Answering Elon Musk On the Dangers of Artificial Intelligence

Lasrick points out a rebuttal by Stanford's Edward Moore Geist of claims that have led the recent panic over superintelligent machines. From the linked piece: Superintelligence is propounding a solution that will not work to a problem that probably does not exist, but Bostrom and Musk are right that now is the time to take the ethical and policy implications of artificial intelligence seriously. The extraordinary claim that machines can become so intelligent as to gain demonic powers requires extraordinary evidence, particularly since artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have struggled to create machines that show much evidence of intelligence at all.

Comments

Obvious deflection.

[Narcocide]

Even without super-intelligence, autonomous killing machines are already quite feasible with current technology and this is a really stupid attempt to deflect the public dialogue from the real issue which is that ethical legal frameworks guiding their design and creation are already sorely lacking.

Re:Obvious deflection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the ethics for an autonomous killing machine different from a non autonomous one?

To me that sounds just like another case "it happened with computers so it must be more dangerous because I do not understand computers".

Figure out a way to raise humans so that they don't turn out bad. Then apply the same method to other neural networks.

Re:Obvious deflection.

[Narcocide]

Well it shouldn't be is what I'm saying, but we're in a situation right now where the creators of autonomous killing machines might not be held liable for "software glitches" that might cause mass killings of innocents in foreign countries. The ethics conversation needs to happen, but all this nonsense of whether or not "real" artificial intelligence is possible should not detract from or hamper discussion about the ethics of making any type of autonomous killing machine, whether its as intelligent as Skynet from Terminator, or only as clever as Mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D. The AI debate as a whole is simply a distraction that's preventing getting down to the ethics.

Re:Obvious deflection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it shouldn't be is what I'm saying, but we're in a situation right now where the creators of autonomous killing machines might not be held liable for "software glitches" that might cause mass killings of innocents in foreign countries.

Landmines already causes this, but the military still uses them with the motivation that a US soldiers safety is more important than the lives of foreign civilians.

I guess it wouldn't be as much of a problem if the mines where retrieved/destroyed after usage, unfortunately that doesn't always happen.

The 2004 landmine policy by President George W. Bush prohibited US use of the most common types of antipersonnel mines, those that are buried in the ground (“dumb” or “persistent” antipersonnel landmines, which lack a self-destruct feature), and since January 1, 2011, the US has been permitted to use only antipersonnel mines that self-destruct and self-deactivate anywhere in the world.

Presently, The USA has no landmines deployed anywhere in the world.

The Less You know, The More Scared You Are

[Ironlenny]

I find it interesting that the people raising the biggest alarm aren't AI researchers.

Re:The Less You know, The More Scared You Are

[Ironlenny]

To clarify my point: The article mentions Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Steven Hawking. What do they all have in common? They are not AI researchers. The author of the book is a philosophy professor. They are all talking about and making predictions in a field that they aren't experts in. Yes, they are all smart people, but I see them doing more harm than good by raising alarm when they themselves aren't an authority on the subject. An alarm that isn't shared with the experts in the field.