alt Hacker NewsThere is no reason to presume a superintelligence we build will want pets, feel antipathy to humans, or be god-like in any way, or even have any goals other than what we give it. If you jump to this conclusion, regardless of how many big words on less-wrong you attach to it, this speaks only about you and not about AI. If you think the super-AI will hate humans, it's because deep inside you hate humans. I also hate humans, but I know that humans are making the AI, it probably will not hate them, in addition to surpassing me in other abilities.
In general, the smarter a person is, the nicer and more helpful they are. There is no reason to presume differently of AI, especially if we are building it to be helpful to ourselves.
Replies
I would not extrapolate that easily from smart and intelligent people you may know to a machine trained on the whole internet and on the whole corpus of human literature. Also, some of the worst horrors in history have been perpetrated by arguably intelligent people.
I would also say that the "pet species" scenario is a rather optimistic one, as it presumes that developers of superintelligence will manage to instill some sort of love or care for humanity into their creation. An indifferent, powerful AI may be much worse.
Finally, when you suggest that a superintelligent AI may simply have the goals that we will give it, who is "we"? An AI company? a government? the united nations?
This reads like a presumption that a superintelligence would be nice and helpful. You've talked yourself into doing the same thing that you began by decrying.
Are you really objecting to the thought process because you don't think it's reasonable, or because it doesn't conform to your preferred fantasy?
The problem isn't about what you think is the most likely scenario, the problem is the possibility of any of the many worst cases.