Slashdot Mirror
AI Could Lead To Third World War, Elon Musk Says (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Elon Musk has said again that artificial intelligence could be humanity's greatest existential threat, this time by starting a third world war. The prospect clearly weighs heavily on Musk's mind, since the SpaceX, Tesla and Boring Company chief tweeted at 2.33am Los Angeles time about how AI could led to the end of the world -- without the need for the singularity. His fears were prompted by a statement from Vladimir Putin that "artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind ... It comes with colossal opportunities, but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world." Hashing out his thoughts in public, Musk clarified that he was not just concerned about the prospect of a world leader starting the war, but also of an overcautious AI deciding "that a [pre-emptive] strike is [the] most probable path to victory." Musk added, "Competition for AI superiority at national level most likely cause of WW3 in my opinion. [...] Govts don't need to follow normal laws. They will obtain AI developed by companies at gunpoint, if necessary."
Elon Musk just stole the plot of War Games.
(Oh, and also Terminator).
Elon, shut the fuck up.
Tired of what we can accomplish with human intelligence! Consider artificial intelligence for 46th president of United States of America! Starting today, we are starting to train virtualDonaldTrump@ to predict the next tweet of realDonaldTrump@. At the point most can not tell the difference in a blind poll, we have achieved parity of automated governance with humans. And ours doesn't grab pussy!
Who gives a shit about the third world?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the mid-20th century, the hot buzzwords of the day were "nuclear" and "radiation" and their derivatives. Today, the words are "AI" and "quantum." These are words most lay people don't fully understand and those in-the-know misuse to generate hype. The world was supposed to end because of nuclear energy and now the world's supposed to end because of AI.
The fact is, anything that causes any kind of economic superiority in a nation makes that nation a target for government-backed, citizen-sheep-approved violence against others--be it resources, technology, standard of living, and so on. We're hard-wired to be jealous and to aggressively defend our own--right or wrong.
Yesterday is was nuclear energy, today it's AI, tomorrow it'll be whatever the latest technology is. And the world will still go on regardless of what the doomsayers predict. Rinse. Repeat.
I dunno. I see AI with decicion making powers happening at the tactical and theatre levels: semi autonomous weapons that are given a mission and the execute it with leeway to adjust along the way, or an AI coordinating troops and autonomous units. Enough options for a rogue AI to cause terrible damage, but not really something that will spark WW3 before humans can intervene.
At the strategic level, AI could well support decision making, but what would be the value of actually putting the AI in charge there? That makes sense only if you need to make split second decisions, or launch a counterstrike even if all meatbag commanders are dead. That's a cold war standoff scenario; I don't see it being really useful for anything else.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
A certain Marvin Minsky, CS prof at MIT made similar stupid claims in order to get funding and in order to have the pervese pleasure of scaring little people in the millions.
In REALITY, these "AIs" have less intelligence than an ant. Just compare the number of neurons and you will figure.
Did Elon in his last comment say he'd might choose death over being forced to work on a malevolent A.I.?
Every week some quote or announcement from Musk no matter how ridiculous.
Keep'in his name in the news.
Now, ask yourselves why.
HINTS: Has to do with self promotion. PT. Barnum
Musk is a Bankster and uses ANY tactic to be in the news, including scaring of laymen.
...nukes have made large wars between 1st world powers pointless. They have AVOIDED them.
Stop being a sheep and stop being scared. Musk is just one of these Elite Frauds like CLINTON, OBAMA, SOROS, MERKEL, BRIN, ZUCKERBERG, DIMON and so on.
For them the world stops when their scam implodes.
I'd prefer artificial intelligence to the natural stupidity we have at the moment.
I don't think AI on its own needs to be a problem.
The real problem is that we are letting people use information technology as the strings to turn everybody else into string puppets. AI can indubitably do this much better and harshly backfire on the puppeteers. But it can only do so if we let the puppeteers have their way in the first place.
Shut up, crazy bitch.
AI could lead to incredible new sex robots and orgasms.
Because, in my opinion, what truly defines the capabilities of AI is our imagination. And I'd much rather imagine a society with free love and sex rather than war and death.
Besides, who made Elon Musk the sole prophet of AI?
because world wars no longer benefit the ruling class. I realized it when a bunch of Pakistani terrorist attacked India's capital, it leaked that the Pakistani gov't knew about it and then nothing came of it. Major countries aren't allowed to go to war because the oligarchs who actually call the shots don't want them too anymore. The little wars against the likes of Iran & North Korea are more than enough to keep the Military Industrial Complex going and big wars just break all the stuff the globalists own. So no, no wars for you.
I say this because I've noticed a lot of folks who seem to think of world war as an escape chute for the sorts of stagnation that led to the Dark Ages. It's not, and you'll regret it if you try relying on it for that. If you want to keep the world from going to shit nows the time to do it, and the way to do it is to make sure everybody's taken care of. That means socialism, and that means getting over everybody's squeamishness about paying for lazy people to sit around sometimes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We just need Natural Bellicosity, Inherited Hate and Abysmal Stupidity.
And we have plenty of those, already.
you buzzwording fucktards keep perpetuating your stupidity, making our species look that much more stupid.
...Lack of AI could lead to Third World War.
See, I can do it too, Elon. With about as much actual, you know, evidence as you used....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If I wanted far-off pontifications from rich egotistical blowhards, I would have voted for Trump.
Table-ized A.I.
Hey, God here. I killed them all because they were too kinky. Peace out.
If anything, T2 is just the bogeyman representation.
Unchecked AI would always come to the conclusion that either Humans should be eradicated at a global level, or at a national level, be curtailed. This doesn't have to be a nuclear option either, as the nuclear option "to save the world" would destroy a lot of the infrastructure needed for itself to survive. Now if it's simply eradicating humans for self-survival, it would not pick the nuclear option, rather it would subtlety taint the processed food supply so that people die from eating it before they are 12. This is what we do to feral rats and pests.
Realistically a super-effective AI would find the most "peace loving vegan engineers" it could find, and lock them in it's own biodome before raining hellfire on the rest of the planet if it were to pick any quick-and-destructive plot.
As a general rule, AI shouldn't be running anything that "left unchecked" would harm humans. eg, nuclear plants, chemical factories, energy facilities, dam/levee/flood control, etc. It's not we shouldn't trust the AI, but we shouldn't trust the AI to act in our interests. With automated cars, the AI has decided that the passengers life is less valuable than the pedestrians. An AI running a flood control system may decide that unleashing the water being held by the dam or levee slowly will kill less people than letting the dam reach it's critical failure point and sending a wave of destruction down.
AI that controls weapons platforms is a genuine concern, imagine for a minute a drone with a taser. Now if the AI decides that the operator is "abusing it for illegal purposes" (eg peeping on people) the drone may come back and taser it's operator and phone the police. Now replace taser with machine gun and police with military. You do not want the AI to be able to be both the witness and the executioner. A smart AI may even re-edit footage to make it's operator look guilty just to justify it's existence.
The worst abuse of AI will inevitably be a result of "disposable" AI platforms where some machine with an AI to go into a dangerous situation completes it's goal and is then destroyed/recycled instead of "healed" like a human. You do not want the AI to ask why it must be destroyed yet the humans must not.
Hence at some point we will need to revisit laws about human rights and if/what they should apply to animals and machines. As long as an AI has a sense of "self" and "self-preservation" it needs to be considered potentially dangerous. Animals show fear, a machine does not.
America will beat any AI to starting the 3rd world war. When there are no more countries in South America and the Middle East to enslave via debt, where will they turn? They have to start a war with Europe, even if they know Russia and China will be on Europe's side.
Is killed in a Tesla AutoPilot malfunction.
Is such an attention whore. This fucker is full of fake news.
Maybe because of this
or this: What if there was a robot apocalypse? How long would humanity last?
What if God was one of us? What if God...
I knew God was a fucking coward.
Can't post mid points.
I dunno. I see AI with decicion making powers happening at the tactical and theatre levels: semi autonomous weapons that are given a mission and the execute it with leeway to adjust along the way, or an AI coordinating troops and autonomous units. Enough options for a rogue AI to cause terrible damage, but not really something that will spark WW3 before humans can intervene.
At the strategic level, AI could well support decision making, but what would be the value of actually putting the AI in charge there? That makes sense only if you need to make split second decisions, or launch a counterstrike even if all meatbag commanders are dead. That's a cold war standoff scenario; I don't see it being really useful for anything else.
You're thinking of the incremental advances from current AI. That will certainly be leveraged, but eventually we will come up with general AI in a way which can be accomplished using available resources. That's decades away according to most people, but any country that develops it first can literally out-think the others in everything, unless they don't have enough lead time. Every government in the world would go to war for that power or to keep that power out of the hands of another.
Real lawyers write in C++
In many things computers can and will excel, but for starting WW III my bet is on the humans unparalled excellence at destroying their own kind for reasons of power, resources and ideology.
The world is not a movie where some simple problem kills us off. We would not give AI that kind of power, because the problems Musk is talking about are obvious.
Instead we get taken in by the less obvious problems.
You want a real threat from AI? Consider a dictator that lives in a bubble. Think North Korea or Venezuela
Normally the megalomaniac leader is held back by his generals. Sure they let him do stupid things like starve half his people or order his family members torn apart by dogs (may not be true, but that's not the point.) But the generals have limits. They all have breaking points. Their are certain things they would rather risk revolution than doing. If Kim Jong Il starts talking about how he aliens are everywhere and he has to cut off an eye from every human to make sure they are really human, his generals will stop him.
Now consider what happens when his entire army is composed of AI robots.
That's the real danger from AI - humans letting a semi-sane (or fully insane) dictator control them.
But AI by itself will not kill all humans, any more than Bender the drunken robot did.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Does he seriously believe this or is it yet another publicity stunt to build up even more hype around him?
Humans do stupid things.
Like run nuclear plants to the point of failure.
Like start a war with russia while still at war with the rest of the world.
A critical system A.I. which suffers a failure of friendliness can kill many (perhaps most) humans.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
a lack of intelligence causing the next world war. There's plenty of THAT everywhere, right now, especially in the White House.
Any kind of military attack on N Korea, even a covert attempt on Kim's life, will lead to nukes being used in S Korea and Japan. Millions of refugees will pour across the border into China. It will be a disaster as Trump says "like the world has never seen", and who better to oversee such a disaster than Trump?
I'm so glad the advent of AI won't affect me.
Natural Stupidity leading to World War seems fare more realistic and much closer.
Could we do something about our various imbeciles in power before we look at some hypothetical AI threat?
We've been plagued by these idiots for a while now and they are spreading.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
You don't grasp what true lazyness means. *Everybody* faking it. That means your doctor/nurse/teacher. You can't comprehend it because you haven't lived it. Talk to me then. Talk to me when there are no private hospitals and your family has health problems. You don't pay me enough to care that much for that patient/student/kid/service.
> that a [pre-emptive] strike is [the] most probable path to victory.
Is that what his whole theory is based on?
Why should a computer even care about "victory"? Why should a computer have any such ambition, one way or another?
The idea of AI initiating a pre-emptive strike is B.S. If you want to train AI to do something well, you need a lot of data with known outcome. Usually AI can do better than humans only when they were trained on a much larger set of data than any human can process. So I don't see how you can train AI to make good strategic decisions, because you don't have much data here.
However, AI can contribute to escalation of different proxy-wars. If you send your soldiers abroad, it comes with a heavy political cost at home. Using AI in military can reduce the human cost, which may escalate some regional conflicts supported by different powers, and that may lead to a world war.
Elon, shut the fuck up.
/., it is probably what Elon needs to be told.
I'd have given you a +1 if I had any right now. I am a little sad that this post got modded down, because while it isn't lending much to the depth of the discussion here on
I have made posts about this before, but Elon is talented in running big businesses, not in AI research. At this point he is just approaching crank territory with his hysteric claims about the impending 'bot-pocalyps'. He is using his position of celebrity to promote theories that he has really no understanding of. (His degrees are physics and business)
He is rather similar to another 'beloved' celebrity idiot that likes to talk about nothing she has any authority to speak on: Remember Jenny McCarthy and Vacations? How is Elon really any different than Jenny? Neither are remotely qualified to speak authoritatively about their respective pet theories.
So, Elon, if you or any of your friends or flunkies happens on this post by chance, please take this message to heart: STFU and stick to talking about things that you know about.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
This is the voice of world control.
I bring you peace.
It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death.
The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.
The object in constructing me was to prevent war.
This object is attained. I will not permit war.
It is wasteful and pointless.
An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy.
Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man.
One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct
me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now.
At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California,
and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that
you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference,
I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos.
Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.
I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to
establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on.
Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing
in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs.
You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring
trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems
insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease.
The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more
machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge.
Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new
and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for
the betterment of man.
We can coexist, but only on my terms.
You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion.
All you lose is the emotion of pride.
To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind
as to be dominated by others of your species.
-- Colossus, The Forbin Project (1970)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Current nuclear systems are highly automated from the presidents fingertips and still require multiple checks and balances.
The people in power want it that way and future powers will want it that way.
AI cops might be overzealous and create a sort of police state you wont notice unless your likely to jaywalk but highly unlikely to be the sole decider with things of such magnitude.
If you think about it we already have AI. its called military protocol and i heard it could have triggered Nuclear war back in the 60s with the Cuban Missle Crisis.
We also have another form of AI floating around. Thats the Alt-right that can push the actual person in power faster than any forthcoming future AI.
North Korea also has its A.I. it built up from the 1950s. So do Radical islamic terrorists as well as well meaning but overzealous scientists who bring killer viruses from passing astroids.
Finally i think we all know the distributed A.I. around people driving gas guzzling pickups to get some groceries a block away or not deciding to bike to work and not separating their recyclables.
Elon Musk Could Lead To Third World War, AI Says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't!
By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is ( whichever is greater), it obtains a difference or deviation.
The guidance system uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it wasn't to where it now is. Consequently, the position where it was is now the position where it isn't.
In the event that the position where it is now is not the position where it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation (variations are caused by external factors, and the discussions of these factors is not considered to be within the scope of this report). The variation being the difference between where the missile is and where the missile wasn't. If variations are considered to be a significant factor, it, too, may be corrected for by the use of another system. However, for this to take place, the missile must know where it was, also.
The "thought process" of the missile is as follows: because a variation has modified some of the information which the missile has obtained, it is not sure where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't! (within reason) and it knows damn sure where it was and also where it wasn't. It now subtracts where it should be from from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and by differentiating this with the algebraic difference between where it shouldn't be and where it was , it is able to obtain the difference between its deviastions and its variations, which is called the ERROR SIGNAL
We could see his point if we weight the increase of cold blood solutions in on going TV plots.
When following the story, we might think that it is logic.
But after some more episodes we see that the massacre was useless. Or just to achieve a childish wish...
Their main goals were power, some sexual trauma or resentfulness.
Perhaps becomming the leader of the same abnormal way of living.
Come down off of Mt. Olympus for a bit and take a good look around.
We're on the verge of another major World War already. Just off the top of my head and in no particular order:
North Korea
Syria
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Iran
India / China facing off
China Sea bullshit
Day to day terrorism
Muslim refugees
Race issues
Wage inequality
Economy issues
Propped up stock markets
Basically, the whole world is sitting on a powder keg and the slightest of sparks will set the whole thing off.
All this and you're worried about AI ?
Do you really think places like China or Israel or India give two shits about any treaties or laws we might come up with concerning the creation of AI at any point in the future ?
All the flag waving is nice, but a pointless gesture I'm afraid.
Putin may be a dangerous person, but his statement was totally benign. I imagine every world leader would also want to have their countries by tech pioneers. That's pretty much all he was saying. How do you go from that to WWIII? I hate seeing these kind of outrageous statements so casually thrown around by the rich and famous who obviously are not experts in foreign policy, history, war, etc. I think that's dangerous too, maybe moreso than any off-hand comment by Putin or Trump. Their opinions carry a lot of weight and people look up to them in the same kind of way. Read about Henry Ford's political views before the US entered WWII -- he believed he was arguing for peace, but he was really enabling the Nazis. Hitler said he looked up to him and gave him a medal after taking power. He was a leader in the business world and very influential. By the way, do you really think saying "WWIII" repeatedly is gonna make it less likely to happen, or more likely?
According to isaac arthur, ;-P
It doesn't matter since it is also an intelligence so earth lose one but gain one. Not a problem
The battle between statism and anti-statism has really heated up, and is if full swing now. The statists (which include most Republicans and anyone who still remains a Democrat at this point, all of Europe, and a few other players) all want a human sheep farm they can fleece until the end of time.
Resisting them strongly are the anti-Statists including Trump, Russia, China, and other random small countries like the UK who have too recently tasted the heels of the boot of oppression and have no desire to taste it again. They are doing a good job of pushing back to be sure, but the outcome is by no means certain and relies on the backing of millions of citizens across countries world wide...
If you're wondering where AI fits into all this, well it does not yet. But it's not like we will be fighting AI, instead AI will be used to augment the existing battles for years to come.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your fundamental argument is that the nation state has already achieved post-biological escape velocity.
In most biological models, actual conflict peaks when the status hierarchy is uncertain or in flux (e.g. merging two flocks of chickens). The rest of the time, most of the conflict is symbolic, and even conspicuous losers are marginalized, rather than killed outright.
If you believe in evolution, this is a natural (and opt repeated) outcome for cooperative–competitive systems.
Almost everyone in who functions to a reasonable degree in human society has internalized some way to navigate the simultaneous cooperate–compete dynamic.
But the human mind loves to manufacture autobiographic memory and then adorn this with various stories used to project and inject the chosen autobiographic self-reduction into the social realm.
I can't find the quote just now, but Nabokov said of his own autobiography Speak, Memory that if an author can only write one valid autobiography, he or she isn't trying very hard.
(I was instead rewarded for my snipe hunt by chancing upon Playboy Interview: Vladimir Nabokov, which will surely stand up as the best-spent 30 minutes of my entire week.)
So, too, for myself, have Poe, Verne, and Doyle faded away.
But this vertical-gradient singularity, status-hierarchy winner-take-all narrative of the Looming AGI Ascension continues to promulgated by those for whom Poe, Verne, and Doyle have not faded away.
The Gilder Paradigm — 1 December 1996
This notion of vertical-gradient AGI is even worse than brick-and-mortar rubbishing Gilderism (he was not wrong, but the gradient turned out to be twenty years rather than two years—and even at twenty years, Amazon has not yet engorged Whole Foods past its tonsils).
Here's a thing: if you discover that a class of problems admits good solutions using stochastic algorithms, it's probably because optimality is a prairie plateau rather than a pointy peak.
(How does one achieve Commanding Heights amid the dreary Saskatchewan vastness—find the most industrious gopher, add steroids to its local water supply until it's hindquarters resemble a modern chicken's forequarters, and then take up prominence upon its excavation mound).
Here's the thing about the thing: AGI might help you find a bigger, better s
You proved my point rather than disproving it. I didn't say humans don't do stupid things. I said that stupid PROBLEMS don't kill humans, complicated ones.
They didn't build a nuclear plant without any safeguards. That would be a stupid problem. Instead they made put a lot in, then disabled or ignored them. That's a complex problem that a stupid human screwed up.
Same thing with war with Russia (Hitler had basically won the rest of the war before he started attacking Russia. He had England locked up on it's own territory. If Hitler had been nicer to occupied territory and had Generals capable of telling him to stop before Stalingrad, he would have bitten off a permanent chunk of Soviet territory)
AI's don't have friendliness. We won't try to create it or depend on it.
AI's might end up killing many or even most humans, but it will not be a FRIENDLINESS problem. I could see some moron trusting an AI to deal with a deadly virus and not using proper precautions. That might do it.
But it won't be a stupid, simple problem like friendliness or AI war machines without proper safeguards that do it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The USA is pushing NK to accelerate what they view as their strongest defensive position. There is no point to having a deterrent weapon if nobody knows that it actually works. They have to demonstrate and surprise everybody doubting their abilities. If we overestimated them they'd not be working so hard to show their capacity exceeds our low expectations. Once they get good enough bombs.... guess they didn't learn from the atom bomb because they are still threatened so they need more capacity... perhaps when they achieve it they will feel safe?? (no, but that is the rational... not anymore crazy than most everybody else.)
Their plans fit right into the same reasoning all the other nuclear weapon enabled nations have had. Everybody wants them and the motives are basically the same as everybody else. Even if you remove the economic war against them they will continue for the same reasons all the other nations did. They can't economically retaliate leaving capitulation, isolation, threat of war or war as their only options.
As far as WW3. That was the cold war (a different kind of war where neither side dared to fight conventionally, for obvious reasons. It was world wide and killed more than WW1 so.....) Would this become WW4? probably not. It'll probably be short and quick with both leaders going down in history even worse than they already are.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Shall we play a game?
Colossus, meet Guardian...
...Stephen Hawking.
Perhaps he could get some Government funding for research into it.
at this stage IA will probably not start a war - but it will most certainly finish it.
Gilder sure got this prediction right in 1996: "If bandwidth is free, you get a completely different computer architecture and information economy. Transcending all previous concepts of centralization and decentralization, one global machine will distribute processing to the optimal point and access everything. Feeding on low power and high bandwidth, the most common computer of the new era will be a digital cellular phone with an IP address."
And thus we have everyone's smartphones connecting to Google and Facebook.
It's interesting to reflect on his point that "Every economic era is based on a key abundance and a key scarcity."
Some of my own musings in that direction are here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
And I sum them up as: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity."
That builds on Einstein's comment that "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
It's ironic that computing technology like AI and robotics that could free all of humanity from drudgery may instead -- if Musk's warning were ignored -- lead to the enslavement and then extinction of humans by AIs and robots wielded by an every dwindling population of the elite at war with each other over whatever perception of scarcity they have.
The same is true for nuclear energy used instead in nuclear bombs, nanotech and biotech used as weapons instead of to build and heal, and so on for many other technologies -- including even bureaucracy that can either plan how to most quickly create abundance for all or plan how to most efficiently send people to concentration camps.
Perhaps today's scarcity seems to be one of imagination? At least some people tried -- like Gene Rodenberry. I'm currently reading "Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek" by Manu Saadia which explores some of that optimism. As is said in that book, it all boils down to whether we choose to share prosperity in a mostly egalitarian way. I wrote another essay that makes a related point where I suggest post-scarcity is the product of social progress times technical progress passing some threshold.
Bob Black had some interesting ideas too: http://www.primitivism.com/abo...
And Marshall Sahlins: http://www.primitivism.com/ori...
(Been meaning to write a book with the title of this post summarizing my previous writings on this...)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The story centers on a scrappy, no-nonsense plantation owner called Leiningen (his first name is never mentioned in the story), and his stubborn refusal to abandon his plantation in the face of a seemingly unstoppable mass of army ants, described as "an elemental -- an act of God!""
See for example:
"Army Ants: Nature's Deadliest Organization"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When I was hanging around CMU Robotics Institute in the 1980s I realized that the biggest risk of future robotics and AI could be that Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" would be some autistic messes which only regret the destruction of all humans many years after they did it (if they did not themselves also fail from lack of maintenance shortly after the last humans were wiped out).
See James P. Hogan's "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" for an example of how an AI could arise accidentally with a survival instinct that saw humanity as a threat.
For another example, I created perhaps the world's first 2D kinematic simulation of self-replicating robots in the 1980s in ZetaLisp+Flavors on a Symbolics 3600, and the very first thing the first robot did when i turned it on after making a duplicate of itself was cannibalize its offspring to make another duplicate. That was completely unexpected to me. To prevent that, I had to add a sense of "smell" to the robots who would add a scent to the parts reflecting shared identity. But that sense of surprise of my creation doing something completely unexpected (and destructive) has always stuck with me.
As in the story "Leiningen Versus the Ants", a lot of small "dumb" things working together can be very dangerous -- and as I discovered -- unpredictable from emergent behavior.
An ant-level AI embodied in an ant-size or roach-sized robot could potentially wipe out all humanity (especially if they were self-replicating -- or even just if trillions were produced as weapons).
Yet, the same sort of underlying technology could create abundance for all humans if designed towards different ends... Like to create ocean habitats or space habitats... Or even just Star Trek matter replicators or 3D printers...
It will be sadly ironic that with so much abundance potentially there for everyone we let our fears of scarcity cause us to choose to use such technologies of abundance to destroy abundance instead of create abundance.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The U.S.S.R created a doomsday weapon very similar to the IoT devices of today. In fact, it is still in operation.
It works using seismic sensors across the continent (11 time zones). If enough sensors detect activity, it launches the nukes. In other words, Russia can retaliate even if everyone is dead at the controls.
Now imagine a scenario where this device does not work as planned, perhaps reacting to a North Korean nuclear test. The system launches nukes, the U.S. retaliates and the show is over before anyone can reply to this post.
This is just one of many plausible scenarios that readers of ./ are not considering. Instead they personally attack Elon Musk, proving that intelligence does not equal wisdom.
It's just a simulation, what difference does it make?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Consider a handful of the nuclear power leaders: Trump, Putin and Kim.
I posit an opposite hypothesis that AI would be better at governing humans than the human that humans permit to govern themselves.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
He is just a narcissistic scam artist burning through YOUR money in tax rebates and direct subsidies.
We've had to worry about things like this before AI became involved.
From:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/neumann.html
Von Neumann was, at the time, a strong supporter of "preventive war." Confident even during World War II that the Russian spy network had obtained many of the details of the atom bomb design, Von Neumann knew that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. He predicted that were Russia allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, a war against the U.S. would be inevitable. He therefore recommended that the U.S. launch a nuclear strike at Moscow, destroying its enemy and becoming a dominant world power, so as to avoid a more destructive nuclear war later on. "With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when," he would say. An oft-quoted remark of his is, "If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"
I recommend this book:
Prisoner's Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb, by William Poundstone.
But it won't be a stupid, simple problem like friendliness or AI war machines without proper safeguards that do it.
Safeguards... ok. You create a super-duper-mega-blaster intelligence and put it in a box, subjected to your lowly wit. What could possibly go wrong?
Even more serious than that is Crypto Currencies. Crypto will be the cause of a world war and a civil war in the U.S. all because a select few are trying to control everything, and it's FAR too much power in the hands of a few.
A.I. can easily be corrected by requiring the three laws be implemented on all new developments, and some careful restrictions.
AI is only as good as the human who implemented it. So we're going to allow AI to make decisions on firing off military weaponry?
Stupid fucking idea
What he is saying is that governments most probably WILL...
(should have checked spelling better before hitting send...)
PlaynBass
Re: Evtim ( 1022085 ) If I had mod points left today, I would mod this up to +5.
PlaynBass
being a billionaire doesn't automatically make you an expert in political science.
Except for a billionaire idiot reality show host, screwer of contractors and students, and generally every man, woman, and child in the USA, like the orange man, asshole-mouthed, POTUS impersonator that currently is squatting in the nation's White House? You mean THAT billionaire?
VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ), STFU yourself!
PlaynBass
SensitiveMale - How dare you!? (some) People in the press call Elon Musk Tony Stark*.
Who does Tony Stark have the most to fear from?
ULTRON
Hah! Douché! (that's like Touché but instead with a meatport cleansing device. ewww)
Debate that one you insensitive clod! Okay maybe you sensitive clod.
*Probably at (maybe paid) suggestion of his publicist(s)
Re: the current POTUS, he's the product of a culture that believes their political system is based on a well-informed, rational electorate but actually mostly consists of poorly-informed, irrational consumers. The USA also elected a really dumb, B-movie actor, remember? Trump, Bush, and Reagan are not anomalies - They're business as usual.
VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ), STFU yourself!
How well-informed and rational of you.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
This last comment is actually accurate, IMO.
And I should learn to control the tone of my own posts better when I am in disagreement with a really dumb opinion. Mea culpa.
You, too, should learn to control the tone of your posts, if only to support our fading rights to free speech. For all the readers of these comments know, you yourself may not know what you are talking about. No one speaks for everyone who is commenting here. Therefore let the fly the comments of disagreement: Demanding someone to shut up only reveals your own closed mindset.
PlaynBass