Will the machines take over? Why Elon Musk thinks so.

When one of the most prevalent technological pioneers worries about artificial intelligence, the world listens.

Just as Tony Stark warns of the dangers of high-tech weaponry in the wrong hands, Elon Musk – the Tesla and SpaceX founder who is regularly compared to Iron Man's not-so-secret identity – is raising the alarm about advances in artificial intelligence.

The Space X founder called artificial intelligence "our biggest existential threat," at an MIT symposium, comparing it to "summoning the demon."

Musk opined that governments need to begin regulating artificial intelligence development, saying that HAL 9000 – the sentient computer antagonist in the Space Odyssey series – would be "like a puppy dog" in comparison to what is possible.

This isn't the first time he's gone public with this fear.

Musk has apparently done some heavy reading of late – “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies” by Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute raises the questions, "What happens when machines surpass humans in general intelligence? Will artificial agents save or destroy us?"

Musk took to Twitter in August to encourage others to read the book, adding, "We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes." Musk also suggested James Barrat's "Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era," which argues such intelligence could threaten human existence.

He then continued to muse on the impending doom of robots undermining human intelligence:

In June, Musk drew references to "The Terminator," telling CNBC he invests in companies working on artificial intelligence to keep an eye on developments.

Roger McNamee, Elevation Partners co-founder, was quick to disagree.

"In a world where we have the NSA looking at everything that we do, where the government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on fighter planes that can't fly, and where we're starting wars in countries we can't possibly win in, it seems to me that worrying about AI is irrelevant," he told CNBC.

Besides, he said, "There's a good chance we will have polluted the earth beyond repair long before they could get any of this AI stuff to work."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.