The machine might actually be programmed with'kill instincts' (either intentionally or vicariously) and these instincts might have different parameters than those we set (or intended), as you suggested. For instance, killing to a machine might simply mean'making it not in sight anymore', or'making it not part of the data set anymore'. What's kind of'willies giving' is the fact that the bots might not have – again, as you suggested – the experience or capability, even – of attaching meaningful memories to the idea. Like'kill' to a human would incite deep ramifications of consciousness and emotions (I wouldn't know, but I'm guessing a normal person would feel sickness, guilt, shame, self hate – bad, in short – if they took another's life). Could a bot even wonder'what will I feel afterwards'?

Risk assessment scoring algorithms are used in courtrooms throughout the United States to determine whether someone is more likely to commit a future crime. Evidence shows they are biased against blacks. "There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it's biased against blacks. ON A SPRING AFTERNOON IN 2014, Brisha Borden was running late to pick up her god-sister from school when she spotted an unlocked kid's blue Huffy bicycle and a silver Razor scooter. Borden and a friend grabbed the bike and scooter and tried to ride them down the street in the Fort Lauderdale suburb of Coral Springs.Just as the 18-year-old girls were realizing they were too big for the tiny conveyances -- which belonged to a 6-year-old boy -- a woman came running after them saying, "That's my kid's stuff." Borden and her friend immediately dropped the bike and scooter and walked away. But it was too late -- a neighbor who witnessed the heist had already called the police. Borden and her friend were arrested and charged with burglary and petty theft for the items, which were valued at a total of 80. Compare their crime with a similar one: The previous summer, 41-year-old Vernon Prater was picked up for shoplifting 86.35 worth of tools from a nearby Home Depot store. Prater was the more seasoned criminal. He had already been convicted of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, for which he served five years in prison, in addition to another armed robbery charge. Borden had a record, too, but it was for misdemeanors committed when she was a juvenile. Yet something odd happened when Borden and Prater were booked into jail: A computer program spat out a score predicting the likelihood of each committing a future crime. Borden -- who is black -- was rated a high risk. Prater -- who is white -- was rated a low risk."

When I say "the words have no meaning to the computer" what I'm getting at is that the words hold no value to the perspective of the machine. If you tell me it's a sunny day where you are then my brain links the string of words to my own personal experience. I can link a sense of temperature on my skin to what I know as a "sunny day". The machine (aside from pre programmed info) has no frame of reference like you and I do. I know enough about computer programming that I am confident that the machine is no more knowledgeable about a sunny day as opposed to an apple cart.

Their AI engine spoke with grammatical precision and factual accuracy, but its diction remained terse and limp. They wanted it to be more conversational, so they made it read 2,865 romance novels. Now Google has a poet. In an unpublished paper entitled "Generating Sentences from a Continuous Space," researchers documented what the Google Brain Team's pet AI had learned from its steamy binge-fest. The experimental parameters are simple and might actually make for a fun group writing game of some sort.