonize or explore distant worlds. That will kill a lot of hopes and dreams. If there is a point beyond which we cannot advance and it could take us there, what will we have to look forward to after that? Imagine having most advanced technology possible while knowing we could never improve upon it. I think that will be so depressing. Human beings both as individuals and as a species need something to look forward to. It's as important as breathing in my opinion.

Of course these are hypotheticals and for all I know none of these things would happen but I'd be lying if I said such thoughts didn't disturb my soul.

I agree, and perhaps for a different reason. If there were an AI that were able to come up with something so brilliant that we couldn't come up with it ourselves, would it be real? If it is technology that we can build, and thereby demonstrate that it works/doesn't work, that would be one thing. However, if it's a theory so mind bending that we aren't able to decide whether it is true or not...well, maybe that would be a good thing, but probably not. After all, entire cults form around things that people believe to be true that can't really be proved one way or another. If you had an AI where we were able to prove that the first nine things it came up with were true, but we couldn't prove the tenth one way or the other, then a whole lot of people would believe that tenth thing. Much good could come of that, or much harm, depending on what that tenth thing was.

I see where you're going and that's a good point. However, it would be reasonable to assume if it got the first 9 things right, that the 10th might also be right. There would need to be a consistent record of such an AI getting things wrong to hold out hope that it got the 10th thing wrong, assuming this 10th thing was something we wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

However, it would be reasonable to assume if it got the first 9 things right, that the 10th might also be right.

---

That way is exactly how people are deceived. 99 things true, 1 false.

This is how scams work too, first build enough trust and then steal, when the people are not checking anymore or when they are unable to check.

I understand your logic anyway, if something didn't fail 9 times, it is unlikely to fail the 10th.
But what if you have a 1/10 failure rate?
And what if it has 1/100?
You would be playing a Russian roulette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

That way is exactly how people are deceived. 99 things true, 1 false.

---

True but this assumes motive to deceive, something we are assuming our hypothetical super AI doesn't have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

But what if you have a 1/10 failure rate?
And what if it has 1/100?
You would be playing a Russian roulette.

---

Yea, this is a very good point. Just because we haven't seen it fail before doesn't mean it can't fail in the future and there is no way to know that it can't fail in the future. I think what we're actually talking about here is the halting problem or a variation of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

True but this assumes motive to deceive, something we are assuming our hypothetical super AI doesn't have.

---

So "we are assuming" only good AIs?

What would be the basis to assume that?

AGI is opening a door to the unknown, that's why it is called singularity.

It is always safer to assume the worst scenario, or to be prepared for that.

I am building more steampunk stuff using VB6. I cannot see that ever being something that AI would ever WANT to do, so no competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

It is always safer to assume the worst scenario, or to be prepared for that.

---

It might be "safer" on a per issue basis to assume the worst, but I don't think that's a good general approach to life.

My biggest pet peeve with Internet dialog over the past couple of years is how binary it has become. Do you really think it is "always safer" to assume something/anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpbro

It might be "safer" on a per issue basis to assume the worst, but I don't think that's a good general approach to life.

My biggest pet peeve with Internet dialog over the past couple of years is how binary it has become. Do you really think it is "always safer" to assume something/anything?

---

We are talking here about a potential dangerous outcome that is a very real possibility, not a "general approach to life".

No, I'm not thinking that a piano can fall out of a plane on my head, and can't be prepared for that anyway.
So no, we can't be prepared for everything, it is totally out of our reach.
In general I'm not expecting bad things to happen to me (on the contrary). Technically a lot of things could happen just going outside your home, or even staying inside.

But, in some issues that are by their nature not just possible but probable, it is better to be prepared.
Having backups of your works is a good example.
You can think that you'll never need a backup. Good luck with that approach.
Car insurance maybe another. Does it mean that you are expecting to crash? No.

This issue of the AGI is too important to just leave it to chance, expecting that it will have a good outcome. No. It is one of those cases that we need to think what if it is the worst case.
After all, nothing happened yet, so there is no cost.

When making programs it is the same: you need to assume that the user could do everything wrong, and design the program prepared for all those situations.
If you make your program only prepared for users that don't make any mistake, many users for sure will have problems.
Yes, for some things you need to assume the worst scenario and be prepared for that.
It is not a "general approach to life" because that would require for us to be omniscient and almighty.

Even if in a potentially dangerous situation you try to be prepared for everything, there are always some unknowns. I remember that I've read that when the astronauts went the first time to the moon, they weren't 100% sure about its surface. Some speculated that it could have a thick layer of dust were the astronauts could sink.
I'm sure they did the best to be prepared for every contingency to a logical extend, as humanly possible. That was something new, and with important things at play. You can't go to something like that expecting simply that things will go all right, or only prepared for a good scenario.

Another example: do you know that in plains the critical systems are in triplicate? Why three computers? Because one could fail, two could also fail, then you have three. You can't have 1000 computers because 999 could fail. Three seems something logical.
And a plane (and more with all the people onboard) seems important enough to think "the worst scenario", that is two computers failing.

All depend on the context, we weren't talking about life in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

...you need to assume that the user could do everything wrong...

---

Sorry, but reading that statement I have to ask...:

Who are we to doubt the "future higher intelligences",
when they pick up such comments on the "interwebs" -
(and then decide to "enslave or eradicate mankind" due to "such good advice"? ;)

Olaf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmidt

Sorry, but reading that statement I have to ask...:

Who are we to doubt the "future higher intelligences",
when they pick up such comments on the "interwebs" -
(and then decide to "enslave or eradicate mankind" due to "such good advice"? ;)

Olaf

---

I think that any AI will understand the sense of the statement very well.
It is a software design principle (not an idea of my own).
I think that test units are for covering that.
Any wrong input needs to have an appropriate response.
The worse case is an user that does every possible wrong input, and the program needs to be ready to handle that.
These things are studied in the career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

I think that any AI will understand the sense of the statement very well.
It is a software design principle (not an idea of my own).

---

Exactly, ... since the "superior intelligence" is based on software -
who are we to "to cripple its progress" when it simply tries to be:
"the best version of itself"? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

I think that test units are for covering that.
Any wrong input needs to have an appropriate response.
The worse case is an user that does every possible wrong input,
and the program needs to be ready to handle that.

---

Exactly! (that, being the "thoughts of the superior software-intelligence")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduardo-

These things are studied in the career.

---

Well, I did ...
(thinks the AI, shortly before switching over to dolphins,
because all human units were wasted in "unit-tests" already). ;)

Olaf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmidt

Exactly, ... since the "superior intelligence" is based on software -
who are we to "to cripple its progress" when it simply tries to be:
"the best version of itself"? ;)

---

Best? In what sense? What is best?

If you mean more intelligent, more precise, faster, more accurate.
Yes, all things desirable for a computer or software, the point is for what? What will be its goal?

Has anyone here read this book?

The future revenge of human on any dangerous AI, will be to attach an AI booster as an implant on his head, connected to the Anti-AI AI mainframe...The bigger and faster won every time. So let small AI survive for now...and we start a Hunger AI game...later. Life is a game, the serious one.
GK

Boggles the mind......makes me glad to be as old as I am. And I don't want to argue with my software, I just want to use it ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yereverluvinuncleber

I am building more steampunk stuff using VB6. I cannot see that ever being something that AI would ever WANT to do, so no competition.

---

I don't see it that way. I think AI would be totally steampunk.

I want to return to the original topic.

Access of Speed 6 - World Tour
I recently finished working on another VB6 project - a 3D racing game. This is a game for fans of old races, especially I note among them NFS 5. AI rivals, physics, even the shader compiler - everything is written in VB6.
The archive contains the game and the full source code: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/ihlmuMuCYAAvPw

I don't think that we are generally well-equipped to handle sudden changes to the status quo. Whether it's an individual-level impact like a change of income or health, or a societal change like a climate crisis, pandemic/plandemic, an exponential growth in the quality of AI, or the arrival of a superior alien intelligence - IMO we mostly suck at handling change, especially within a short time frame.

As a general rule, I also don't think that humans are generally well-suited to handling power asymmetries that aren't in our favour. IMO we excel at taking advantage of any situation that is even slightly tilted our way, but we get "twitchy" when things are tilted against us past a certain threshold. I've definitely been guilty of that here myself, and I apologize for that behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I don't see it that way. I think AI would be totally steampunk.

---

so I am proceeding down that road and AI will look upon me kindly in my collaboration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikle

I recently finished working on another VB6 project - a 3D racing game. This is a game for fans of old races, especially I note among them NFS 5. AI rivals, physics, even the shader compiler - everything is written in VB6.

---

Amazing as always, Mikle, do you fancy giving some pointers as to the technologies you use and how you implement these advanced animations? I am merely dabbling in GDI+ and realising my limitations. It is spurring me on to new levels of learning but I am in awe of what animations you can reproduce using VB6.