Slashdot Mirror
Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk
quax writes Steve Wozniak maintained for a long time that true AI is relegated to the realm of science fiction. But recent advances in quantum computing have him reconsidering his stance. Just like Elon Musk, he is now worried about what this development will mean for humanity. Will this kind of fear actually engender the dangers that these titans of industry fear? Will Steve Wozniak draw the same conclusion and invest in quantum comuting to keep an eye on the development? One of the bloggers in the field thinks that would be a logical step to take. If you can't beat'em, and the quantum AI is coming, you should at least try to steer the outcome. Woz actually seems more ambivalent than afraid, though: in the interview linked, he says "I hope [AI-enabling quantum computing] does come, and we should pursue it because it is about scientific exploring." "But in the end we just may have created the species that is above us."
So many accountants that have lost their jobs to automation. We've nearly obliterated the profession with all these amazing technological innovations. I mean, when was the last time you even saw an accountant with a job? There used to be huge buildings full of accountants with their funny calculators and running around with ledgers. Now one person with Quickbooks and Excel can do more than what an entire building could do, and it's destroying the economy, wrecking civilization, and bringing about the final demise of mankind.
I don't understand the train of thought that leads to the notion that quantum computing is a prerequisite for strong AI, unless there has been some research that has shown that the human brain is a quantum computer. No, it seems to me that we have all the tools we need already, and now it is just a matter of Moore's Law progressing until we can build a neural net that is as powerful as a human brain. Well, that and a leap in design that allows long term planning, like the change that happened when man ceased to be a dumb beast and became what he is today.
Everyone needs a tunnel sometimes.
Thirty four characters live here.
All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we're redesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mind becomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans will upgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.
That's where I both am, and am not, driving to work, right?
Best Slashdot Co
I will also submit that if the AGI we create is truly "above" us, then it will not be a heartless monster that destroys whatever it finds troublesome. Just as we care for our parents even (and especially) once they are both physically and mentally "beneath" us, so too will our AGI children take care of us.
Or, perhaps more generally, just as we set up wildlife preserves and such to ensure that our evolutionary ancestors can continue to thrive in an environment that is natural to them, so too will our AGI overlords set up wildlife preserves for us.
And, in both cases, the AGIs will do an even better job of it than we do, since they are superior after all.
I fully expect that the singularity will be awesome!
It's only a matter of when. Even if all strictly computational AI research stops tomorrow, we'll be able to genetically enhance human intelligence by and by, even if it takes several thousand genetic manipulations to do it.
When direct neural I/O becomes a thing, millions (or billions) of people will be directly, electronically linked via the internet. Tell me that's not a new form of intelligence.
For that matter, we'll almost certainly develop at least one form of AI the way nature did. We'll cobble up some genetic algorithms primed to develop the silicon equivalent of neurons, give them some problems to solve, and perhaps a robot or two to control, and we eventually "grow" an AI that way.
But look, it's not the end of us, or anything else. We merge with the things. Our thoughts become linked with theirs. If we can transfer all memory, then eventually we *become* the AI, perhaps with a few spare physical copies of ourselves kept for amusement purposes.
Will AIs fight? There will be conflicts, of course. There always are. Resource conflicts, however, will be minimal. An AI doesn't need much, and can figure out how to get enough more efficiently than we can. Conflicts will be over other matters and are unlikely to be fatal.
Wozniak, et. al. need to chill. It's just evolution.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
...make a computer thinks like a person? A computer that loses it's car keys. When we finally emulating living intelligence artificially, it will have many of the same disadvantages that normal human intelligence has. In fact it HAS to, if it does not it won't be a true replica and I suspect many of our so call disadvantages are inherent to the system. It is interesting to note our most useful tools really are very unlike the things they replace, a bull is much better able to take care of itself than a tractor is. To a great extent computers are useful to us because they do things we don't do well, not the things we do well. FYI, a true AI that could pass the Turning Test would itself want a PDA to help it out and take care of the pesky details it didn't like dealing with. Another time someone once remarked to me that they thought in the future, maybe we would have the way to enhance someone's intelligence with computers. I replied, "like making them better at chess?", they said yes and I pointed out we have that technology now, just give them a laptop with a chess program and have them copy the moves. The future is more like a highly connected hive mind, with human and artificial minds closely linked, in many ways our smart phones are the first step on this path.
To date, zero evidence of any active quantum process modulating the workings of human (or other) brains, regardless of low level structure, has been presented.
Consider a bipolar transistor. It is true that quantum effects make it work, in the sense that it definitely wouldn't work without them, but they are not, in any way, used to modulate or otherwise participate in actively, variably, moderating what the transistor does when actually performing -- amplifying, switching, etc. That process is exclusively moderated by current (electron) flow quantity -- for example, you modulate the current flow, the transistor accordingly modulates the current flowing between the collector and emitter. A bipolar transistor does not respond to quantum events (nor are any applied to it within the circuits we use every day), nor does it produce quantum outputs for the purpose of affecting other components.
The same can be said of the brain. Quantum effects are present -- we know this because two of the three active brain building blocks (chemistry, electricity) are what they are due to low level quantum effects. But just as one can very accurately model and simulate or emulate a transistor and its activities without ever considering anything at all on the quantum level, so it is with neurons -- all the evidence, bar none, presently says that brain operations are performed using chemical, electrical and topological moderation. Of quantum moderation there has been absolutely no sign at all.
Active quantum effects do play a role in some natural systems. For instance, quantum superposition is an active mechanism in photosynthesis. This was discovered because in photosynthesis something very low-level, but obvious (extreme high efficiency in energy conversion) was happening that could not be explained; when they went looking for what the mechanism for that was (by examining the precise states of molecular photosynthetic antenna proteins), that's the mechanism that was found.
The critical difference is that neurons and glia have not been found to exhibit any low level behaviors that are otherwise inexplicable.
The vast majority of speculation that "quantum" processes actively modulate brain operations is uninformed, typically brought about by fundamental misunderstandings of quantum effects, which in turn have been disseminated by the popular media attempting to "simplify" quantum mechanics for the layperson. Among the exceptions, none of the suggested ideas have yet to be backed by any evidence; there's no reason to think that they will hold up at this juncture. Determining that quantum modulation was ongoing would also have to be accompanied by the discovery of a presently unknown and non-indicated modulating mechanism -- but there's presently no evidence for that to even stimulate a question along those lines.
The relevant, fundamental question with regard to AI is: Can we, using other technology such as software emulation and hardware neural analogs, perform the same kinds of operations as a neuron, with all known modulating effects of the glia (propagation delay, synaptic neurotransmitter uptake, topological scaffolding/ specificity)? The answer to that is a definite yes. Consequently, just as with modeling and emulating a transistor's function, there has been, and no future likelihood portends of, any role for quantum operations whatsoever.
So when someone -- even someone as interesting and accomplished in other fields as Wozniak is -- starts talking about quantum computing ushering in AI in some fashion, you may rest assured that they are not talking about anything known to be valid in AI research today. However, he has drawn the correct conclusion from his incorrect perception of brain operations: The impending debut of artificial intelligence is not science fiction. Simply given that we can keep working on it (no nuclear wars, bad law, etc.), research is now
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The people who actually DO AI worry publicly about it.
People in the field are painfully aware of:
* The limitations of existing systems
* The difficulty of extrapolating from existing systems to general-purpose AI - things that look like easy extensions often aren't.
I did AI academically and industrially in the 1980's; at the time we were all painfully aware of the overpromising and underdelivery in the field.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
When choosing a servant, you want to interview them to make sure they aren't anywhere as smart as you. At least now in general, maybe in a specific task .. but in general you don't want them overall smarter than you.
In the future, instead of having a job you will own shares in a factory that has robots. In essence you will own a robot .. and the output in terms of productivity will be your salary (or shareholder dividends). For those who do not invest wisely, the government will provide them some minimal amount via taxation of the shareholders. Or maybe the company directly. I don't know. Vote for for what you like.
Since robots will be doing all the work, the cost of stuff will be dirt cheap. Food will be synthetically produced in giant vats, powered by fusion energy.
When you get pulled over and the cop asks if you know how fast you were going you say "No, but I know my direction exactly. "
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I think that you are not fully considering all of the possible implications of your comments.
When direct neural I/O becomes a thing, millions (or billions) of people will be directly, electronically linked via the internet. Tell me that's not a new form of intelligence.
I would argue that MySpace and Facebook have not provided us with a new form of intelligence.
An AI doesn't need much, and can figure out how to get enough more efficiently than we can.
The logical conclusion for an AI would be to eliminate itself of its less-efficient human parasite and utilize all available resources for the most efficient mind, which will be itself.
Wozniak, et. al. need to chill. It's just evolution.
Evolution for some is extinction for others.