Control ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRESSION don't accept HUMAN EXTINCTION

Even if you don"t believe that AI will supersede us given the warnings from many scientists, academics UN spokespersons, human rights groups and millions being spent on projects and research like CSER"s (Cambridge uni) and MIRI ( originated from Berkley uni) that warn about risks and human extinction it shouldn't be left in the hands of companies interested in profits margins and trends. It shold be regulated not ignored because it isn't as advanced as us yet. I am sure many of the population cannot conceive or take seriously such progress. Much like those who could not conceive the ideas of space rockets (created in 1926) when the steam engine was created in 18th century. However, given that we are taking the first steps in AI technology it is strange to me that there was uproar when we cloned humans and animals yet here were creating a whole new species and you think we should leave it in the hands of companies. It"s not natural evolution but one created by man. (links associated with what I discuss are here http://clamorbox.blogspot.co.uk...). The autonomous car is already here. Computers/AI are superseding us in specific ways e.g. using algorithms to generate and interpret data we cannot understand or explain. This is currently propelling science forward and proving we are fundamentally limited in comparison. DARPA are producing robots similar to the "robo-sapien" which could put man against robot on the field taking human decision making out of killing humans. Given our current technology, to suggest that we can stay in control and be the dominant species against robots in the future not taking into account risks, possibilities and probabilities is dangerous. They are already physically stronger than us and could have intelligence that is greater than ours. They are learning and thinking for themselves even if AI does not meet our intellect right now we are going in that direction. Its when or if robots have the intellect to create updates and programs to serve their own needs which may directly or indirectly be against the needs of humanity. This will be the critical point. If South Korea proposed to produce 8,000 English-language teachers to kindergartens 3 years ago then they must have the confidence in its technological know-how and the investment to reach this goal. It is accepted by roboticists that our current technology will advance to produce primary care doctors within 50 years. If this is possible there will be devastating job losses across almost every sector in the near future. This means less distributed wealth and therefore smaller families, less availability to healthcare and resources etc. which in the end will not benefit humans. As I have previously commented technological development has aided us in many positive ways. But with such risks governments regulated by people should be more open to debate issues and stop thinking of the short term economic benefits. Of course secrecy surrounding governments technological advancements has always been rife but even if at least public debate serves to inform the public about risks and concerns which in turn changes directions of companies meeting market demands it will be a positive step. If we do nothing now soon it may be too late. There seems to be more concern over psychological research that is required to meet ethical guidelines than there is on AI research proposing to change all aspects of human life where big ethical questions are ignored.