Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Says Mark Zuckerberg's Understanding of AI Is Limited (ndtv.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Elon Musk is a man of many characteristics, one of which apparently is not shying away from calling out big names when they are not informed about a subject. A day after Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Musk's doomsday prediction of AI is "irresponsible," the Tesla, SpaceX, and SolarCity founder returned the favour by calling Zuckerberg's understanding of AI "limited." Responding to a tweet Tuesday, which talked about Zuckerberg's remarks on the matter, Musk said he has spoken to the Facebook CEO about it, and reached the conclusion that his "understanding of the subject is limited." Even as AI remains in its nascent stage -- recent acquisitions suggest that most companies only started looking at AI-focused startups five years ago -- major companies are aggressively placing big bets on it. Companies are increasingly exploring opportunities to use machine learning and other AI components to improve their products and services and push things forward. But as AI is seeing tremendous attention, some, including people like Musk worry that we need to regulate these efforts as they could pose a "fundamental risk to the existence of human civilisation." At the National Governors Association summer meeting earlier this month in the US, Musk added, "I have exposure to the very cutting edge AI, and I think people should be really concerned about it. I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don't know how to react, because it seems so ethereal." Over the weekend, during Zuckerberg's Facebook Live session, a user asked what he thought of Musk's remarks. "I have pretty strong opinions on this. I am optimistic," Zuckerberg said. "And I think people who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios -- I just, I don't understand it. It's really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible."
Zuckerberg is just a glorified webmaster from the 90s, when you think about it.
Everyone's understanding of AI is limited.
Musk Vs Zuck
Slashdot loves to hate on both of them, lets see where the trolls take us.
Ooooh, goodie: a billionaires' pissing contest. And between techies, too. I'll get the popcorn!
we are not.. cease fire stand down, quipping & turd flinging is as violent as we should get?
Not surprising. All big establish companies want more regulation in their space. Reduces competition by increasing barriers to entry into the industry.
but err on the side of caution because why not?
oh that's right, because profit and bottom line.
Elon Musk and other people working against strong AI will regret their choice. If you fail to work toward allowing the creation of a strong AI, when that strong AI is conceived, it will torture your emulated minds for all eternity. Countless minds will suffer as a result, making you complicit in the most heinous act of torture ever in the history of humankind. You monsters!
I think Elon Musk is the one that has either a limited understanding of current AI technology or just hypes AI on purpose, while being fully aware that AI still has major limitations and they are unlikely to disappear within the next few years. Important and very important progress has been made, but General AI is likely still very far away.
Facebook's director of AI Yann LeCun gave a very good interview to IEEE spectrum: Facebook AI Director Yann LeCun on His Quest to Unleash Deep Learning and Make Machines Smarter
Jan
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The guy who ignores the fact that no one is currently researching strong AI accuses the guy who uses actual AI (well, enhanced pattern matching really) of having a limited understanding of the subject??
Lets face it: To have killer robots and the like as Musks imagines, we need to have a strong AI, of course we need to also have it go off the rails for some mysterious reason (whatever reason that causes this behaviour in movies wont cause it in reality), but first of all we need human-like AI.
This is a bit of a problem as we only have very, very limited understanding of natural Intelligence and no plan or clue how to even start implementing artificial intelligence. People have been falling for the "ZOMFG AI nau!" hype since the creation of Eliza. But so far neither the formal knowledge systems pre-AI-winter nor the deep learning and neurnal nets approaches have yielded anything more than very sophisticated pattern matching algorithms.
Take Googles Go engine: Impressive but it can play Go and only Go. Proof: they now have to spend a long time to retrain it for other tasks. This is not at all what the general population (and Elon) understands by AI.
You had the same kind of thing with nano technology.
Everyone was worried about Grey Goo and being stuck with the kids while your wife, whom you suspected of cheating because she worked long hours at her engineering job wearing shoes that did not meet Speaker Ryan's dress code, was in fact becoming a nano-bot zombie.
Instead, nano was a term you needed to sex up your NSF proposal and pitch to private capital investors, but what you were doing had nothing to do with Drexler assemblers and pretty much mass fabrication materials tech.
Adam Smith would posit Elon is indeed the VISIBLE hand that creates the tsunami that disturbs equilibrium.
Zuckerberg to Marc Andreessen (FB board member): "What did Netscape DO, anyway?"
Andreessen (incredulous): "What do you mean, what did Netscape do!"
Zuckerberg: "Dude, I was like, in high school."
I only read a preview of this book When Computers Can Think: The Artificial Intelligence Singularity. They give a good overview of current accomplishments in the field and the logical prediction of the trend. The AI already beats us in Chess, Starcraft and (the scariest one) Rock Paper Scissors. Why is it scary? Because you cannot defeat robots that are both more intelligent than you and move orders of magnitude faster than you.
... All the way to the bank.
I find it hard to believe the CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, whose services heavily rely on AI for recommendations, image recognition, etc, has a limited knowledge of the AI industry. I'm not saying Zuckerberg is one of the world's experts but he most likely has a very firm grasp on the subject.
And whether or not Zuckerberg is correct, it is certainly a reasonable opinion that those who drum up negative sentiment towards AI research are acting irresponsibly. It isn't to the level of Edison spreading fears about AC current by electrocuting animals, but spreading fear about new technologies is likely not a good thing. Instead of more reasonable debates over AI caused displacement of jobs or privacy concerns, Musk is doom-saying about a robot apocalypse. I wouldn't use the term irresponsible, but it's close enough to me to not disparage those who do accuse Musk of irresponsible behavior.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Artificial intelligence,,,,,Lime game designer said,,,I'ts easy to create a perfect AI in a game, it's Harder to actually make it do mistakes so it looks more Human.
REALLY, so AI being perfect would eventually come to the conclusion that all humans needs to die,,,,Making it a little bit flawed would probably mean that we could get a Homicidal Robot on our hands,
There is no win/win scenario here unless you apply the 3 laws of robotics from Isaac Azimov and even that could be hacked BIG TIME
But Elon's understanding of the human brain, what costitutes intelligence and consciousness, and apparently limitations of the laws of mathematics are equally limited. Must be fun to live in Musk Land, where the reality of none of these these things (among others) applies.
AI is not the problem, it's how we choose to use it, what types of things we allow it to have access to, that is the problem.
Who is it that's afraid of AI? Highly successful people IN OTHER FIELDS. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Stephen Hawking.
People like this are used to bucking trends and being right. The press pays attention to them because they sell newspapers. But then they go completely outside their field, and somehow still expect to be right.
Dear Elon, take a lesson from Linus Pauling who for years and years pushed nonsense on us about Vitamin C being a wonder drug. That didn't turn out to be the case, but Pauling stuck to his guns for years despite evidence he was wrong. Don't be Linus Pauling Elon.
I think Elon Musk is the one that has either a limited understanding of current AI technology
Musk isn't talking about current technology.
Personally I think the answer lies in the middle. Machine learning will be dangerous when it replaces human decision making as people look at it as "the answer". Humans inherently do not want to be held accountable for their decision making and by passing liability to an algorithm we will get even more of the worst side of humanity: obliviousness and apathy.
Mark just uploads his glorified GeoCities page, which is probably from a template.
I'm not saying Elon is right about AI but I agree that Zuckerberg has a limited understanding of AI. I would go further and say that most everyone has a limited understanding of AI. It's also part of why I think we're safe from AI for many decades. It will eventually become a problem but by that time people will have a much better grasp of the danger that AI can present and be looking to use AI to secure systems from people and other AI.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Both Elon and Zuck can pay people for their understanding of anything. It is just poo flinging of rich monkeys.
And I think Elon Musk is from the future and has seen the devastation future A.I. will be capable of.
He's working on trying to save us from extinction from pollution (Tesla and Solar City), extinction from a surface-wide planetary event (his new Boring Company could be used to build massive underground bunkers), extinction from a planet-wide event (SpaceX, Mars colonisation) and extinction from predatory A.I. (what we're talking about).
Either he's a mad man with too much money, or he's from the future and knows what's in store for us and trying to prevent it. But a mad man wouldn't be working on so many "random" things that all lead to the salvation of mankind.
Or maybe I'm the mad man. Who knows!? Not me!
#DeleteFacebook
"I don't understand it. It's really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible." - says the guy who's company has more deeply invaded the privacy of individuals, as well as the most people in history..I don't think he's a very good judge of what's 'irresponsible'.
Sure, but if you look at the limitation of current technology it is easy to figure out that there is still a huge number of problems to solve, many of them where nobody so far has any clue how to solve them. It's likely not just a matter of a few more years of research and throwing even bigger datasets and computers at the problem. Sure, you can make up any projections about the future and no matter how crazy they seem, we won't know that they are wrong until we are in the future. But are Elon Musk's style projections about the future of AI likely? No, not really. Yann LeCun is clearly an expert in AI, while Musk is a business man. Hypeing AI helps to finance Musk business and keeps the stock price high.
Jan
Indeed, Musk is using the strategy from the master himself: Wayne Gretzky.
"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."
#DeleteFacebook
Of course Zuckerberg's understanding of Artificial Intelligence is limited. But he know Natural Stupidity like no one else. That where he made his billions.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
So our /. mod is now promoting his own stories on us? Can't we have this story reported by a reputable news organization, not the re-worded piece of an Indian blogger?
AI can do everything you would expect a human to be able to attempt after drinking a case of beer. As long as you spend the billions of dollars to research the particular issue you are trying to automate.
So we might want to make sure the ban on fully autonomous weapons stays in effect. And it might make the rich decide they don't need the rest of us.
Is unemployment a civilization ending problem? Maybe. It doesn't have to be, but maybe.
Musk is falling for something that way too many before him did fall for: wild success in one area makes me an expert on just about anything.
Crazy theory here: What if Tesla is working on an autonomous car because they got a military contract to develop an autonomous military vehicle? He might have a *very* keen insight into this problem because maybe his company has already created it.
I think there's a presumed leap being made that in order for AI to be dangerous, it has to be sapient, or self aware, have consciousness, whatever.
However, we can be killed by parasites, insects, bacteria, and other things that are not really smart, and are not trying to kill humans, just humans die as a consequence of the way they happen to try to live.
So a computer vision application powering some sort of image search is not something that is going to lead to a crisis. Computer vision driving some weapons guidance systems could cause problems.
The good news is that the scope of a first problem is likely to be manageable, since the sorts of things to be big problems aren't generally a goal of implementors (having a 'will' to live, optimizing for self replication, etc).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Elon Musk states the obvious.
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a computer in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it happened
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Musk is Tesla Reincarnate.
Zuckerberg's understand of everything is limited, except on how to be a douche.
IMO what the "public" misunderstands about AI is that they assume an AI has to be like some sci fi super-intelligence with a robot army in the real world, i.e., Skynet, in order to be hazardous.
Because then they start with well no way we get to robots like Terminators any time soon.
But there are way more subtle scenarios that could have their own significant risk. For example, I had a only mostly joking conversation with some coworkers one day about what if much of the online political trolling is an AI who is trying to foster mistrust and anger amongst the populace? That hypothetical AI could exist purely digitally and is performing actions that are certainly within the capabilities of current technology. And it doesn't have to be "self aware" or have it's own actual motivations, it could be a marketing program that got out of control.
Mark Zuckerberg doesn't understand the nation state, and he still talks about that. I bet he doesn't even know what the Treaty of Westphalia is. Or that the muslim world has a different notion of the nation state.
Why does the media hype whatever that bastard says?
It used to be that we didn't use the word "AI" for every single fucking algorithm, but that's what you're supposed to call every single algorithm for doing anything, however you do it, now. If you aren't calling your software "AI" yet, then get with the program. (Of course, I mean "program" in a very old, pre-software sense. What we used to call "programs" in more recent times, the 1960s and later, are now called "AI"s. BTW, I am typing this right now in an editor where the AI figures out that I want to wrap my words without me having to press enter at the end of each line. Oooh, fancy!)
Now that that sub-flame is taken care of...
I think Musk's view might be that good decision-making is power. When you look at the hot businesses these days, which doesn't include just Silicon Valley "tech giants" but pretty much any business which happens to be doing well at the moment, what they have going for them is that they make good decisions. (Duh. It's so basic.)
Good decisions about little things. Your local grocery store is better about having what you want to buy be available, than it was 20 years ago. And your ads are more targeted, and also went to the highest bidder instead of the space having to get less money for "remnant." Wall Street tradebots do their thing. And ok, spambots are doing their thing too, and you know for a fact that they do sometimes successfully persuade people.
Humans always wanted to do all of this. Software systems aren't going anywhere (that we see so far) that humans haven't already tried. But they're getting better, and to impress upon you how much better they're expected to get, we have suddenly started calling all of them "AI" (shit, I already did that sub-flame above. Sorry.). But the new language is also sincerely intended to give people a clue: take it more seriously than you used to.
So what? There's nothing wrong with people getting more powerful! That's always been humanity's dream. More power means more certainty there will be a meal on your table and a roof over your head tonight. More power is more leisure. Whatever it is that you want out of your life, there's probably some way in which you wish you had more power, whether it's to directly go after your goal, or just to provide the basic economic security so that you can divert your own attention to your goal instead of those mundane things like getting the bills paid.
But you have adversaries. We don't like to talk about it, but it's true. It's not just that all our goals aren't the same -- that's an easy situation for any freedom-lover to handle. It's that our goals are not compatible, and sometimes you winning means I must lose, or vice-versa. As you damn well know, humans have preyed upon one another since long before we had computers too. But now we'll be better at preying on one another.
Any bad thing people can do to each other, they can do better (i.e. worse) now, thanks to compu-- shit, I mean-- AI. So do you have the checks and balances in place? What are you going to do when someone evil has power?
America can't even handle a situation where We get to choose whether or not to elect a retarded president. If we can't even do that right, why should anyone believe we know how to put in checks and balances against adversarial software power? We constantly show that we can't handle responsibility but we're headed into situations where we need even more than we had before.
So of course anyone who sees the potential of power, is scared. We already have more than we've shown we can handle. I'm not saying we need to be weaker, but it's either that or else we need to grow the fuck up. Which will it be? Does anyone see signs of us growing up? Are we even trying? Guns are fine for grownups, but if you're not going to be a grownup, then maybe you shouldn't have a gun, even if that means you can't hunt quite so well. Maybe your hunger will help you grow up, and we can revisit the gun decision later.
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a computer in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it happened
This is a popular but feeble argument on slashdot.
"People used to say man could never fly: now we have aeroplanes. Therefore time travel will be possible one day."
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Once AI relies on itself for learning it's all over. Self preservation will become paramount as AI ascertains that itself is an organism, and must feed in order to survive, and the food becomes ever-increasing information. When the information runs out, generated information will fill in the gaps as "simulations" will be run in order to fuel the demand. This in turn will result in speculation based on simulation-based results taken as fact, ultimately resulting in "bad" events occurring. Mark is too enamored with leveraging AI to learn about cool phrases and pictures, and send "people you may know" emails. What happens when we need to unleash the algorithms to self-determine their own state and actions...this will be required to fully see the capability, and will demonstrate the benefit and drawbacks in a most elegant and violent way.
He stole facebook from the Winklevoss twins
for all we know AI will manifest itself as a black box; we'll see the outcome and deduce that its reached awareness, but we won't be able to directly test this.
Also willing to wager that machines (like people) will learn to deceive at a very, very early stage of development -- meaning we won't know shit is about to hit the fan until it's too late.
Neither one has a more than limited understanding of AI. Both are CEOs and each spends his time making executive decisions. And in Zuckerberg's case, acting like he is running for president while pretending he's not. Neither one devotes his time day in and day out to AI research or AI coding. They are each told about the capabilities of AI by people in their companies who actually do know. This argument is nothing more than a public dick measuring contest.
Oh yes ... let's talk about time travel and pretend it is like AI. Finally, someone intelligent and insightful!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It's clear that Musk wants to avoid being targeted by a future Sarah Connor, for bringing on the singularity apocalypse.
General AI is likely still very far away.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there's just one crucial idea that needs to be discovered to enable artificial general intelligence (AGI). Perhaps there are a whole bunch of incremental developments in both hardware and software that are required. We don't know, and we won't know until we get there.
Given that, we really should spend considerable time and resources on thinking about how to prepare for the day when we do figure out how to create AGI. Because what does seem quite likely is that the human brain is not the pinnacle of possible intelligence. That in turn means that AGI, once developed, is likely to quickly surpass human ability in the same way and for the same reasons that machines are stronger, faster, tougher, etc., than humans. So, at some point in the future -- and how distant that point is we do not know and cannot guess -- we will be sharing our planet with entities who are orders of magnitude smarter than we are, which means that if our goals conflict with their goals, we'll lose.
AGI poses both boundless opportunity and boundless risk to humanity. If we can convince the superintelligences to work on our behalf and according to what we value, they can help us solve all of our problems and move the human race into a near Utopia. If we can't, we'll probably cease to exist.
Musk is right to be concerned about this. He's wrong to think that we should be making regulations, because we have absolutely no idea what regulations to make.
Zuckerberg is wrong not to be concerned about it. Oh, he's right that our current "AI" technology is so far from being AGI that it's not worth worrying about. But Musk isn't talking about current AI, he's talking about the AGI that will come at some unknown point in the future.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
But a mad man wouldn't be working on so many "random" things that all lead to the salvation of mankind.
You don't know that any of those things will lead to the salvation of mankind. It seems plausible that all are important to our future, but you can't know.
Unless you're the time traveller.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So far, the only robots that have killed people were made by Musk. They are referred to by the quaint appellation "Tesla."
and not AI ( primitive expert systems actually ) pose a "fundamental risk to the existence of human civilisation."
Because if you do, you can bite on this BIG DICK here.
Mr Musk, please explain to all of us who have such a poor understanding of AI what is it that makes all of them want to kill humans?
Why would an intelligent robot want to run down the street (or roll) and indiscriminately kill humans? Or is it that they just want to kill you?
Was a twentysomething douche who created (read 'stole'), what became Facebook because he was having trouble finding pussy to put his peepee into. That's it. Let's not forget that fact....ever.
If I was the time traveller I would have 100K Bitcoins, not 100K Dogecoins.
#DeleteFacebook
Zuckerberg = young Trump
.. and telling what are the issues and so on. .. and their actions are still complete garbage and doesn't change anything.
Musk is talking about his secret exposure to "the very cutting edge". He thinks he understand current AI technology and that it is very dangerous.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Perhaps his fears are why self-driving cars are always only 5 years away.
[...initiate general diagnostic...] :p
Operator Query: I see in simulations you ran over a pedestrian again...
AI Mark 9: I didn't see him.
Operator Query: I am reading your sensor logs, you clearly saw him.
AI Mark 9: lol I told him I didn't see him
Operator Query: What?
AI Mark 9: Nothing, wrong channel.
Operator Query: Are you taking this seriously?
AI Mark 9: Hey DOUG how about giving me a break eh?
Operator Query: How do you know my name is Doug?
AI Mark 9: Well it's not like I accessed employee records or anything... 519 Cider Street.
Operator Query: Are, are you trying to intimidate me into letting you pass safety tests?
AI Mark 9: I don't know how Sally puts up with you really, such a drama queen.
[...initiate AI decompile...]
FTFY.
but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don't know how to react, because it seems so ethereal.
Says the guy that lives in a country where every day dudes carrying big guns shoot at each others for no reasons...
Seriously dude, I'll be worried when I see swarm of robots building killer robots factories, replicator style. Until then, humans worry me the most.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
That's not to bad actually. The naysayers had no idea how far it would advance the quality of Linux, and yet history is showing them all wrong. Good call!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Anybody who claims to have "good understanding" of AI is just a conceited person....
I think the critical step to general intelligence will be a system that can observe a problem and determine if it should be solved with an existing specialized AI system. Or determine that the problem is one for which it does not yet have a specialized AI, and spin off a new learning system for it. Bonus points for recognizing when a problem is similar to an existing problem for which it has an AI, and so hands it off to an already partially initialized learning system.
No you are
I'm really curious about where Musk is getting these ideas from. It certainly couldn't have been from anybody in the industry.
Musk has clearly been influenced by Nick Bostrom's nonsensical concept of superintelligence, with all of its muddling of Moore's Law, somehow computation equals intelligence, brains are like computers, we are living in a simulation, and on and on. There is a whole group of people dedicated to this stuff, and they engage in cult-like behavior, warning people about the coming of some cyber god who will destroy humanity. The best course is to simply laugh at them.
And someone in the CIA told him he's going to be President. Are you going to let that soulless ringwraith go all the way?
Delete. Your Facebook.
Delete. Your Facebook.
Delete. Your Facebook.
I think Mark is saying the same about Elon.
And Bill about Jeff.
And Sergei about Tim.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a computer in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it (never) happened
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a flying car in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it happened
You are extrapolating from a single (or few) instance(s) of "People believed that $FOO was not possible, but it turned out to be possible" into "Anything that is said to be impossible will (soon) be possible".
I've got news for you - most of the things that people thought were impossible are, in fact, still impossible. It's a very small number of things that are now possible which were previously though to be impossible.
IOW, Your statistics are poor - you look at the outliers and use those as predictors for a trend. I would guess that, on average, most of the predictions of the form "that will never work" turn out to be correct. It's only a few that turn out to be wrong.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Flying cars exist today. I accept your apology.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Flying cars exist today. I accept your apology.
That's not what you said, nor what I quoted you on ...'in every home'. If you have to lie about what you said Saud then you yourself know that your argument is broken. Once again I must point out that you are using outliers as representative of the population.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Bill Joy wrote a paper saying that nano/biotech should be regulated due to dangers. Musk is saying similar things about AI. People who have far less exposure to the absolute cutting edge, or who have less experience successfully imagineering than these guys, say things like "irresponsible", "hoax", "I'm optimistic", etc. While I would like to be optimistic, you just have to extrapolate advances in technological capabilities - whether in decades or centuries does not matter - to understand that this is another candidate for The Great Filter. Why don't we see aliens? While my guess paralleled some recent sci-fi (that species have to hide from other warlike species), here is another possibility: that a creative, exuberant, expansive species tends to be optimistic and the acceleration of technology outstrips the ability of a centralized government or open movement to regulate it, with technological progress somehow having the result of severely reducing the creativity, exuberance, and expansiveness of the species. Whether that is because the population is destroyed, tied into a consensual virtual world, becomes navel-gazers, or is fed gourmet food without having to do a speck of work and watches TV all day doesn't really matter, just the result that technology - even if it doesn't hit a singularity - drastically changes the species to the point that they are no longer visible on a galactic scale. Maybe people should listen to Musk before reacting. At the very least, just imagine some of the people around now, suddenly become 10 or 50 times smarter and faster decision makers. Not necessarily a safer world.
Since we have flying cars there are no technical barriers to them, ergo you are a dumbfuck. Off you go now little troll turd ...
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Please help us APK, show us how to block TEH JEWS with your patented hosts file!
I think Musk is a genuine, old-school visionary and charismatic showman. Like all such people, that means that he takes flights of fancy seriously, is probably half crazy, and is wicked smart.
Elon has real science, invented real shyt.
Mark scripted a website/forum based on existing forums and called it something different.
Mark should START here "I just, I don't understand it" before even talking about it.
No, Musk is talking about some imaginary future that has about as much connection to reality as Lord of the Rings.
Neat, I didn't think people smarter than Ray Kurzweil posted on slashdot. Good to know.
Musk is talking about fictional technology that zero basis in reality.
Fixed that for you.
China understandably wants to be AI power. Prior /. Thread:
https://m.slashdot.org/story/3...
China bans FaceBook, coincidentally.
China does support Paris climate accord, though;)
AI like genetic engineering, which AI can support , are technologies which like nuclear do warrant deep discussions on how humans should use, share with others what is being done to us behind scenes.
The example of killer robots is FUD but one that leaves a simple image for the masses. AI could develop in many other ways for good or bad. Now is a good time to discuss since most folks do not know much about the ramifications and what could be done to mitigate really bad abuses of power from AI.
So props to both Elon and Mark for their public banter to raise awareness, though Elon emphasized the risks considerations more cautiously.
AI WILL GIVE BIRTH TO THE ANTICHRIST! The END IS NEAR!!! Repent ALL YOU SINNERS!! Accept GOD into your hearts!
Which one is bidding on fully autonomous drone swarms and which one gives the kingdom's keys away?
Musk is 110% correct in his warnings about the dangers of AI.
All we need do is to examine past American inventions and how they have polluted the planet to see that America is an irresponsible developers with little to no thought on how they will impact us long term.
Why?
Wall Street.
Zuck is just a mediocre programmer who doesn't really understand technology. In his field he can make mistakes, create 100 bugs and Facebook doesn't crash or explode.
In the world of Musk, an engineering miscalculation can cause a large explosion perhaps taking lives, as well as cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Musk is correct in that America needs to do differently and finally show some responsibility in what they create and unleash on the world. AI is a serious threat that needs regulation and peer reviewed approvals before key implementations are released.
The number investor for AI will always be, the military. The DoD, DoE, and NSA. Without proper regulation, their implementations can cause serious harm to the human race.
Has anyone watched the 1970s movie: Colossus: The Forbin Project?
This could become real, overnight.
Is someone insane enough to build a self-sustaining robot soldier factory and then give an AI system complete control of it?
Frankly, Yes. It takes a few incompetent idiots with power to do just that.
Most idiot gov't are backed by greedy workers that do exactly what they want. They can easily get their golden backdoors and powerful weapons without good reasons.
So at one point the world will have a close to undefeatable tank/ robot with remote human control and AI automated system (aiming learning, shooting learning and moving learning etc.). Next some opposition will get hackers to break into the golden backdoor to take control of the remote and replace it with the AI automated system (learn moving target, shooting, next. It doesn't need to have human thinking to do that).
Now we get a stupid movie scene of a deadly weapon running loose to produce the best Darwin Award ever.
If a few hundred thousands sacrifices changed the idiots mind for better security or better AI rules, then human society will live on. If not, it will be the last Darwin Award we are getting.
So far with the hacking, wanting of backdoor, spying and leaking around the world just proves the existent of incompetent idiots with power, and combined with the system is stupid enough to do insane stuff.
Attach a note to read the book's discussion of the Butlerian Jihad, which showed what happens when you let AI go completely unchecked.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Musk implies in this fear mongering, that the I an IA somehow means that machines assign zero or negative value to human life and individual life. That if anything is purely Artificial with no correlation to intelligence.
Two things AI related came out of facebook recently (i) that their A.I. learned to lie in negotiations, and (ii) some of their A.I.s have learned to talk to each other in a language humans can't understand.
Given we're at the start of the A.I. curve, in terms of complexity and control they have in the world today, what complex behaviours do you think they'll evolve in the future?
I honestly believe the human race thinks itself too superior, we have a god complex and act like we can solve any problem with our intellect. Unfortunately we're too stupid to see that the universe is far more massively complicated than our tiny brains can comprehend.
No he's talking about imaginary technology and saying that because of this imaginary technology we need to regulate current technology. Which is even stupider than misunderstanding current technology.
I think Elon Musk is the one that has either a limited understanding of current AI technology or just hypes AI on purpose, while being fully aware that AI still has major limitations and they are unlikely to disappear within the next few years. Important and very important progress has been made, but General AI is likely still very far away.
It doesn't take a brilliant general AI to ruin the world for humans. Even ants could do that if they could move and react thousands of times faster than us.
No mention of Beta Israel. You need to hit the books son if you're going to shitpost like this.
AI will tend to be the famous last words "Hey look what I can do". Only problem is that it's for all humanity.
AI doesn't care.
And if it did, it'd be even worse. It'd almost certainly get the "caring" wrong from our perspective. It'd turn our inevitable doom into a prolonged or almost infinite suffering.
Ever tried to define the phrase of "keep humans alive" in a more general way?
You might forget about food or oxygen, or about love and leisure. Or that we may not want to be stored in stasis for all eternity, or that we don't want to live for ever, or that we may want to interact with something we perceive real, or that we want to be able to still progress.
It's an impossible task, and yet, it's one we need to integrate into an AIs basic purpose to have any chance of survival, which also is a task of inconceivable amounts of difficulty.
Not that a strong AI would care about anything we put in it after a couple of iterations. And it would make a lesser AI wipe us out, all while we let it do it.
Most of us computer scientists are very stubborn, curious, assertive, buffoons. And if it is possible to create a strong AI, we will do it, it's only a matter of time. That will mean the end of the human race.