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.
"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!
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
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
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
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
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.