Control ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRESSION don't accept HUMAN EXTINCTION

I am still unsure as to what direction my opponent is taking their argument. Many of their stances appear to be hypocritical. In particular the argument based around robot doctors. The pro claims that: "it is accepted by roboticists that our current technology will advance to produce primary care doctors within 50 years" and posits this as a negative by going on to say that because of this "there will be devastating job losses across almost every sector in the near future". However in the very same paragraph pro begins to argue that advances in AI technology will cause less availability to healthcare and resources! If we are able to produce more doctors, without having to spend years training them, then how, in the future will there be less healthcare! The benefits of these hypothetical AI doctors are immense. They can be used in third world countries with drastic shortages of health care professionals, they can provide aid to soldiers on the battlefront without having to risk the lives of medics, skilled people trained in medicine, not warfare. We are even forecast to have a shortage of around 500,000 nurses by 2020! [1] These robots have the potential to save millions of lives and yet somehow, if you believe my opponent they 'will not benefit humans'. My opponent has obviously also been watching/reading way too much science fiction. The speculation that AI robots will try to destroy us is absolutely that, speculation. And even if they do, as their creators we can ensure there are safeguards in place to prevent against it. Take Ridley Scott's Bladerunner for example. In it, a group of biological robots, known as replicants, return to earth and cause havoc in a dystopic vision of Los Angeles. However these replicants are build to only have a lifespan of around 3 years, so the last, and most dangerous of their group dies before he can cause any real threat to humanity. Finally, I have a problem with my opposition’s claims that private research by companies interested in producing these AI robots for profit is a bad thing. A competitive marketplace is what drives companies to constantly produce better, more affordable products. With government regulations and restraints in place on this research it would stifle this competitive edge that drives companies to make sure they do things right. Government supervision also opens the entire process up to corruption, or just blatant favoritism. My opponent is also worried about the dangers of 'not taking into account risks, possibilities and probabilities'. SCIENTISTS ALREADY DO THIS! Every single day, any experiment conducted has to pass safety guide lines, scientists applying for research grants must have their proposals reviewed by an ethics committee. Sure artificial intelligence may be scary, but just think what it could do for humanity, or, as my opponent seems to think robots are their own separate species, with humanity. Sure it may be scary, but so was the first car, the first aeroplane. Irrational fear should not stand in the way of human progress, it should be the willingness to overcome this fear that drives us forward. [1] http://healthcarehacks.com...