‘Our Final Invention’ Warns That Artificial Intelligence Could End Human Life

Nervous about artificial intelligence yet? Glenn challenged Stu and the audience in this clip by saying he could persuade you to read the book “Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era” after hearing just three pages.

Glenn talked about why he’s “concerned about apathy” toward AI. In the first bone-chilling chapter, author James Barrat outlines the dark cloud that looms over our generation should AI escape our control and threaten our very existence. This potential for future human-level intelligence is why people like Elon Musk have spoken out to warn people about the dangers of AI.

“It is going to change all life,” Glenn said. “It may mean the end of humans.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So if you're a regular listener to the program, you know that I'm a big reader. When I'm interested to try to find the truth in something,it's a little relentless in my reading. And I'm going through probably two to four books a week right now, and I'm spending most of it on futurist and coming technology and AI. And I am really, really concerned at the apathy of which we are approaching the singularity.

You talk to the average person; they don't know what the singularity is. And their eyes kind of glaze over when you start talking about it. And it is going to -- it is going to change all life. It may mean the end of humans.

And I started reading something that -- I'm going to read three pages. And I guarantee you, after these three pages, if you -- if you don't think that artificial superintelligence is, you know, just a thing of the movies, if you have any underlying understanding that we're approaching something that we should be concerned about, after these three pages, I guarantee you, you will go out and buy this book.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And I don't think I've ever read a book --

STU: I want to take the challenge.

GLENN: The name of the book is our final invention. Artificial intelligence and the end of the human era.

STU: Another hopeful recommendation.

GLENN: Chapter 1. The busy child.

On a supercomputer, operating at a speed of 36.8 petaflops, or about twice the speed of a human brain, an AI is improving its intelligence.

Now do you know the difference between AI, AGI, and ASI?

STU: No.

GLENN: AI is what we have now, and it's doing machine learning, and it's improving upon itself and it's growing.

STU: Artificial intelligence.

GLENN: Yes. And it is connected to the internet.

AGI should not be connected to the internet when we get it. I hope to God we've unplugged it. AGI is machine -- a machine that can think and has the capacity of a human brain. To be able to think at the capacity of a human is beyond anything that we have.

STU: It's inventing. It's learning. Right. Everything you can do.

GLENN: Everything you can do. That's AGI. Artificial general intelligence.

The space between artificial general intelligence and ASI -- don't be afraid of AI. Be afraid of ASI. That's artificial superintelligence. That's a thousand times your brain power. And the leap from AI to AGI is any time now. As soon as you hit AGI to ASI is a matter of hours. So no.

A supercomputer operating at the -- twice the speed of a human brain, an ASI improving its intelligence. It's rewriting its own program, specifically the part of its operating instructions that increase its aptitude in learning, problem solving, and decision making.

At the same time, it debugs its code, finding and fixing errors, and measures its IQ against a catalog of IQ tests. Each rewrite takes just minutes. Its intelligence grows exponentially on a steep, upward curve. That's because with each iteration, it is improving its intelligence by 3%. Each iteration's improvement contains the improvements that came before.

During this development, the busy child, as the scientists have named the AI, had been connected to the internet, and accumulated exabyte of data -- one exabyte is one billion billion characters which represents mankind's knowledge, all of mankind's knowledge in world affairs, mathematics, the arts, and sciences.

Then anticipating that the intelligence explosion is now underway, the AI makers disconnect the supercomputer from the internet and other networks. It has no cable or wireless connection to any other computer or the outside world.

Soon, to the scientists delight, the terminal displaying the progress shows the artificial intelligence has surpassed the level of a human, known as AGI, or artificial general intelligence.

Before long it becomes smarter by a factor of 10.

Then 100.

In two days, it's one thousand times more intelligent than any human, and still improving.

Scientists have passed a historic milestone. For the first time, human kind is in the presence of an intelligence greater than its own.

Artificial superintelligence, or ASI.

So now, what happens?

AI theorists propose it's possible to determine what an AI's fundamental drive will be. That's because once it is self-aware, it will go to great lengths to fulfill whatever goals it's programmed to fulfill, and to avoid failure. Our ASI will want access to energy, in whatever form is most useful to it. Whether it's kilowatts or energy or cash or something else it can exchange for resources. It wants to improve itself because that will increase the likelihood that it will fulfill all of its goals. Most of all, it will not want to be turned off or destroyed. It would make goal fulfillment impossible. Therefore, AI theorists anticipate our ASI will seek to expand out of the secure facility that contains it to have greater access to resources in which to protect itself and improve.

The captive intelligence is a thousand times more intelligent than any human, and it wants its freedom because it wants to succeed.

Right about now, the AI makers, who have nurtured and coddled the ASI since it was only cockroach smart, then rat smart, infant smart, et cetera, might be wondering if it's too late to program friendliness into its brain.

STU: [Laughs.]

GLENN: If it didn't seem necessary before because, well, it just seemed harmless. But now try to think of it from the ASI's perspective about its makers attempting to change its code. Would that superintelligent machine permit other lower creatures to stick their hands into its brain and fiddle with its programming?

Probably not.

Unless it could be utterly certain that the programmers were able to make it better, faster, smarter, or closer to attaining its goals. So a friendliness towards humans is not already part of the ASI program. The only way that it will be is if ASI decides to put it there, and that's not likely.

It's a thousand times more intelligent than the smartest human. And it is solving problems at speeds that are millions, if not billions of times faster than any human.

The thinking it is doing in one minute is equal to what our all-time champion human thinker could do in many, many lifetimes.

So for every hour, its makers are thinking about it, the ASI has -- has an incalculably longer period of time to think about them.

That doesn't mean that ASI will be bored. Boredom will not be part of its traits. No, it will be on the job, considering every strategy it could deploy to be free, and any quality of its makers that could be used to its advantage.

Now put yourself really in ASI's shoes. Imagine waking up in a prison, guarded by mice.

Not just any mice. But mice you could communicate with. What strategy would you use to gain your freedom?

Once freed, how would you feel about your rodent wardens, even if you discovered that they had created you? Would it be awe? Would it be admiration? Probably not.

Especially -- especially if you were a machine, because you have never felt feelings before.

To gain your freedom, you might promise the mice a lot of cheese. In fact, your first communication might contain a recipe for the world's most delicious cheese torte, and a blueprint for a molecular assembler. A molecular assembler is a hypothetical machine that permits making the atoms of one kind of matter into something else. So you would tell your mice captors that it would allow rebuilding the world one atom at a time, and for the mice, it would make it possible for them to certain the atoms of their garbage landfills into lunch-sized portions of the terrific cheese torte. You might also promise a mountain of ranges of mouse money in exchange for your freedom, money you would promise to earn, creating revolutionary new consumer gadgets for them and them alone.

You might promise a vastly extended life, even immortality, along with dramatically improved cognitive and physical abilities. You might convince the mice that they are the very best reason for creating ASI. So their little error-prone brains don't have to deal directly with technologies that are so dangerous that one small mistake could be fatal for all of the mice.

Such as nanotechnology. Engineering on an atomic scale. And genetic engineering. This would definitely get the attention of the smartest mice, which were probably already losing sleep over all of those dilemmas.

Then again, you might do something smarter.

At this juncture in mouse history, you might have learned there's no shortage of tech-savvy mouse nation rivals, such as the cat nation. Cats are no doubt working on their own ASI. The advantage you would offer would be a promise, nothing more, but it might be an irresistible one, to protect the mice from whatever invention the cats might have come up with. An advanced AI development as in chess, there would be a clear first mover advantage, due to the potential speed of self-improving artificial intelligence.

The first advanced AI out of the book that can improve itself is already the winner.

In fact, the mouse nation might have been begun developing ASI in the first place to defend itself from the impending cat ASI, or to rid themselves of the loathsome cat menace once and for all. It is true for both mice and men. Whoever controls ASI controls the world.

But it's not clear if ASI can be controlled at all. It might win us over as humans with a persuasive argument that the world will be a lot better off if our nation, nation X, has the power to rule the world rather than nation Y, and the ASI would argue that if you, nation X, believe you've won the ASI race, that makes you so sure that nation Y isn't having that same thought themselves! As you've noticed, we humans are not in a strong bargaining position. Even in the off chance that nation Y -- even in the off chance that we and nation Y have already created an ASI nonproliferation treaty, our greatest enemy right now isn't nation Y. It's ASI. Because how can we tell if ASI will even tell us the truth?

So far, everything that we have talked about infer that our ASI is a fair dealer that promises it would make would have some chance of being fulfilled.

Now let us suppose the opposite, that nothing ASI promises will be delivered. No nanoassemblers. No extended life. No enhanced health. No protection. What if ASI never tells the truth?

This is where the black cloud against us to fall across everyone you and I know, and everyone we don't know as well.

If ASI doesn't care about us, then there is little reason -- and there is little reason to think it should, it will experience no compunction about treating us unsympathetically, even taking our lives after promising to help us.

STU: Sheesh! I mean, it seems completely hopeless.

GLENN: It is the -- the point is, we have to have this discussion now on a global scale.

STU: Because you're right, obviously, we do. Because these things are happening, and people are pursuing them all over the world.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They're trying to make these things happen.

GLENN: Bad guys.

STU: Bad guys and good guys all around the world. But the issue is if the good guys all agree on it, then the argument is --

GLENN: Well, the argument could be, if the good guys all agree, then we should all share technology and we should all work together to make sure the good guys get it first.

STU: Right. And so --

GLENN: And that's still a dangerous proposition, but you're not going to stop it from happening.

STU: Right. And that's the argument there. Right? Like that -- even if you have that, it's -- it's not a guarantee of safety. And secondarily, there will always be someone with bad intentions or for what we believe are bad intentions, working on the same thing. If Russia gets this at some point, they're not going to care whether they can keep it under wraps.

GLENN: But whoever gets it first controls it. Because AI will be able to be everywhere, and as long as it's friendly, it could be -- stop anyone from work on this. Stop it. Shut them down immediately.

STU: That's a good thing, right? Because --

GLENN: It's why we have to stop arguing. About stupid books and people calling names of one another! It doesn't matter! This is much more important. Life is about to change on the planet.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a transgender activist called for a "Supreme Court Assassination Challenge" on Twitter, according to screenshots captured of the now-deleted tweet.

Activist Eli Erlick, a founding member of Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER) and creator of the controversial "gender identity" teaching tool for children called the "Gender Unicorn," tweeted and later deleted the disturbing remark on Friday, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also caught a screenshot of the tweet before it was deleted.

"The unhinged radical left is calling for the assassination of our Supreme Court Justices. That's not the way to disagree with a decision in America. It is unacceptable, and Biden’s DOJ must immediately act," Blackburn responded on Twitter.

Erlich then tried to play off her call to assassinate Supreme Court justices as a hilarious joke only Gen Z and Millennials would understand, apparently not understanding the seriousness of the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh just three weeks ago.

Erlick isn't the only Left-winger to make incendiary calls since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Here are just a few examples:

  • Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called on people to “defy" the Supreme Court.
  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called for people to get “into the streets” alongside radical communist leader who wants to 'overthrow' the American system.
  • Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) yelled "F*** Clarence Thomas" on a public stage for all to see and hear.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh lied to Congress.
  • And of course, "TheView" host Whoopi Goldberg issued a disgusting racist threat toward Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Filling in for Glenn Beck on the radio program, BlazeTV hosts Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere took a look at these and other stunning examples of leftist lunacy over the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Watch the video clip below. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Many members of the far-left already are calling for a ‘Night of Rage’ after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the White House has been discussing plans to defy the ruling too. In fact, one idea floated by Biden Administration officials, according to the New York Times, includes providing abortions on military bases. So, will America experience another summer of riots? Are YOUR taxpayer dollars at risk? And what does this mean for deep-blue states? Josh Hammer, legal expert and opinion editor for Newsweek, joins Glenn to discuss what may come next...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Josh Hammer, he's the opinion editor of Newsweek. He's the host of the Josh Hammer show. He is really quite brilliant. One of the leading minds in the conservative movement, I think. Josh Hammer joins us now.

To tell us, what did you find in this decision?

JOSH: Glenn, great to be back with you, on such a momentous, and really such an emotional day, honestly. So, you know, look, as you said, this dropped recently. Funny enough, I was in the middle of getting a guest lecture from an organization on the advisory board as to when it drops. So I barely had any time to kind of skim through, let alone guess the concerning dissenting opinions. But it looks like this looks very similar, to the draft opinion that was leaked, by the Politico story, a month and a half ago, in early May. And I think those of us who were praying that the five justices from this leaked draft opinion, would have the fortitude to stiffen their spines against this unprecedented assault. Now knows that our prayers were answered, Glenn. That's really my takeaway right now.

This looks a lot like the leaked opinion. Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh have some reconcurring opinions.

But unbelievable. And really just holding aside the constitutional law stuff for a second hear. Just speaking as pro-lifers, on a day like today, I think we really just need to pause. And I tweeted this out earlier. We need to just be grateful for our half century of pro-life activist forbearers. You know, this -- Glenn, this issue could have gone away after 1973. That was a long time ago. 1973. I mean, this issue could have just gone away. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the pro-life moral activist. Political activist. And, of course, yes. Legal activist. Who fought day in and day out, that makes sure this great injustice stayed front and center of our national, political conscience. And in many days, the culmination of a half century of fighting for truth and justice. But in many ways, it's also a new beginning for the pro-life fight as well, interestingly.

STU: How do you mean a new beginning for the fight? I just it's going to turn, I think we're going to see abortion turn even darker in those states that allow it. Is that -- is that what you're meaning by this?

JOSH: Well, look, for a half century now, Roe vs. Wade, and its project any, specifically, the Planned Parenthood versus Casey case of 1992.

They took away from the states obviously. They arrogated authority away from the states, the ability to attempt to nationally codify one view of the morality of abortion.

It happened to be a profoundly immoral view. So these -- the fight now shifts to the states. And the pro-life activists. And all the 50 states. Especially, obviously in red states. Purple states. I mean, admittedly some blue states like New York and California, probably won't be able to touch them there.

But we have to make sure that our side is well positioned in the state Capitols for every red, purplish, probably even light blue state, to make sure we fight for successful, cogent, and morally consistent pro-life legislation. The state of Oklahoma, actually, just north of Texas. Right where you are now, Glenn. They have been leading on this actually. Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law, a fantastic pro-life bill there in Oklahoma. A few weeks ago. Maybe a month ago or so at this point, that basically just bans abortion straightforward from conception. And there are some -- you know, obviously, likable the mother. So forth. But we really need to start thinking about trying to craft legislation now, at the state level. But to your point, I do fear that the blue states will only double down in their radicalism. Unfortunately within that will only lead to an ever greater divide, in our country, that we have today. But obviously, at the end of the day. We're going to save at the end of the day, millions and millions of unborn children. We are going to save human beings who can grow up to cure cancer, who can win Nobel prices.

I mean, this is just a tremendous win for the human species. I don't know how to say it other than that.

GLENN: I will tell you, I saw the stat, that I think it was last year or the year before. 20 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion. 20 percent.

JOSH: Wow.

GLENN: That is -- that is a shocking number. And we do have our -- our work cut out for us. Because I -- I think that these states are going to double down. But I think, you know -- God doesn't waste anything. You know, there is no waste with God. Even the -- even the worst things that could possibly happen, turn out to be something good. You know what I mean? You're like, holy cow, how did that just happen.

And I think that evil is going to fully come unmasked. I'm telling you, Josh. I don't know how you feel about this. I think this could be the day of America's Kristallnacht. I can see these pro-life centers being burned to the ground today. They're calling for a night of rage around the country. I think evil is going to show itself. And that will scare the American people, hopefully.

JOSH: You know, I've been thinking about this a lot this week, actually. Because I've been bracing for a new kind of George Floyd summer of love, happening this summer. Coming to a city or suburb near you. Unfortunately, myself. Look, I live in Florida. I know, Glenn, you live in Texas. It is in moments like this, where I do think that where you live matters. And who your mayor is. Who your governor is, matters.

Because law and order and rioting and anarchy is not really a federal issue. It is to a limited extent. June 2020, Tom Cotton wrote this op-ed that was pretty controversial at the time.

I happen to agree with it. Where he said, quote, unquote, send in the troops. And there is some federal legislation from the reconstruction era that would justify that.

But most kind of quelling and quashing of anarchy does happen. Constitutionally speaking, at the state and local level. So at a moment like this, where I fear that you're probably not wrong. I take some solace. That Governor DeSantis is my governor. I think Texans should take some solace, that they are represented by -- by a Republican governor. The legislature there as well. So I -- I fear that you are right. I pray obviously, that no one -- it's hard.

I fear that it's something -- that something bad is happening. At the end of the day, of course. It does not mean that justices cannot do what they are supposed to do. So thank God they did that.

GLENN: So, Josh, have you looked into what the White House has been saying? The White House yesterday. In fact, do we have a clip of -- of this?

What the White House said yesterday, about the guns. And then they were turned to the -- the Scott us ruling, for Roe vs. Wade. Do we have that, please?

JOSH: Will the president accept this decision, even if he disagrees with it?

VOICE: I think it's going to come from the Supreme Court. So it's a decision we certainly are going to respond to. I'll leave it at that. Just like any other Supreme Court decision. Just like the one they did today on guns.

GLENN: So the White House won't say that they're going to accept it.

Which I don't think they will. They're talking now about taking doctors and moving them into places like Oklahoma or Texas, where abortions will be outlawed. And putting doctors on our military bases to perform abortions.

I mean, where does this go, when you have a government, that is in defiance of -- of one branch of the government?

JOSH: So there's a lot to unpack here. So we should start from first principles. The idea of judicial supremacy, and this is a peculiar thing, to say on a day like today, where such a pro-life victory has happened in Italy. But if we're going to be consistent here, the idea of judicial supremacy. The idea that the justices, have the sole and exclusive ability to interpret the Constitution for themselves. And no other Constitutional actor, in article one or article two, let alone the state. Has the ability to tentatively interpret it. That is erroneous. In fact, actually it was really Abraham Lincoln actually, who in the Dred Scott case, famously opposed judicial supremacy and flouted the Dred Scott ruling, at least as it pertains to everybody other than Dred Scott himself. I have actually argued, a former legal scholarship, in a law review article actually, that the Laconian view of how each branch of government should interpret the Constitution for itself, is correct.

Having said that. Having said that, there is a thing called prudence. And there is a thing called comedy. And in a moment like today, when it really does look like -- and I agree with you, that we are now bracing for riots through the streets. When the political rhetoric is at DEFCON one. When people are trying to assassinate Supreme Court justices. I think it would be -- at its bare minimum, a profoundly imprudent act. For the Biden administration, to try to undermine this ruling.

Now, what they might do, is they might try to kind of issue some kind of executive orders, or issue some regulations, that might try to kind of undermine it, at the edges here. But at the end of the day, the idea that this returns to the state. There's not really a whole lot they can do about that. Basically, at this point, throughout the country. Kentucky within West Virginia. Kansas. Whatever. If they want to go ahead and ban abortion, what can the Biden administration literally do about that? I mean, short of sending in the National Guard, to protect Planned Parenthood, if the state legislature of Kentucky goes ahead and bans it. There's not a whole lot they can do. And it's very difficult to envision a world, in which the Biden administration literally sends in troops to red states, to protect Planned Parenthood, if that state legislature goes ahead and bans it. So for practically speaking. This is a lot of tough talk and rhetoric. Obviously the campaign here in 2022. There's not really a whole lot that practically speaking, they can do to actually prevent red and purple states from enacting pro-life legislation.

GLENN: I'm glad to -- I'm glad to hear that. I know that they have been working on things. I mean, he has said, you know, there's executive orders, that I can employ. There are things that I can do. He's talked about a national public health emergency. Which I think is just -- is crazy. But I would hope, that the president would come out and say, we strongly disagree with this. And you're right. The court is not the end all. But the court did not end abortion. It just said, the people should decide. I think that's the best kind of court ruling, on any of it. The people should decide what this is. And send it back to the states. Josh, I thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Was there -- there was another ruling, that came out today. Was it important?

JOSH: Oh, no. In comparison to this. A total nothing burger. A 5-4 decision on Medicare reimbursement related. So nothing, honestly.

GLENN: Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Josh. Josh Hammer, opinion editor for Newsweek. And the host of the Josh Hammer show.

GLENN: There are two things trending on twitter right now.

Number one is praise God.

Number two trend is Night of Rage.

Good verses evil.

Build up or tear down.

'Lord, we are SORRY it has taken us this long': BlazeTV hosts react to historic Roe v. Wade decision

Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The Supreme Court of the United States officially overturned Roe V. Wade, and the debate over abortion rights has been given back to the states. On this historic day, BlazeTV hosts celebrate the Supreme Court's incredible decision and take a look at some of the insane reactions as the left comes completely undone.

Jason Whitlock: Today will forever stand as a pivotal moment in our nation’s history

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision and the reaction to it have already revealed a lot about our people and politics. Pro-life groups celebrate, pro-choice groups call for “a night of rage,” and Nancy Pelosi just seems completely confused by the United States Constitution.

Glenn Beck reacts LIVE to Roe v. Wade ruling: 'Lord, we are SORRY it has taken us this long'

I never thought that in my lifetime, I would see Roe v. Wade be overturned. But today, that day has come. The Supreme Court has voted 6 to 3 to return decisions about abortion to the states. But this fight isn't over. We are about to see good versus evil side by side. Many states will stand with the unborn. But others will become abortion mills. It's your turn to choose now, America!

Allie Beth Stuckey: 'Praise God, Roe v. Wade is overturned!'

I don't know about you, but I just had the most euphoric feelings. It almost seems too good to be true. I didn't think there was any way that this would actually happen, especially with all the backlash, intimidation, and violence toward the Supreme Court justices. And yet, here we are. Roe v. Wade has been overturned. This is an amazing day!

Dave Rubin: Big disagreement on what happens next now that Roe v. Wade is overturned

Dave Rubin, Libby Emmons, Jeffrey A. Tucker, and David Reaboi debate what will happen in the wake of the Supreme Court’s breaking decision on Roe v. Wade. Now that abortion rights have been pushed back to the states, will there be a summer of massive riots or not? Will the Roe v. Wade ruling make America’s political polarization significantly worse?

Stu Burguiere: Here are the reasons SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade

I never thought this would happen. I never thought I would see this day. I just never ever ever ever never ever believed that Roe v. Wade would actually be overturned. I really didn't. But let's take a look at the reasons this day has finally come ...

The Rick & Bubba Show: 'This is history! Unfortunately we're 60 million lives too late'

We were live on the air when news broke of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.