Slashdot Mirror
Elite Scientists Have Told the Pentagon That AI Won't Threaten Humanity (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A new report authored by a group of independent U.S. scientists advising the U.S. Dept. of Defense (DoD) on artificial intelligence (AI) claims that perceived existential threats to humanity posed by the technology, such as drones seen by the public as killer robots, are at best "uninformed." Still, the scientists acknowledge that AI will be integral to most future DoD systems and platforms, but AI that could act like a human "is at most a small part of AI's relevance to the DoD mission." Instead, a key application area of AI for the DoD is in augmenting human performance. Perspectives on Research in Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence Relevant to DoD, first reported by Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists, has been researched and written by scientists belonging to JASON, the historically secretive organization that counsels the U.S. government on scientific matters. Outlining the potential use cases of AI for the DoD, the JASON scientists make sure to point out that the growing public suspicion of AI is "not always based on fact," especially when it comes to military technologies. Highlighting SpaceX boss Elon Musk's opinion that AI "is our biggest existential threat" as an example of this, the report argues that these purported threats "do not align with the most rapidly advancing current research directions of AI as a field, but rather spring from dire predictions about one small area of research within AI, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)." AGI, as the report describes, is the pursuit of developing machines that are capable of long-term decision making and intent, i.e. thinking and acting like a real human. "On account of this specific goal, AGI has high visibility, disproportionate to its size or present level of success," the researchers say.
It does exactly what it is programmed/trained to do, nothing more, nothing less.
The DANGER of AI, especially when integrated into weapons systems, is that the people pushing for it, dont understand that the risks of the AI deciding a friendly is an enemy because of their wearing the wrong colors, (or, enemies getting free passes for the same) IS VERY REAL.
Similar with putting AI in charge of certain kinds of situations, where its programmed methodologies would result in horrible clusterfucks as it maximizes its strategy.
No, AI in a killbot *IS* very dangerous. Just not in the "Kill all humans(install robot overlord!)" way. Instead it is more the "human does not meet my (programmed impossible) description of friendly, and thus is enemy combatant, Kill the human" way.
I think he's the only person Trump hasn't mocked.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You can't afford that pussy.
But you can rent one just like it at certain Moscow hotels.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... there are some things that are simply not possible in this universe no matter how many tweaks and improvements you try to make. Self-aware sentient AI is one, small portal Mr. Fusion type reactor that gives useful net surplus energy is probably another.
We do already have a "proof of concept" in that in the universe we have self-aware sentient entities consuming only 100 W and massing (very roughly) ~100 kg (i.e. us).
On the other hand, we know of no natural fusion reactors producing significant energy that mass less than about 1/10 of a solar mass.
No, they hilariously told him to "speak English" after he called Trump a "dangerous demagogue".
The resulting reply, "Trump, Bad man." was epic.
In the absence of real intelligence, I'm not worried about artificial one.
Today too many dumb people consider a well written computer program to be AI, like Alexa. Alexa will not threaten humanity because it's really not 'artificial intelligence' to start with, it's just a clever piece of software.
FTFY
We are nowhere near having real 'AI' yet and won't be for decades.
I see...Artificial general intelligence is hard so anyone worrying about its consequences is uninformed. Wait. What? And as long as it doesn't have artificial general intelligence, there shouldn't be any problems with giving a machine control over lethal weapons. Wait. What? Maybe instead artificial general intelligence is a long term existential threat independent of whether current technology is particularly close to achieving it, and Elon Musk knows a little more than they give him credit for. And maybe the transfer of decision making about the use of lethal weapons to machines is always a very bad idea. Unless you hope to make money from selling such devices to the military. In which case, this report sounds like an excellent strategy.
I find your comment very amusing because when Google worked on their initial page ranking algorithm they were inspired by a thing on microfilm called the "Science Citation Index".
We're now at a point where the thing that inspired something is being described as being like the thing it inspired.