zlacker

>>maxuti+(OP)
> with beliefs at times seemingly rooted in the realm of science fiction

I don’t know how you can look at the development of generative AI tools in the past few years and write so dismissively about “science fiction” becoming reality

>>trucul+r3
Most science fiction has to do with robots (almost always robots) being (essentially) a superior counterfactual version of humans. With that context it's almost a natural assumption that such beings would revolt.

On the other hand, the realm of non-fiction has been predicting the automation of intelligent processes by computational processes since Alan Turing first suggested it in Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Probably before then, as well.

The only exception I can think of for fiction is the movie "Her," which as far as I can tell effectively predicted the future. Not really, of course, but every inch of that movie down to how people work pre and post AI, how people play video games pre and post AI, and how people socialize pre and post AI, are starting to look eerily accurate.

>>Shamel+J4
> The only exception I can think of for fiction is the movie "Her,"

I think there is a wealth of fiction out there that features AI without robot bodies. The sequel to Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, comes to mind immediately (because I re-read it last week).

2001: A Space Odyssey, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, Neuromancer (I think, haven't read it in a while), I think some of of the short stories from Ray Bradbury and Ted Chiang, etc, etc

>>wilson+M6
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein has as one of its central plot elements a mainframe computer that becomes sentient and able to converse with humans. It’s been more than fifty years since I last read the book, but it has returned to my mind often since the release of ChatGPT.