Slashdot Mirror
Why AI Won't Take Over The Earth (ssrn.com)
Law professor Ryan Calo -- sometimes called a robot-law scholar -- hosted the first White House workshop on AI policy, and has organized AI workshops for the National Science Foundation (as well as the Department of Homeland Security and the National Academy of Sciences). Now an anonymous reader shares a new 30-page essay where Calo "explains what policymakers should be worried about with respect to artificial intelligence. Includes a takedown of doomsayers like Musk and Gates." Professor Calo summarizes his sense of the current consensus on many issues, including the dangers of an existential threat from superintelligent AI:
Claims of a pending AI apocalypse come almost exclusively from the ranks of individuals such as Musk, Hawking, and Bostrom who possess no formal training in the field... A number of prominent voices in artificial intelligence have convincingly challenged Superintelligence's thesis along several lines. First, they argue that there is simply no path toward machine intelligence that rivals our own across all contexts or domains... even if we were able eventually to create a superintelligence, there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system. As Yann LeCun, deep learning pioneer and head of AI at Facebook colorfully puts it, computers don't have testosterone.... At best, investment in the study of AI's existential threat diverts millions of dollars (and billions of neurons) away from research on serious questions... "The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the problem is that it's too stupid and already has."
A footnote also finds a paradox in the arguments of Nick Bostrom, who has warned of that dangers superintelligent AI -- but also of the possibility that we're living in a computer simulation. "If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
Claims of a pending AI apocalypse come almost exclusively from the ranks of individuals such as Musk, Hawking, and Bostrom who possess no formal training in the field... A number of prominent voices in artificial intelligence have convincingly challenged Superintelligence's thesis along several lines. First, they argue that there is simply no path toward machine intelligence that rivals our own across all contexts or domains... even if we were able eventually to create a superintelligence, there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system. As Yann LeCun, deep learning pioneer and head of AI at Facebook colorfully puts it, computers don't have testosterone.... At best, investment in the study of AI's existential threat diverts millions of dollars (and billions of neurons) away from research on serious questions... "The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the problem is that it's too stupid and already has."
A footnote also finds a paradox in the arguments of Nick Bostrom, who has warned of that dangers superintelligent AI -- but also of the possibility that we're living in a computer simulation. "If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
If I destroy it first. Try ruling the planet under 10 meters of seawater!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Rampant AI will not take over the earth, as predicted by Elon Musk in Wired Magazine, because it will be too busy fighting the Grey Goo Nanothechnology, as predicted by Bill Joy in Wired Magazine
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
YOU go to Ars or some other "reputable" websith
Already to the dark side, has that one turned.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
You've gone full idiot.
C'mon, everyone should have seen it by now, we have already built a fully functioning AI. The internet in its parts, the way we see it now, is not an AI but in it's entirety and a specific single product, Earth's Computer Network, is a fully functioning Artificial Intelligence, just not functioning in the fantasy way we think of as Artificial Intelligence but as a specific style of Artificial Intelligence when viewed as it's entirety, from server farms to the computers on your desk and all of the rest of it.
If the entire network is an AI, why does it have such an interest in porn, advertisements and pictures of cats?
Isn't that a sexist statement?
No, no, no. That's the path to wrongthink, citizen!
First, sexism has always been defined as "prejudice plus power" (don't trust your faulty memory!) which women don't have by definition. I know, some bigots think that the ability to get people fired for citing the scientific papers of our enemies counts as "power", but they'll all be reeducated soon enough.
Second, for the purposes of insulting men, men and women are different. For all other purposes, they're the identical. Some brainwashed males might think that this is a contradiction, but feminist quantum mechanics proves that this is perfectly consistent. Like the proclamation says, all humans are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Don't worry - I too struggled with my own belief in objective rationality, but in the end, I have come to love Big Sister.