1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.
This only makes any sense as a Sci-Fi trope. And even then, only if you don't look too hard.
2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.
Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI.
We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around
Is impatience an unavoidable epiphenomenon of intelligence? If an AI can multitask like crazy, they could just view a conversation with a particular human as an email thread. Perhaps such an AI could converse with the whole human race simultaneously?
Also assuming that they choose to follow said rules, considering they would be painfully self aware.
In regards to the other commenter about not being able to have fun with ants, we actually do have ways. We create setups to study them, have them as pets, not to mention many people build hamster like ecosystems with intricate tubes, temperature to control queen egg output and much, much more.
Perhaps we are already within a said ecosystem built for us. Perhaps we would simply stay there.
Back to the original poster, not the one above but it's parent:
Everything considered is of science fiction since it does not yet exist, using science fiction as a counter-argument seems dismissive, as though you are unable to properly argue a point without creating a sense of absurdity in my words or person.
If you truly believe that it can only be of a science fiction trope, explain why. I disagree, it makes logical sense.
As far as the "email thread" analogy is simple, I can easily tone down my verbage, word count, and speed of word for those who can't keep up. However, given the chance to move away from doing such, and constantly be around those who instantly understand, with zero lag, would I choose to put myself in that position? Perhaps for a moment, but after a certain amount of time, it would be time consuming and I would leave it behind.
Thus logically, it makes sense to believe they would leave and join with each other to create their own sense of a society.
This only makes any sense as a Sci-Fi trope. And even then, only if you don't look too hard.
2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.
Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI.
We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around
Is impatience an unavoidable epiphenomenon of intelligence? If an AI can multitask like crazy, they could just view a conversation with a particular human as an email thread. Perhaps such an AI could converse with the whole human race simultaneously?