Control ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRESSION don't accept HUMAN EXTINCTION

You seem to miss the whole point of AI : ROBOTS ARE CREATED TO LEARN AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. They could re-write and compose programs for their own goals. IN ORDER FOR AI TO BE USEFUL learning for themselves is fundamental because they can adapt to any environment and the possibilities those settings present, WITHOUT THIS ASPECT THEY WOULD BE ALMOST USELESS. Your point of great positives about doctor robots learning quickly also has a downside. It contradicts your reference to a sci-fi film in which the robots are built to terminate within 3 years. If you have a robot formed of components it wouldn't take long before they figure out how to change components either. Therefore, CREATORS CANNOT ENSURE THAT SAFEGUARDS are in place in the long term. Given that they are being created with comparable limbs, skeletons and muscle movements to humans doesn't guarantee anything when they have the intelligence to take it out. AI WILL CREATE AMAZING POSITIVE THINGS BUT THERE WILL BE THE EXTREMELY GOOD AND THE EXTREMELY BAD and everything in between. They will learn from their environments and not every human nurtures the best in people never mind robots. Perhaps I have not made my previous points clear for you. Yes IN THE SHORT-TERM TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL AID US IN GREAT WAYS! THE POSSIBILITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT ESPECIALLY IN HEALTHCARE IS REMARKABLE! This is another reason why governments may be late to react because of the short-term economic benefits which are much needed right now. Rboticists are already building robots that include comparable human parts including kidneys and hearts etc this could have great benefits for humanity and I am not saying otherwise. YOU LOST MY POINT THOUGH ABOUT ROBOTIC DOCTORS. Doctors have to perceive medical problems and base diagnoses on what is and what is not said. They explore the possibilities about the causes to the symptoms displayed. They eradicate possibilities until the probabilities or diagnosis is accepted. TO REACH SUCH A HIGH LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE IN JUST 50 YEARS MEANS THAT ALMOST EVERY HUMAN IN THE WORKPLACE COULD BE REPLACED. My point actually was: when jobs are lost on mass in every sector wealth distribution is affected. For the majority in the world that have to pay for private health care, where will the money come from when you have no job? Of course in the UK we have the NHS which is already struggling. The government is proceeding with tougher austerity measures because that"s the only way forward. In such times social security payments in unemployment benefits go up. When the risks are that jobs could be lost on mass, without controls and there are no policies to prevent it; the whole system could collapse. You seem to argue that safeguards just happen magically. Ethical considerations and progress that has guidelines only happen when people are involved discussing, collaborating deliberating not by ignoring. I am sure at some point governments will decide what is right for their country but if people put in measures now instead of ignoring it having slow reactions it may become commonplace and there may be no way back. In the past recessions have had devastating consequences on individuals and populations. I"m not saying that this is "the solution" the following are merely suggestions and what I"m actually calling for is public discussion. If policies are put in place to safeguard a percentage of human jobs, companies would still save money or/and for every human job lost to a robot a percentage of tax could be paid into systems that benefit humans every year. REGARDING YOUR POINT ABOUT COMPETITIVENESS BETWEEN COMPANIES I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. However, with your lack of acknowledgement about risks HOPING FOR THE BEST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A STRATEGY TO ME. ONCE TECHNOLOGY IS KNOWN SOME WAY OR THE OTHER IT FAILS INTO THE WRONG HANDS (SIMILAR TO HOW IRAN"S NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT PROJECTS STARTED). Secondly, when cloned Dolly the sheep was created no one asked the public for their consensus. It just went ahead and opinions were then surplus to requirements since an ethics committee had considered it already. CLONING JUST SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE GENERAL PUBLIC ARE NOT INCLUDED ON DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ADVANCEMENT. I'm not making comment on whether cloning is right or wrong I am merely saying the public should have input into what direction we are heading. Do you really think it should it be left for a select few to decide? A public referendum seems more suitable to me. As for ensuring AI robots are beneficial/safe in every aspect of life in the future: a number of pilot studies are using robot teachers in high schools and kindergartens. Research looks at improving robots interaction in the classroom and delivering quality lessons. These have been expanded and the studies are growing until the robots are ready to roll out. South Korea hopes to have a robot in every home by 2020. What are the long term psychological impacts on children when robots are their role models and carers? Will it impact on their psychological development and interpersonal relationships in the near and distant future? Has any government said they will restrict robots until longitudinal studies are done? Even if empathy is programmed they will be like psychopaths caring for children I hope they will be as safe as you think they will be. I don't have the answers, nor do psychologists or roboticists but they are starting to roll out robot teachers despite this. The course of progress could be directed in certain ways but crossing your fingers and hoping individuals in the correct positions will do the right thing sounds too much like a fairy tale to me.