We Need to Put Chips in Humans

Let me know when you hear of a US Senator who wants to outlaw intelligent machines.
The actual trend is to restrict humans and make them subject themselves to robot control.

Examples of that are too numerous to mention them all, but here are a few concerning
--There are an increasing number of traffic lights which have robotic systems to make
sure that humans don't violate the driving laws.
--To get permission to drive a car, a human has to pass various tests administered by
robots.  One test consists of answering questions concerning driving laws in Illinois.
Another test is to check the vision of the human.
--In Illinois when a person is found guilty of Driving While Intoxicated, the judge makes
that person install a robotic system which checks his/her breath for alcohol every so often
while he/she is driving. If the human doesn't pass the test, the robot will shut the ignition
--  When self-driving cars become common, it is more likely that a law will be passed
restricting humans from driving automobiles on major highways because 1.2 million
people are killed by accidents involving human-driven automobiles in the world every year.

Now consider this: Each new smart phone brags about being more intelligent than the
last one. An iPad 2 is more intelligent than an iPad 1. People actually lines up at Apple
stores in great numbers to obtain the newest more intelligent iPad.  

Google is racking up hundreds and thousands of miles on self-driving cars.  I plan to
own one by 2020.  When I do, I will invite you to sit in the back with me and we will be
able to drink a scotch on the rocks and talk about the latest news.  If a cop stops us for
a traffic violation, we will tell him to send the ticket to Larry Page or Steve Jobs (or
whoever is heading Apple at the time) depending on whether we are driving an Android
Car or an iCar.

Do you really think that the car will be arrested for being too intelligent?  How will that
be measured?  Oh, I see, if the car never has an accident then it will be arrested for
being smarter and more able that a human.



John Hutsebaut says

Perhaps the analogy you should be looking at is cloning. We have the technology to
clone people, but laws are passed against this in all civilized countries. Similarly, laws
will be passed prohibitting human-level artificial intelligences. Picture Jesse Jackson
making an impassioned speech that evil capitalists like Don Martin are attempting to
resurrect slavery. There will be a torch-bearing crowd at your front door in a heart beat.
Unless your robots can create themselves, they may never happen. And just wait until the
"machinery reparations movement" gets going!

I'd me more comfortable with a robot flying a plane then driving a car. UAVs typically fly
to target under robot control and then the human pilot has the option of taking over.
You can see things coming from miles away. Driving a car by robot, however, is an activity
that regulations will prohibit

How are you to identify these computers whose intelligence exceeds that of humans?  
Do the violators have to look like humans or can they look like Watson who plays
Jeopardy!?  If the IBM Watson computer could switch between chess and Jeopardy!
and checkers and video games in a fraction of a second, would that be close enough
to your "arrestable level of human intelligence" to get arrested for violating your proposed
laws?  When will these laws be passed?  Did the creation of Deep Blue by IBM cause
any stirrings that you are aware of that sound like the passage of any anti-AI laws are
in the works?  How about IBM Watson?  Does any senator want to arrest Watson?  
Perhaps someone is about to arrest an intelligent cruise missile and I have not read about it.  

Let me suggest that you read the book "What Technology Wants" by Kevin Kelly.  He
has visited the Amish, the Mennonites, the Monks and has meditated about the whole
problem of technology. He was editor of Wired Magazine and written some excellent
books showing a firm grasp of science and engineering. He has read the concerns of
the Unabomber and discusses all of this in detail.  He never even brings up the possibility
of outlawing Artificial Intelligence.