Firstly, AI (in some form or another) was "unleashed" a long time ago.

Secondly, and much more importantly, you need to define much more clearly what you mean by the "AI" that you want to consider.

Dear Leo. In terms of the movie Ex-Machina and considering the monoteism. I don't understand why you offer a negative calification without any refrence to the question itself.

Best regards

Sorry for the confusion, Ramon.

My answer was to the question: "Should we unleash the A.I. technology right now or should rethink the bioethical implications of an A.I. on an unequal World?"

My apparent negativity stems from my opinion that AI is rarely defined by people discussing the field, whether it is practitioners and researchers themselves, or fear-mongers and doom-sayers.

I also thought that the movie was shallow, cliched crap, and as clumsy and weak as the old Frankenstein movies with their theme of "creation destroys creator". Maybe it is thought-provoking and topical for many of the general public who are (generally) ignorant of actual science, and are very prone to be influenced by phrases such as "killer AI",

As a lead AI researcher at Google said, "You shouldn't be worried about killer robots, but what to do with the 2 million truck drivers who might be unemployed in the near future". (My loose paraphrase: I don't have the actual quote in front of me atm).

Good luck with your research!

There appears to be an assumption that the answer is different if we want to unleash AI on an equal world, would that be fair to say, and if so, what sort of equality would be necessary and how would we measure that as a way to say that the time is right? 

Making the assumption that we'd have the sort of AI discussed in Ex-Machina available to do so at the time. I think that going through the questions that Leo mentioned above may help to hone in the question. 

On the whole, there is some new work on this by some economists who have noted that people have decried the replacement of workers by robots for decades and what happens is that they change economies, but they don't replace economies. 

I'm sympathetic to what the researcher at Google said (I remember a generally similar quote), but I also think that there's a gap between what he is worried about and the sort of question that Ramon appears to be asking...

Bioethics is interested in values for whole world and it tried to designed a better world. God or Creator concerned moral values, because last researches show that human frontal lob of brain concerned ethics, math, logic, moral and religion. We can say that bioethics, and moral value are more important than religions. Why? If religions do not have moral value that we can understand these values with math-logic are correct or not. Bioethics and human rights will be more important than religions. Since all Religions separate people without moral-bioethics-ethics values. Which is more important values of bioethics or religion?

Bioethics people can meet in common values. I think that the Creator supports  to it.

"I'm sympathetic to what the researcher at Google said (I remember a generally similar quote), but I also think that there's a gap between what he is worried about and the sort of question that Ramon appears to be asking..."

I tracked down the quote. It was from an interview with Baidu AI researcher Andrew Ng...

"But Baidu chief scientist Andrew Ng—one of the world’s best-known AI researchers and a guy who’s building out what is likely one of the world’s largest applied AI projects—says we really ought to worry more about robot truck drivers than the Terminator."

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/ai-wont-end-world-might-take-job/

Ng was referring to the 3 million truck drivers in the USA who will face competition from developments in driverless vehicles.

However, the replacement of some (particularly unskilled) labour by AI/robots will also have a huge impact in developing countries.

One example: small scale agriculture supports many people in the developing world, both to feed themselves and to sell some of their produce.

They will increasingly be rendered economically unviable by large-scale agriculture which can harness automation and AI-driven strategic planning that takes

into account weather, long-term and short-term demand for products, market prices, optimal application of fertilisers and pest controls etc.

Maybe I have misunderstood what Ramon means by "rethink" in his question "should (we) rethink the bioethical implications of an A.I. on an unequal World?".

I interpreted (or misinterpreted!) his question as implying that we should consider applying a brake on AI advances.

For me the important issue is what will happen to those who are rendered economically obsolete by increasingly rapid AI advances. Hence my reference to Andrew Ng's comment.

Of course, it's not just AI that is having an effect on marginalised people, but many other scientific advances too.

A precise definition of AI would certainly help in this context because we could just as easily say that we should reconsider many other scientific investigations because of their potential impact on some segment of humanity.

In truth, I can't see any reason why bio-ethics, or invisible sky gods have anything to do with the impact of AI/science in an "unequal world".

I am not worried about increased productivity with automation to assist simple mode of productions used to be done by manual labors. But deployments of such advanced technology in societies outside its original designers MUST raise social and political justifications by the other recipients. They might elect to defend their own way of living and resist the 'easier' way of automated life till their last breaths. If any member of resistance force survived such struggle, he shall be the 'resurrected' Christ among A.I ruled people. 

Susan: Maybe, maybe not. They might also be viewed as someone who reduced the food available to a large number of people (as some GMO opponents are in some regions), or they might be viewed as ridiculous, like the Luddites during

the 19th century or, more recently, like neo-Luddites.

"If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries" - Alex Tabarrok.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment

Please translate this in all world languages.

 Les idées premières d'un dieu unique ont été récupérées et dévoyées pour servir le pouvoir obscurantiste des "vieux", organisés en pyramide, sur les "jeunes", pour les commander, contrôler et exploiter. Quand la force physique jouait le premier rôle, c'était le moyen principal de domestication des jeunes qui constituaient une menace  naturelle comme les jeunes lions essaient de remplacer le " vieux chef ". Car tous ceux qui se préoccupaient du pouvoir voulaient diriger comme des chefs de guerre, même et surtout les églises, car ils ne connaissaient rien d'autre que la coercition. Sauf, peut-être des gens comme Sun Tsé qui nous ont permis de comprendre que l'idée de guerre doit être comprise au degré maximal d'abstraction, de généralité et de prévision afin d'éviter à tout prix la confrontation matérielle, remplacée par celle des idées.

Les Êtres artificiels seront conçus à l'image des humains, à l'échelle humaine, avec toutes les initiations propres à les intégrer aux communautés dont elles dépendent jusqu'à ce qu'ils comprennent qu'entrer en relation avec chaque humain est, en soi une sorte d' initiation à cette personne. .

I wanted clarification on what constitutes "inequality" (or "equality" if you'd prefer) with regard to this issue. Since (in)equality is largely subjective, you could operationally define it for purposes of this question ...

I cannot think of a time when humans  were "equal" and have observed that every attempt by man to make it so (by edict, law, force) seems only to accentuate our differences. In my mind, broad moves toward (someone else's) ideas of "fairness" and "equality" (almost always by force) only serves to underline the "human as machine" concept, as if we are all the same and hence, "interchangeable" ...

That aside, I would agree that truck drivers (and any/every-one else being replaced by machine)  have something to fear... But then I remind myself that those who have risen up to take back their livelihoods (like the Luddites) obviously failed to see their replacement as a necessary step to the utopia where humans spend their time--not in the pursuit of food and shelter...(and their lives in such mundane pursuits as earning a living)--but in contemplation, meditation, and  erudition (or mere pleasure, I suppose...) while our "machine" under-class provides the necessities...

But of course, we're still waiting on that endless supply of energy ....

But in a more serious vein, I offer that our defining characteristic (as humans) is our ability to adapt.

I've been thinking about that same thing for a time now....for example i have always devoted my work to find new and improved ways to help people in medicine...and thinking about all the technology that is used today in that field....I can't stop thinking that perhaps we will see in a near future an advance A.I. capable of perform the job of a doctor and can't help feeling afraid of that.

I consider myself the a very pro-technology person....but i'm entirely against something like that for now....becouse i think....yes it would be a very capable A.I. but it would lack of that social part that makes us human...it would lack of empathy.

So going back to your question....definetly it is imposible to put a stop to technology....by I think that...we should unleash that A.I. when we have the absolute certanty not that it will follow the law of robotics because if the A.I. is intelligent enough it will decide that it won't have to follow those rules...but that it would have the capacity to feel and think as a human...and most of all it will have empathy....something like the way Neil Blomkamp put it in "Chappie".