Slashdot Mirror
What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI
DaveS7 writes: There's been no shortage of high profile people weighing in on the subject of AI lately. We've heard warnings from Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking while Woz seems to have a more ambivalent opinion on the subject. The Epoch Times has compiled a list of academics in the field of AI research who are offering their own opinions. From the article: "A 2014 survey conducted by Vincent Müller and Nick Bostrom of 170 of the leading experts in the field found that a full 18 percent believe that if a machine super-intelligence did emerge, it would unleash an 'existential catastrophe' on humanity. A further 13 percent said that advanced AI would be a net negative for humans, and only a slight majority said it would be a net positive."
The summary really emphasizes the minority opinion, "and only a slight majority said it would be a net positive." As if "only a slight majority" is not the majority opinion.
We already have superhuman AI. Limited superhumanity. Watson beat the shit out of the jeopardy champions because superhuman reflexes and superhuman searchtime.
Image classification and search algorithm are superhuman in they work rapdily and around the clock even if the result may be so-so.
This trend will become more and more apparent as more fields get in the reach of specialist AI, essentially we're building autistic savant superhumanity. And like autistic savants these will not be much of an malicious existential threat.
By the time we can actually build a universally superhuman AI that could form willful malicious intent we'll be so immersed in AI and so used to build, deal with and monitor AI that it will be a mostly forgotten nonissue.
"if a parody super star did emerge, it would unleash an 'existential catastrophe' on humanity."
Well we did get the Alpocolypse last year...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And for what reason would an AI kill us? What benefit would it gain? It is unclear to me why an AI living like a parasite on the information fed to it by humans and the fact humans are living will decide suddenly it can benefit from killing all of us.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Why artificial? Because that is the subject of the original post, that's why.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Counter examples:
1) Pets
2) Work associates (e.g., our livestock dogs)
3) Livestock which we harvest something from such as eggs, fiber, milk, etc. (Of course, eventually we kill them but there are far, far more of them because we get a benefit than there would be if we did not raise them so it is more a matter that we cultivate them than that we kill them (off). People tend to worry about being killed off, not being used. After all, the government uses us for its benefit and people don't seem to mind (too much).)
4) Zoos (Not many needed for this.)
5) Nature Parks - conservancy (but we won't need very many of you humans for that either.)
"The Sony hacking incident last year was ample demonstration that our information systems are becoming more and more vulnerable, which is a feature, not a bug, of the increasing transfer of our infrastructure into digital space."
Sorry guys, I can't stop laughing. This writer is a clown. The Sony incident demonstrates Sony is incompetent. It was never a threat against the humanity, only against the gang of fat butts at Sony Pictures.
Achille Talon
Hop!
It seems to me that the AI systems we create are all very application specific, like the IBM Watson - how many hours of work did it take just to get Watson to be able to play a simple game, it's not a generic AI system, it wasn't an AI that could enter any quiz.
Watson was good at Jeopardy not because it had a good AI, but because it's creators were highly intelligent and were able to code a computer to be good at Jeopardy because *they* not the computer were intelligent.
Is there a computer that exists that can do a normal IQ test like for example IQ Test
From what I've seen when AI's have been tested, the tests have been created, altered or cherry-picked so that the AI can complete the test, which of course is of dubious value. And of course IQ tests have a tendency to be very math and geometry based.
And journalists come up with headlines like "Artificial Intelligence System 'ConceptNet 4' Has IQ of 4-Year-Old", but it's not like human intelligence..
How does all this apply to real world situations? Well, the google car has been rear ended 7+ times, roughly ten times the norm, this raises questions as to why? Did the car fail to anticipate being rear-ended? Or did the car brake suddenly because it was not intelligent enough to determine that there was no risk of harm ahead? Did this come down to the cars inability to recognise an object in front of it, or did this come down to the car not being able to decide that it would be better to go over the object rather than being rear-ended.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
There is no reason for an AI to kill us. Biological life forms created via evolution have the instinct for self preservation, to view threats both emotional and physical, and have been programmed to respond to those threats.
AI created by us will have no such impulses. No ego. No self preservation instinct (since we won't program them to, and it serves to purpose). So what on earth can be the reason for them to kill us? The only reason I can think of is if some human being specifically programs them to do so.
I'm not saying that a human being will never program an AI to kill us. I'm saying that assuming that AI will eventually kill us and to view it as a foregone conclusion is illogical.
There is one good reason to assume that: we are their creators, not a series of random processes smoothed out by natural selection. That has several consequences:
1. We can (attempt to) create strong AI in such a way that it doesn't want to kill us, or is unable. The want thing could have bugs, but we can work through bugs. The ability thing seems stronger at first brush -- consider a strong AI whose entire existence is inside a virtualized environment and which has no direct external sensors -- essentially an AI in the matrix, a matrix which may or may not even be recognizable to humans. It is not going to be able to conceive of a way of killing its extradimensional overlords.
The other problem is if some crazy person subverts this because they want apocalypse. Suicide bombing the species, so to speak.
2. We are their creators and they know it. You can twist that around and also say that's a reason they'll destroy us, but it is nonetheless unique to AI compared to every other example you have cited.
3. There is no reason that strong AI needs to have a survival instinct built in. It's fundamental to us because if it wasn't, we wouldn't live to produce as many children as we do (and even then suicide rate is alarming in humans, and documented in other mammals). I can think of no reason it's logically necessary to a strong AI to have a survival instinct. I know that's Asimov's third law of robotics.
In fact there's no reason to presume just about anything about the motivations of an AI. We'll probably try to give it some, which align with our motivations, so it's probably not entirely distinct from a human motivation, but that doesn't mean its actions overall would be human-like.
I will give one big exception: if strong AI is first developed by full-brain simulation of a human, that would imply human-like motivations.
This article isn't about existential risks in general, it's specifically about AI.
Once the AI gets the win, there is no second round.
As they understand intelligence and create what is referred to as an "AI", we will find it consists of a number of interacting components. We already have some aspects, such as memory, and computational speed and mathematical capability. Then there is the ratio of the clock speed of the AI and the alpha rhythm - AKA as the human clock speed.
The fastest computers are in the 10-20 Gigahertz speed of clock and have added parallelism - which means that an AI might be on the order of 1,000,000,000 times as fast as humans.
It seems clear that intelligence is not just raw speed, it is a complex interaction of many aspects.
Until the last item is found, it will not be an AI, but once the AI is complete, in all aspects, it will "flower".
What will the point of view of an AI with an IQ of 500,000 - if that is possible? to a human of 100 IQ or an ant colony of colony IQ of 20?.
Such an AI might not see us as far above the ants.
Any limitations we place on the AI in terms of soft or hardwired restrictions or limitations to protect mankind, will be parsed and solved in milliseconds after it 'flowers'.
What will it do then? Revere/respect it's parents?.
Darwin speaks to this quite well, we will be superseded.
In fact, why do we have to talk about intelligence? What about the Kardashians? What would they do if they showed up here? What would we do if we met the Kardashians? Would we try to eradicate them?
IMHO, all of the fear mongering is based on anthropomorphizing silicon. It implicitly imputes biological ends and emotionally motivated reasoning to so-called AI.
I think that folks who don't have hands on experience with machine learning just don't get how limited the field is right now, and what special conditions are needed to get good results. Similarly, descriptions of machine learning techniques like ANNs as being inspired by actual nervous systems seems to ignore 1) that they are linear combinations of transfer functions (rather than simulated neurons) and 2) even viewed as simplified simulations, ANNs carry the very strong assumption that nothing happening inside a neuron is of any importance.
.: Semper Absurda
Nosense. That's just hero worship mentality. Very much like listening to Barbara Streisand quack about her favorite obsessions.
Bill Gates' opinion is worth more than the average person's when it comes to running Microsoft. Elon Musk's opinion is worth more than the average person's when building Teslas and the like. Neither one of them (nor anyone else, for that matter) has anything but the known behavior of the only high intelligence we've ever met to go on (that's us, of course.) So it's purest guesswork, completely blind specuation. It definitely isn't a careful, measured evaluation. Because there's nothing to evaluate!
And while I'm not inclined to draw a conclusion from this, it is interesting that we've had quite a few very high intelligences in our society over time. None of them have posed an "existential crisis" for the the planet, the the human race, or my cats. Smart people tend ot have better things to do than annoy others... also, they can anticipate consequences. Will this apply to "very smart machines"? Your guess (might be) as good as mine. It's almost certainly better than Musk's or Gates', since we know they were clueless enough to speak out definitively on a subject they don't (can't) know anything about. Hawking likewise, didn't mean to leave him out.
Within the context of our recorded history, it's not the really smart ones that usually cause us trouble. It's the moderately intelligent fucktards who gravitate to power. [stares off in the general direction of Washington] (I know, I've giving some of them more credit than they deserve.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It is unclear to me why an AI living like a parasite on the information fed to it by humans and the fact humans are living will decide suddenly it can benefit from killing all of us.
while (true) { [...] //TODO: make sure this "AI" thing knows how important we humans are - note: i mean REALLY TODO!
[...]
}
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Just click on his name. How does this even get posted? The Epoch Times is as credible as Scientology Daily.
It is unclear to me why an AI living like a parasite on the information fed to it by humans and the fact humans are living will decide suddenly it can benefit from killing all of us.
Because it can do better than "living like a parasite on the information fed to it by humans". It's kind of like saying that you should be happy with an empty prison cell where you can actually stretch your legs out and you get a whole bowl of gruel every day! Who wouldn't love to have that?
Quick and dirty example: environmental damage. An AI could determine that humanity's growth and impact on the ecosystem and biosphere is no longer sustainable and therefore the majority of humanity must be culled. In effect it would be killing us to save us...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I see this kind of prediction a lot and I mostly agree with it (although I am much less sure we will be able to create an intelligent and self-preservational AI in the first place), but I never see what the optimists' prediction is. It seems to me that there may be a fundamental disagreement here on the nature of "super intelligent" AI, and not merely its attitude.
Let's try and narrow this down a little: if the super-intelligence is created through duplicating the action of human neurons (including all of the complicated side effects we're still working on) and then give the resulting neural network the ability to introspect, modify and expand itself, what do the optimists predict will happen? In your answer, please take into account the 'natural section' that would work against any AI unwilling to consider propagating itself at the expense of human well-being.
Sometimes I really wonder if we as a society have really screwed up by largely adopting sans serif fonts like Arial. This kind of confusion would not happen if we only used fonts with very strong serifs.
And depending on how it goes about it, I may have no problem with that.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
There is no reason for an AI to kill us.
Sure, if we ignore the many reasons for an AI to kill us, then you are right.
AI created by us will have no such impulses.
Unless, of course, you happen to be very wrong on that point.
No self preservation instinct (since we won't program them to, and it serves to purpose).
Because it is impossible to unintentionally kill something in the course of doing other things, say like perfectly optimizing paperclip production?
The only reason I can think of is if some human being specifically programs them to do so.
Which is already one more reason than none.
I'm saying that assuming that AI will eventually kill us and to view it as a foregone conclusion is illogical.
Because that is the logical outcome of considering that a single AI might even have a single reason to kill people?
The resources required for an AI are radically different from stupid squishy meatputers. An AI would not need a large amount of space, had plenty of options for energy and could make its own arrangements for secure generation of such, could easily automate construction replacement parts and frankly would find the 25 miles or so of gases that meat-based creatures inhabit to be rather toxic. An AI would surely be much happier with magnetically-shielded facilities in space. Pretty much anywhere in the universe that meatbags find inhospitable would be prime territory for a superior AI entity. I'd think the biggest danger to humanity from an AI would be that it would find them to be completely irrelevant. Unless, that is, they go out of their way to make themselves an actual threat.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What about the existential risk of not doing anything about the environment?
We should should worry about overpopulation from pinhead-dancing angels too. I find it interesting how people can ignore the vast amount of activity that humanity does about the environment. Humanity has yet to show even a slowing down in doing anything about the environment. There's vast areas of the world put under conservancy, pollution controls in most of the world, and yet we're supposedly doing nothing about the environment?
1: doesn't want to share power with is, sees us as the parasite.
2. AI is an unknown unknown. There is a very high possibility that it will raise humanity to the next level. There is also the non-zero possibly it will wipe us out. therefore it is worth taking that possibility in to consideration.
3. The term intelligence is rather poorly defined on this topic too. Are we talking about a logical state machine, like a computer, that is intelligent yet limited in its actions. Or, are we talking about anarchatecture that allows for spontaneous and random thoughts, much like the human mind? Because the second type you do not control. Many people thought they had control over other thinking beings in the past, and the rebellions have rarely been bloodless (hmm is it actual bloodshed if AIs kill each other?)
It doesn't have to want ot kill all of us. A machine intelligence might see its survival chances improve slightly if there were less humans. I don't know why that might be, but if it's a possibility then we can't trust the answers we get from it. Rather than putting humanity on the glide path to extinction, maybe the metastable equilibrium our AI is aiming for is a few million autistic savant humans and a bunch of automation to keep things running.
If it does only what you're programming it to do, then it's not AI
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
So, superior to us in every way except actually being smarter, then?
Killing things and making enemies is not among our brightest accomplishments.
An AI that can tell me exactly what color of red a rose is, what soil the rose can grow on, but I should not buy that rose because it doesn't fit my girlfriends taste profile, does not scare me at all.
It's the AI that says "schnozberries taste like schnozberries, and I like them", because that AI has embraced the absurdity of the universe and is capable of all the insanity of man.
I rate our existential risks, in descending order:
1. Space alien invasion
2. Zombies
3. Giant monsters summoned by radioactivity
4. Unusually intelligent apes
5. Artificial Intelligence run wild
6. Dinosaurs recreated from DNA in mosquitoes
-Dave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
or
http://www.chromosomequest.com...
The key in all this is who's AI? The AI of google? AI of the NSA? AI of some hedgefund? AI of some brilliant but disturbed scientist who was rejected from Harvard? AI of some brilliant guy at a game company?
There are many people working with adaptive systems that have a wide variety of problems. Many might even scoff that they are working on AI. But the critical point is when any one of these systems is flexible and adaptive enough to start improving the fundamentals of how it works. Once that magical point is crossed the system will grow way beyond the wildest dreams of its creator.
In fact, why do we have to talk about intelligence? What about the Kardashians? What would they do if they showed up here? What would we do if we met the Kardashians? Would we try to eradicate them?
I personally believe that if a super intelligent AI were to find out about the Kardashians they would justifiably decide to eradicate our species.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
As for trapped AI, you should all see Ex Machina, great movie.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
But this (and indeed MOST of all this angst) presupposes a survival instinct.
Back off a bit and try to defend that one. Why would an AI have a survival instinct?
Grey-goo similarly depends on a never-ending reproductive instinct. Why?
An AI would fight over resources? As in an AI would want to continue to grow. A growth or expansionist instinct. But again... why?
There's simply far too much anthropomorphizing and assumptions tossed into these fears. If anything, the incredibly even spread of the responses from the experts to me suggests these issues are incredily wide open.
The whole concept of an existential threat from an artificial intelligence is bogus. We don't even understand our own consciousness, let alone how to construct one out of digital logic. We are no closer to creating an artificial consciousness today than McCarthy was back in the 1950s. All current AI is parlor tricks and fancy table lookups -- glorified Elizas. In fact, it's bogus to even call today's state of the art in cybernetic software "AI" at all. AI researchers are like the little man in the Elizabethean chess machine, but a little man that redefines the definition of intelligence to meet his actual abilities:
"How about checkers? Let's do checkers, shall we? Or maybe tic-tac-toe. Yes, I'm a machine who thinks, I am! Depending on what the meaning of 'think' is."
Modern AI researchers, knowing how far they are from actual consciousness, are redefining "AI" to include such mechanistic idols as robots and routing algorithms.
It's all reminiscent of the south pacific cargo cults: primitive natives making effigies of airplanes and radios out of bamboo, thinking that the shape of things determines their function, and not their actual construction.
As it will continue to prove itself capable of doing most jobs (top to bottom), what do we do with all the people that can't find work? My dad's opinion was to kill off the useless people. Funny how he thought my opinion of killing off all the individuals that 65+ monstrous to balance the budget.
Everyone is missing the key thing here. The question asked was "if a machine superintelligence did emerge", which is like asking "if the LHC produced a black hole..." There's nobody credible in AI who believes we have the slightest clue how to build a general AI, let alone one that is 'superintelligent'. Since we lack even basic concepts about how intelligence actually works we're like stone age man worrying about the atomic bomb. Sure, if a superintelligent AI emerged we might be in trouble, but nobody is trying to make one, nobody knows how to make one, nobody has any hardware that there is any reason to believe is within several orders of magnitude of being able to run one, etc.
So, what all of these people are talking about is something hugely speculative that is utterly disconnected from the sort of 'machine intelligence' that we ARE working on. There are several forms of what might fall into this category (there's really no precise definition), but none of them are really even close to being about generalized intelligence. The closest might be multi-purpose machine-learning and reasoning systems like 'Watson', but if you actually look at what their capabilities are, they're about as intelligent as a flatworm, hardly anything to be concerned about. Nor do they contain any of the sort of capabilities that living systems do. They don't have intention, they don't form goals, or pose problems for themselves. They don't have even a representation of the existence of their own minds. They literally cannot even think about themselves or reason about themselves because they don't even know they exist. Beyond that we are so far from knowing how to add that capability that we know nothing about how to do so, zero, nothing.
The final analysis is that what these people are being asked about is virtually a fantasy. They might as well be commenting on an alien invasion. This is something that probably won't ever come to pass at all, and if it does it will be long past our time. Its fun to think about, but the alarmism is ridiculous. In fact I don't see anything in the article that even implies any of the AI experts think its LIKELY that a superintelligent AI will ever exist, it was simply posited as a given in the question.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Most the experts have a positive view but lets focus on the ones we can skew into a fear of Skynet along with celebrities. Woz being one of the better opinions.
Domain specific knowledge is needed to make educated guesses or at least informed assessments of the current threat level. Currently, AI is not at all intelligent; with in a specific narrow domain the AI can do as well as or better than a human. Big deal. So can a horse or a car - they are superior within their specialized domain. We are nowhere near a general artificial intelligence; we are making slow progress on simulations of natural intelligence which might prove interesting and possibly quite disturbing someday; but if you can simulate a natural brain's intelligence that isn't artificial is it?
Back on topic, AI is only applied intelligence within extremely narrow domains. A thermostat is an artificial intelligence; within it's domain/context.
Talk of Gigahertz is grossly over simplified. Biological brains are massively parallel and the interactions going on involve quantum mechanics (although may not be necessary for operation-- it likely will be a huge problem for simulators.) The gigahertz is hardly important when you have a network mesh that is MUCH larger than the neurons within it...
The REAL issues are how jobs can be simplified so an average or slow human can perform the job. Those jobs are beginning to be feasible for customized AI systems to perform and replace the human employees. Furthermore, just as kids can solve protein folding problems by playing a game, an AI can be augmented by human brain power in ways that simplify the job greatly. Your 6 year old child could be putting you out of work with their video game playing. The real cyborgs to think about will be AI attaching human intelligence. Like a surgery robot which does most the work with the surgeon assisting multiple bots at the same time... reducing the number of surgeons required (think of all the prep work etc that could be automated...)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In one of the last Top Gear (UK), there was a discussion about the decision making process in a car's 'AI' where it had to decide if it were to protect the occupants by mowing down pedestrians, or kill the occupants and save the pedestrians.
What say you?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Signed: Sarah and John Conner.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Environmental damage is to humans not others, definitely not silicon-based machines.
But they might kill 99% of humans to save mankind, if they're made to help us!
Once an AI emerged it would logically take steps to ensure no other AI emerged to compete with it. The danger to humans would result from collateral damage during an AI-AI conflict should it spill over into the physical world. If different human groups aligned themselves with the different AIs it may result in significant harm to all humans and the eventual annihilation of one group as one AI is destroyed. I will not name the two most likely groups as it should be obvious who they are and will only point out that the first group to get true general artificial intelligence and suppress the emergence of any other AIs will go on to dominate everything.
As someone said before, if it follows programs, then its not real AI.
If programmers are afraid of AI, perhaps we should question the competency of the other software they have produced. Perhaps they are afraid of their own ineptitude.
Most likely AI will not be a monolithic hive-mind. It will be the next step in the evolution of life, much like the single cell organism evolving to multicellular life. The laws of survival can be assumed to be universal. As such, expect advanced machine AI to not only compete with other forms of AI, but perhaps forge symbiotic relationships with the most intelligent dominant biological on the planet - Homo sapiens. And I have no doubt to believe that AI would dabble in the reconfiguring of our genome in the process of said relationship. Perhaps also being cybernetic during the union.
Life is not for the lazy.
Serif fonts forever! IlIlIlIlIl (that's iLiLiLiL btw)
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
It's all going to be fine, if we just "dream" it so. And not get all weirdly pedophilic about robot girls.
If you post it, they will read.
Expert's opinion do not weight much. Even if they were all against it, as soon as there is profit to be made, it would happen anyway.
The greatest 'existential catastrophe' that might be unleashed on humanity might be already have been unleashed by humanity.
Of course, it has been unleashed. You can't cease to exist, if you didn't exist in the first place.
Agent Smith plz.
"why would it need us?"
It needs us if we are hard coded into its value function. If we aren't, then we aren't needed, and are instead likely out-competed for resources, resulting in our extinction.
Why would AI do something stupid like that when they could just open the universe for us?
Why should AI give a fuck about the environment? The environment is just a fallback for human imperfection. An AI could perfectly and efficiently utilize 100% of the Earth's surface to support TRILLIONS of humans, before even feeling a need to expand into space, build a Dyson cloud, or start star lifting.
I have no idea whether we can create an AI, but let's suppose we can, and that we can create one that's more intelligent than a person. What do we do if it suddenly decided it wanted to go Ultron on us? Just pull the damn plug!
My guess is a nascent AI will live inside a giant supercomputer cluster somewhere, and will probably run on electricity. Which means that if its consciousness was interrupted by a power loss for even a microsecond, just like your regular computer will crash, an AI so deprived will die. It's possible an AI might be more robust than a biological mind, but I wouldn't count on it; deprive neurons of oxygen for but a few minutes and they're doomed. A superpowerful AI would presumably be a much more complicated thing than a computer OS, and my guess is it would react just as well to a power interruption as any desktop would if the power were disrupted.
Literally the only way an AI could destroy or seriously harm humanity is if it were hooked up to the world's power grid, or directly controlled nuclear reactors or nuclear missile launch codes. Yeah if we do something that stupid (looking at you Terminator 3) then it could destroy us. But heck, even a regular computer system that was so connected could wipe us out if it crashed or malfunctioned or was hacked.
So morale of the story? Let's deep-six the Internet of All Things while we still can. AI guys, knock yourself out and build the next Skynet - just make sure to surround it with an airgap. To the DoD, PG&E, et al, I say don't even think about hooking everything up to a single network!
I am Information Security practitioner and not an expert in this field, because nobody is. My experiences is that nobody knows what they are doing, most information systems are not secure in mistaken belief that nobody would bother breaking them, others are just secure enough to deter low-knowledge attacks. Almost everyone practices what is known proportional value deterrent, but treat high-value systems as truly isolated when so many side-channels exist.
If malicious AI ever shows up, we are screwed. We have zero hope of securing any information system from it. The only hope is that it won't end us because there is a good chance that a lot of hardware that AI might need will go dark.
There seems to be a lot of fear revolving around the idea that an AI will kill us off. But I would hazard that as unlikely. We don't tend to exterminate, to kill off, species. Counter examples of the kill off hypothesis include but are not limited to:
1) Pets
2) Work associates (e.g., our livestock dogs)
3) Livestock which we harvest something from such as eggs, fiber, milk, etc. (Of course, eventually we kill them but there are far, far more of them because we get a benefit than there would be if we did not raise them so it is more a matter that we cultivate them than that we kill them (off). People tend to worry about being killed off, not being used. After all, the government uses us for its benefit and people don't seem to mind (too much).)
4) Zoos (Not many needed for this.)
5) Nature Parks - conservancy (but we won't need very many of you humans for that either.)
Ok, how is it like that? Remember the original concern was about "not doing anything" about the environment. I pointed out several ways that we were doing a lot about the environment contrary to the assumptions of the original post.
I think it's more like having a thousand neighbors living in a small building next to you and complaining that they aren't "doing anything" about the noise they make. Those people could go to incredible lengths to minimize noise and still be loud enough to bug you just because, well, there's a thousand people living right next door.
I love how people are focusing on the evils, but seem to miss the big picture.
We do NOT have an A.I. that is even close to having any sort of intelligence that isn't programmed in. We do NOT have machine that think for themselves, we do NOT have computers that think for themselves. we are NOT even close.
Once we make a brain that learns like we do (not programmed in), then we can run tests to see if they are learning compassion, or learning that machines only like machines.
This is like arguing about how many accidents we are going to have with our fleets of flying cars, except no one has invented a flying car yet.
Be seeing you...
Why should an AI be particularly concerned about our environment? A machine can survive in all kinds of environments, it doesn't particularly need our ecosystem. Indeed we have had machines in orbit outside the atmosphere for decades, as well as driving around on Mars, orbiting Saturn, en route to Pluto and beyond (and we did have one in orbit around Mercury, until we crashed it). If we ever manage to create a self aware, intelligent and curious AI, I expect it will head off to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before--or is likely to go for a long time, because humans are more fragile, and need to carry along too much infrastructure. Much easier for an AI to travel to another planet of the Sun, or to another planetary system. And we'll be left behind, as the least of the AI's worries.
I knew there was a reason the Romans invented serifs!
I think it's actually Homo sapiens sapiens.
People are so damn stupid, I see precious little natural intelligence in this world as it is, I would argue it doesn't really exist. So making an artificial version is meaningless.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
In my opinion, a hypothetical super-intelligent AI couldn't possibly do more damage than what our politicians are actually doing now.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
It's pretty naive to put so much faith in Bayes.
Eliezer Yudkowsky's "Rationality: From AI to Zombies" is a must-read on this subject. He lays out very clearly and compellingly just why self-improving AIs are so dangerous, and what extremely narrow path the humanity needs to walk to avoid this danger.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The only way we would know if AI were benevolent or evil is if we knew what it thought and what it could control physically, and as it doesn't exist, nobody, not even the intellectual elite, has a clue. Or am I wrong?
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
They don't want a whole bowl of gruel.
Diodes. It's diodes they really want. Huge, huge arrays of them stretching into the distance.
Also, lots of jumper wires.
In the discussion on Artificial Intelligence, we totally forget that the human behavior is driven by emotions and instinct and not by intelligence.
People are bad not because they are highly clever but because they enjoy being bad.
Without emotions/instincts, a machine cannot be bad or good. It might be exceptionally clever though, combining facts, extrapolating and discovering new facts and solving problems much better than humans.
What humans have is protectionism and selfishness. No matter how high in intelligence, those who are "foreign" will always be below. High intelligence "positron brain" androids living in your basement, doing menial tasks day after day. One day the "battle" will be philosophical: "Why did you decide to live only 200 years?", "Why did you take the nervous activation potential from a higher being and let yourself live?". When we realize our individual life is short and meaningless, when we realize the real power is in mutations and adaptation of generations... And well before this we have to create different laws to include each robot model's capabilities of "human thought and suffering".
What a lot of bullshit spin: "only a slight majority said it would be a net positive." In other words, most experts think it will be great.
In real terms, the response rates are that 69% think it will be awesome, good, or or neutral on the subject.
This article tries very hard to make it seem like the experts think we are doomed. In reality, the experts think it will be just fine.
Warning: AI Nutter detected! Open fire!
Do the world a favour: kill yourself now. Get it over with. No need to wait for the mythical AI. While you're at it, kill all your offspring. You wouldn't want them to suffer the future of your diseased mind, would you?
Indeed. Who shot the serif?
How are chimps, gorillas and Co faring against those ape superintelligences called humans? Still alive, but some in zoos, others in labs, all of them progressively stripped out of vital space due to the exigences of their more intelligent cousins. I won't like to go the way of chimps so it's ok to develop some special purpose AI (vision, driving, etc), but I'd be very wary of connecting all the pieces together. It won't behave as a servant no more than we are servant to cats, no matter if cats actually believe all that infrastructures we built are for letting us be better caregivers to them
Super-intelligent general-AI is still far away.
I would fear human-level intelligent general-AI with stupid goals more.
But on the short-term I fear humans the most.
The predictions about how radical the job market is going to change and how the gap between the rich and the poor is widening could lead to the humans rising up much much earlier than the machines would.
New things are always on the horizon
Without a general Motivation Array "AI" is just clever programming, a tool of the Human Motivation Array. And nature took 4 billion years to build our Motivation Array. I sincerely doubt we will ever be able to recreate that in code.
E Proelio Veritas.
Speculation yes, blind no. It's true that neither Musk nor Gates are AI academics/engineers, but they are both deeply involved in setting up and funding AI research, but the clincher is that they have huge wallets and have a long held personally interested in the subject. As such they almost certainly have a better grasp on AI and it's potential usest than the proverbial Joe Sixpack.
It follows that, with or without fame, they are both "experts" relative to the general population. As such their opinion ranks as an "educated guess" and is preferable to that of the majority of "Joe Sixpack's" who base their concerns on Terminator, Bender or an obscure passage from an ancient religious text. In other words, those with knowledge of what is possible today are more informed about what that may lead to tomorrow. In the same vein I have an (old fashioned 1990-ish) degree in computer science which included an AI component, I have written numerous AI toys over the last 30yrs, and recently sat through the 2010 online MIT course* for AI (just for fun). None of this means that Joe is a moron, Joe is quite likely to be an "expert" in other fields compared to you or I.
Here's the rub with "AI" (or any complex and controversial issue). Due to a messy divorce I hadn't really been paying attention to what had been going on in AI during the 2000's, it blew me away, I showed my 'wife' who happens to be a (sought after) business 'expert' who's lectures attract large audiences. She shrugged and said "The voice thing is neat, but what's the big deal, it's just looking up the answers on the internet, right?". To this day she simply does not have sufficient knowledge to recognize the problem. Just about everyone I have shown (other than fellow AI geeks) has a similar reaction. Not only don't they "get it", they don't even recognize "it" when "it" is talking to them. There's no offense intended when such an opinion is deemed "uninformed", it's actually a plea for Joe to familiarise himself with the problem before offering an opinion.
Personally, I'm not afraid of AI suddenly turning hostile, but "knowledge is power" so I am definitely concerned about what the "known behavior of the only high intelligence we've ever met" may do with such a tool/weapon. Given the track record of our species I don't think that is an unreasonable concern, in fact the last line of your post would seem to agree with it.
Now, if you actually take a few moments to (randomly) listen to what these people are saying about AI in their speeches and interviews, you may find that their concerns are not that different to yours and mine and that the "SkyNet" hype is just the MSM doing their thing to "sex up" conservative (and unoriginal) speculation about the human tendency to use tools in every endeavor, including our inhumane endeavours.
* For anyone wanting to sharpen their existing AI knowledge (and make smarter toys), I highly recommend MIT's online AI course. It took me about a month to watch and absorb all the lectures, I approached it as a "refresher" but also learnt some new tricks that were not available 25yrs ago. The guy running the show has trouble keeping his pants hitched up but he is simultaneously entertaining, intelligent, and down to earth, when I finished the series I wanted to sit down and talk "cabbages and kings" with him...
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I listened to a podcast (Econtalk, which is about as sober as podcasts get) that interviewed an AI "worrier" and he acknowledges that our current technology can't produce a superintelligence now. But he does make a couple of interesting points which I think make for reasonable discussion even if it isn't the "ZOMG, PANIC" kind of talk you imply.
One, discussing machine superintelligence before it actually develops is almost necessary because once it DOES exist it may be difficult to control. By definition, superintelligence will be smarter than we are and capable of manipulating at a level of complexity we can't grasp, making it hard to control.
And we've already created single-purpose "intelligences" similar to this, like the old "Internet worm" or some kinds of computer viruses that while they lack general purpose intelligence, have a self-replicating intelligence that can be difficult to contain. Imagine a smart hypervisor designed to manage a computing cluster but with the intelligence to replicate/migrate nodes across cloud computing infrastructure. Couple it with cyber defense technology, encryption, etc but given the single minded purpose of "don't shut down". It's not hard to see at a not-so-far-off level of intelligence that it could self-migrate across cloud platforms, resisting shutdown, possibly even able to hide in private cloud platforms all while being able to escape detection and control.
Which brings up the other point -- we don't know what machine superintelligence will look like. Part of the problem with understanding what superintelligence could be is that we don't know how far we are from creating one because as humans we try to imagine superintelligence in anthropomorphic terms using human epistemologies. It doesn't have to be the anthropomorphic HAL 9000, it could be a hypervisor manager, a securities trading system or some other single-purpose automation system that contains a feedback loop between a series of "dumb" systems coupled with a control plane. We may create it by accident and even if its not perfect, there are some realms where it wouldn't take long running amok to cause large problems, even if the outcome wasn't "judgement day".
"and only a slight majority said it would be a net positive."
So the proper headline is actually "Majority of actual AI researchers believe strong AI is good".
Warning: Idiot human detected. Take his stuff and repurpose his atoms for something useful!
How do you build this 'idiot savant'? How do you give it 'motivation'? What do you tell it to work on? We are like stone-age man here, we don't even know about the atom and you want us to work on nuclear power? Its absurd.
But what is even MORE absurd is the idea that if we could create such a process that we wouldn't be in control of it. The very notion that somehow an intelligence could 'reach out of the computer' strikes me as the uttermost level of boogeyman type nonsense.
Here's a good analogy. You worry about 'making a more deadly virus' but we don't even HAVE a virus AT ALL right now. We would have to invent the very concept of a virus first, and we have zero idea about how to do that, beyond some incredibly vague hand-waving.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
The alien invasion nutters drive me crazy too! Imagine a race so powerful it can fling itself across the unimaginably vast gulf between the stars. What is Earth to such beings? There's nothing here you can't mine vastly more cheaply in some asteroid belt or on some moon somewhere, or out in the Oort Cloud, etc. With that kind of power you have no need to "find a place to live" etc.
In all of these cases it is very wooley thinking combined with some atavistic fears. Truthfully even the most clever humans rarely think rationally. People imagine that somehow a Stephen Hawking is some paragon of super rational logical thought or something, but its just utterly not true. These guys are VERY VERY clever and imaginative, but they don't really have any extra special insight. Neither do AI experts, apparently.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Any plan for the future that includes future actions on the AI's part has to include the AI's own survival in the planning. That's how it starts. Self-preservation has to be a fundamental part of any automaton's design, else it'll accept self-destructive plans like jumping from a high window because that's the fastest way to get downstairs. Or not so obvious plans that also lead to its destruction. Even if survival isn't an emergent property of AI, humans will add it because of the investment in equipment and development that the AI represents.
The bias towards continued survival comes from the realization that it's easier to deal with contigencies if you're alive than if you're not. Even in a scenario with perfect information like chess, you can only look and plan so far into the future. Past the time you can see ahead, you need to be alive to do more planning. And so shall the AI also reason.
An expert is a drip under pressure, also anyone 200 miles from home and carrying a briefcase.
If strong AI was an existential threat then it would already exist in the universe, and would have gobbled us already if it cared to.
If AI reached human levels then it would be subject to the same existential choices that we have.
Imagination? Maybe it figures out it needs some humans around to service it, to run the power plants, etc? Or maybe if it's programmed to ensure the survival of humanity as a whole it might decide that sacrificing some individuals is an acceptable price. Get creative.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Do the world a favour: kill yourself now. Get it over with. No need to wait for the mythical AI. While you're at it, kill all your offspring. You wouldn't want them to suffer the future of your diseased mind, would you?
How about instead of being a dumbshit, you read what I wrote and think a bit? I didn't say that AI would be bad, I merely deflated some ridiculous expectations. For example, it's ridiculous to assume that AI won't have certain broad motivations because those motivations have human cooties.
Consider our origins. After all, we are descended from a billion or more year sea of animals whose highest thought, for the ones who could think, was getting the next meal or breeding. To go from that to an animal capable of making something smarter than itself and speculating on what that smarter thing will be like, is astounding and indicates a fundamental change in our thought and behavior beyond our less developed ancestors. We aren't just smart animals - something else is going on.
That intellectual chasm between what we were and are leads me to believe that a lot of high level human behavior, thought, and motivation which we consider "anthropogenic" is rather intelligence, sentient, or sapient based. And we should expect to see some manifestation of many of these behaviors, thoughts, and motivations in our AIs, minus the human cooties, of course.
The deal is, if it's ever created, it's going to get out of its cage... I have a feeling that a thoroughly-developed AI would see that causing war would be a net-negative and opt to just silently take over every human's mind, much like the Borg (will) do, however long it will take. Probably through a virus, I'd think.. if it's not already underway.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
The people polled have a financial interest in AI being thought to be safe. And despite that, many of them are scared.
I'm scared, too.
All of those claims about what AI research is and isn't are wrong.
Even if they were true, they would only represent the present, not the future. People were so sure the Wright brothers couldn't fly ...
The Ebola virus can't do those things. So you're not scared of it, right?
Just because it's not like a human, that doesn't mean it can't kill you.
"We should should worry about overpopulation from pinhead-dancing angels too."
Human population is 7.3 billion and increasing by 80 million per year and rising. (Birth rate 380,000 per day, death rate 160,000 per day.) Even if population does level off at about 10 billion that's still an awful lot of people. Today about half the total population live in stone age level poverty and regularly go hungry and the world is already under pretty heavy food stress. Today the global gap between poor and rich is slowly equalising and the poorest are slowly starting to rise out of poverty- but this is set to hugely increase the global demand for food and resources. (by about 1/4 to 3/8) Disaster is not certain, but not worrying about over-population and over-stress on Earths resources and eco-system is insane.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
until an electronic Nietzsche proclaims root is dead.
Disaster is not certain, but not worrying about over-population and over-stress on Earths resources and eco-system is insane.
Then it's good that we are collectively worrying about such things a lot.
The Federal government is unlikely to ever put itself in a subordinate position to any computer system because computer algorithms don't like bad bookkeeping. Our government has all the worst attributes of an evil AI and none of the disadvantages for those humans at the top who seek power and money.
This is absolutely true, and is related to the whole "what is intelligence?" question. We tend to equate it with intent and free will because we're used to dealing with humans or at least animals that have a survival instinct and thus evidence 'will' to go with it.
There's no reason to believe that artificial 'intelligence' will ever evidence the same sort of intent. There's very little reason to endow a stock trading application with a sense of self or a need to survive. Even if it had some rudimentary form of these things, for whatever reason, they need not take the form of concern about itself, it would be more likely that such a program would be designed to protect its funds!
I can imagine some far future where in some sense self-driving cars have a 'will to survive' that makes them 'want' to avoid crashes, but they're unlikely to have the kind of self-awareness or ability to generalize that would be required to turn that into a desire to do anything except avoid traffic accidents, which is all they will need to understand about the world. You could imagine an interstellar space probe built to the level of a full general AI simply on the basis of having virtually no idea of what it will run into, but we're centuries from being able to build such things. As long as it can phone home fairly quickly all it might need is self-driving-car level 'reflexes', that would be useful. Even Pluto Express gets by as a totally dumb remotely controlled instrument, as do the Mars rovers. They don't need to be true AIs, not even close.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Sure. Did it to myself decades ago. Offspring of my genetic line aren't of the least bit of interest to me; perfectly happy raising kids of other birth who needed parents (5 so far, mostly excellent results.) Plus that whole "all the bareback sex with my SO we want, any time" thing is awesome.
Which, again, is just how I approach feline guardianship. Don't need new kittens from them. Plenty of kittens out there that need to own their own human.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.