Slashdot Mirror


The AI Anxiety (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Washington Post has an article about current and near-future AI research while managing to keep a level head about it: "The machines are not on the verge of taking over. This is a topic rife with speculation and perhaps a whiff of hysteria." Every so often, we hear seemingly dire warnings from people like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk about the dangers of unchecked AI research. But actual experts continue to dismiss such worries as premature — and not just slightly premature. The article suggests our concerns might be better focused in a different direction: "Anyone looking for something to worry about in the near future might want to consider the opposite of superintelligence: superstupidity. In our increasingly technological society, we rely on complex systems that are vulnerable to failure in complex and unpredictable ways. Deepwater oil wells can blow out and take months to be resealed. Nuclear power reactors can melt down. Rockets can explode. How might intelligent machines fail — and how catastrophic might those failures be?"

3 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Re:don't prevent intelligence because of fear.. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being free willed does not mean that one cannot or will not necessarily ever make so-called "decisions" that can be predicted from a knowledge of the state, it only means that one is *capable* of it. However, how is the behavior of a system where one is not capable of it any different than one where the state itself is unknowable? You can apply a variation of the halting problem to establish with certainty that either the universe is not deterministic, or else it impossible within its framework to contrive a test that incontrovertibly proves that it is so.

    e.g. If I could know what decisions you were making (a notion that is at least theoretically possible, if the universe were truly deterministic), I could analyze it and predict the answer you would give to a particular question, even if I told you truthfully what the answer to that question were going to be.... however, with your so-called illusion of free will, you could utilize the information that I gave you in the present about your alleged future action, and then deliberately contradict it, invalidating the prediction that I made, meaning that my knowledge about the future state was incorrect, which leads one inescapably to the conclusion that even if the universe is deterministic, it is impossible to know it.

    And it is noteworthy that by outward present appearances, we appear to have free will with regards to decisions that we make.

    So if, by all the standards that can ever be measured, you appear to be a "free-willed" person, then how is your behavior any different than if you actually *were* a free-willed individual? And if your behavior is identical to as if you actually were a so-called "free-willed" being, what purpose does suggesting that you are not free willed even mean?

    Plus of course, one cannot advocate the notion that we are not free willed without also suggesting that we abdicate the notion of personal responsibility... but that's a philosophical debate for another time.

  2. Already happened a few times. Famine to Netflix by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > making most jobs obsolete.

    That's already happened a few times. At one time, most people worked in agriculture- mankind spent most of our time feeding ourselves. An "economic downturn ", therefore, was when a lot of people starved to death.

    After machines such as plows and later GPS-guided combines with largely automated food processing plants did most of the work of producing food, inexpensive food was therefore readily available and humans had time to do things not strictly necessary for survival, like education, producing consumer goods, writing and printing books, comfortable clothes, and creating washing machines and dishwashers. With the efficiency of machines, consumer goods including books, and conveniences like washing machines and refrigerators became readily available to the masses.

    No longer scrubbing our clothes on a washboard, we then had time to make and play video games.

    The replacement of human labor with machines has been a continuous process for over a thousand years, peaking about 200 years ago. In the process, our standard of living has gone from digging for anything we could eat in the winter to stopping by Walmart to select which of the 160 different fruit and vegetable varieties we want to munch on while we enjoy our Netflix movie.

    1. Re:Already happened a few times. Famine to Netflix by ranton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's already happened a few times [...] The replacement of human labor with machines has been a continuous process for over a thousand years, peaking about 200 years ago.

      There are at least two things that are likely to make this time different (obviously no one knows for sure)

      This change in the workforce will be much faster than previous ones. We are already starting to see this happen now, and in my opinion it is almost the sole reason the middle class is shrinking in the US (when not accompanied by market forces agnostic income redistribution that is). The loss of agricultural jobs happened gradually over more than a 50 year period. Other labor shifts in the industrial revolution happened even slower than that. Advanced in AI (even ignoring Strong AI) have the opportunity to disrupt industries in under 10 years. The two situations are hardly comparable.

      Previous changes in the workforce involved removing manual labor jobs. This disrupted the economy for two species that relied on these jobs: humans and horses. Humans had the cognitive ability to find new jobs to do, while horses were almost completely removed from our economy. The intelligence difference between humans and horses is very drastic and obvious. The difference in capability between the top 20% of our workforce and the bottom 80% is tiny by comparison, but still real.

      The danger is not AI becoming smarter than 80% of humans. The danger is AI empowering the top 20% enough that the bottom 80% no longer have economic value. No one knows what the actual percentages of haves and have nots will be, but considering the top 10% of earners today make 50% of the income I am guessing the percentage of people who gain from an AI-enhanced economy will be very small (sub-10%).

      Perhaps this will not happen, but it is certainly a likely scenario. Saying it will never happen just because society weathered the industrial revolution well is intellectually lazy.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke