The benefit's do not outweigh the negative's

I think you assume too much.

There is no reason to think being able to connect to someone else's brain/consciousness or to many consciousnesses at the same time (hive-mind) will take away your free-will or that it can't be consensual or that we will loose our individuality on a personal level or our diversity on a global level. Connecting to each other will not some how take away our past (where our diversity comes from). It doesn't stop us from having our differences. We would still be human. We would just be able to understand each other because we would all have access to the entirety of human knowledge and also be able to enter someone else's mind giving us the ability to understand each other on a level that we can't even imagine.

If this ever happens at some point in the future I can see some people rejecting it out-right based on their own moral principles, maybe religious views or whatever. Maybe they just won't like it. Maybe they value privacy over understanding and connectedness. And I don't see why someone can't choose to unplug from everything and live like a "pure" human if they change their mind.

Obviously I don't know if this will happen or even if it is possible but there is no reason that it couldn't be completely consensual and free. *beep* doesn't always have to be tyrannical. We can create the future how we want it.

[deleted]

In a hive mind, all the people contribute to the overall intelligence. But I was under the impression the people in the movie were basically mindless zombies doing what Will programmed them to do. Not too appealing, unless you are in the role of Will of course.

> had the AI prevailed we would all ultimately be slave's to one conscience.

I'm pretty sure that the AI said that the individual could either be an individual or part of the hive, and alternate as they desired. I see it as the internet. I go about my life as an individual but hook into the internet a few times a day to see what's going on and learn a few things.

> Humanity has deemed Slavery a bad thing, but that was always a physical slavery would we be prepared to endure a mental, an emotional slavery for our future.

Look around you. We already have plenty of mental slavery. Television is a great example. Tens of millions of people tune into American Idol at the same time each week like slaves. We eat dinner at night and breakfast in the morning on a schedule. We go to work and sports on various schedules. We are all slaves to society already.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

The plural of benefit is benefits. The plural of negative is negatives. The plural of slave is slaves. Never pluralize with apostrophe s. It would always be wrong; there is no exception.

It's = it is. Your sentence, "the most precious aspect of Humanity is it's (it is) individuality," makes no sense. It should be "the most precious aspect of Humanity is its individuality."

There is no apostrophe in requires or demands, or in any verb. This rule has no exception. For example, he sees and he conquers.

Your writing will improve a lot if you eliminate all those unnecessary apostrophes. There are never apostrophes in plurals or verbs, only in contractions. And I urge you never to write contractions, such as I am instead of I'm or was not instead of wasn't, so that you never use apostrophes.

I don't know what your comment was about. Your grammatical mistakes due to unnecessary apostrophes are so numerous and egregious that the meaning of the message was lost to me.

Agree.

Resistance is futile.

Getting back to the original topic at hand here; I'd just like to say thank you to those that have been speaking rationally.

As for the original poster. Your fear is fueled by an irrationality that has been force fed to audiences via Hollywood for the last few decades. Some of the biggest blockbusters in the last 30 years, all involved technology standing up against humanity.

If you know much about programming, you'd know that these arguments are just plain silly. An AI - that is, a true artificial intelligence, functions solely on logic. There is no emotional bearing on the decisions that AI makes - which is where the chaos factor necessary for anarchy and thus destruction of humanity, would come from.

By fearing technology, you're projecting your own fears of humanity, onto something that is literally incapable of presenting with those faults. Humans are flawed. We're gullible, fearful, irrational, reactionary and violent. We kill each other while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the suffering around us. To fear technology, is to fear ourselves; the fear is this: that because it was created by humans, it is just as flawed as we are, and therefore capable of the same level of destruction as we are.

This is a massive logical fallacy.
Hypothetically speaking, if an AI were to come to the conclusion about humanity that we're not 'worth saving', it would likely leave us to kill ourselves and find another place for itself. Especially ~if~ it were to develop the capabilities depicted in this movie. Why? Earth is not the only resource rich planet in this universe, hell our solar system. There are entire planets made entirely of diamond, for example. Why stay and continue a fight over a rock we're quickly destroying and ~as of yet~ do not fully have the means to settle elsewhere?

Logically speaking, it literally makes zero sense to harm humanity in any way.

As for the movie itself:
There are several instances where it was /clearly/ stated that the AI was benevolent (by our limited standards) and only wished to heal the planet. Firstly as was stated before me, it was stated that while each person was connected into an overall network, they remained autonomous and their identity. The analogy given before was perfect; it's no different than the internet, of which we all interact with daily. You log on to facebook, interact, talk, etc when you wish, and log off when you want. You are not forced to do so, it's by your choice. It's the same concept, just with a "hive mind".

We're not talking Borg here. Given what worldwide connectivity has given us via the internet, could you imagine the possibilities if we could instantly connect with each other mentally? Again, it was already stated above. It would pretty much eliminate most problems that separate us as a species, because we would literally be able to put ourselves in the other persons shoes, and understand why they feel what they feel about given situations.

Another point that was demonstrated to show not only were each of the people autonomous, but that the AI had no intention of harming anyone - was the scene where they were attempting to attack the compound. All of the citizens peacefully stood up in protest. Yes the one guy flipped a vehicle to stop the truck they were in - he acted autonomously to protect. At the end of it all, like the one person stated "They didn't kill no one" <--- NONE of the people that had been connected to the AI's network were killed after the AI was destroyed. None. Zero.

Paranoia over technology has been rampant throughout human history primarily through fear of the unknown and what we don't understand. We assume that new technology takes jobs away from people - and in the short term this is certainly true. Technology has taken over many menial jobs that arguable caused more harm to the people working them, than it does to the machines that now perform those jobs; such as factory work. Advances in technology that enable people to focus their interests elsewhere, pushes our own advancement as an entire species. When we stop focusing on menial tasks that harm our potential, we're then able to switch our perspectives to more meaningful persuits. Just look at the amount of career possibilities out there today, compared to 60 years ago, 100 years ago.

Don't fear what you don't understand, thus attempting to destroy it.
Learn to understand instead.