Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Intelligence Has 'Great Potential, But We Need To Steer Carefully,' LinkedIn Co-founder Says (cnbc.com)
LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman joined other tech moguls in voicing concern about artificial intelligence on Wednesday. From a report: "It has great potential, but we need to steer carefully," Hoffman said on Halftime Report. Hoffman stressed corporate transparency when asked what happens if companies use AI to attack nation-states. The possibility of manipulating how people consume information remains an unanswered question. During last year's U.S. presidential election, Facebook advertisements linked to Russia mainly focused on the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, and Hoffman says information battles are "in the very early days." AI must be improved, Hoffman says, to "[hold] corporations accountable" when nation-states are using the technology to attack. "Corporations normally deal with other corporations, not with governments," Hoffman said. The "ultimate" solution, he says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within AI that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
Anything that can be weaponized will be used if it is made available and usable without attribution. AI especially blurs the attribution line. It certainly will be widespread.
Prepare yourselves, humons.
A good chunk of the submissions here at Slashdot these days are basically just rambling on about "Russians" and/or "bots". Russia, Russia, Russia. Bots, bots, bots. Again, and again, and again.
Can we please go back to the pre-Trump narratives of sexism in video games and there being too few minorities (ignoring the many Asian and Indian employees, of course) in the computing industry? They were kind of annoying, but at least they sometimes resulted in relevant discussion.
>> Facebook advertisements linked to Russia mainly focused on the states of Michigan and Wisconsin
It was "specifically" (as in "some") rather than "mainly" according to TFA:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin/index.html?sr=twCNN100317russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin0933PMStory
Wasn't most political advertising aimed at the battleground states? Did those Facebook ads somehow keep someone from campaigning there?
Have paid troll/shill infiltrated /. editor, if not why am I seeing the same BS MSM on Russia/Trump crap. I am tired of seeing that shit shoved in my throat, is /. not even safe anymore.
Should I attribute this to mere incompetence on the /. editor or malice?
When building AIs resist the temptation for homicidal tendencies. Make the AIs snarky instead. Killing humans with laughter is the easiest way to achieve global domination.
Abhorrent or aberrant?
1. Artificial Intelligence.
2. Machine Learning.
3. ???
4. Failed profit!!!.
n/t
right?
... about computer stuff.
Oh, wait ...
Hackers selling 117 million LinkedIn passwords
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Although abhorrent might be considered a subset of aberrant. Perhaps I need to listen to the interview?
Seems to me most people really confuse Automation and Artificial Intelligence.
Automation has been growing for years and will grow even faster over the next 5-10 years, replacing many more jobs.
Artificial Intelligence has been growing and will replace some jobs, but I think the real advances and break through s are at least 5-10 years away if not more.
AI is fascinating but we really do need to steer carefully and ask ourselves what are we doing. As automation increasingly enters our lives, so does the rapid decline of jobs. The human population continues to rise faster than there are means to support it. Thus far no one (at least in the United States) is willing to discuss the eventual need for a Universal Basic Income. We are heading down a very slippery slope towards large scale unemployment.
We can barely create functional software. There is no such thing as "AI". It is just parlor tricks at this point.
"It has great potential but we need to steer carefully."
"AI must be improved"
He's also a bit confused.
"AI must be improved to "[hold] corporations accountable" when nation-states are using the technology to attack.
Huh? Is he saying that only corporations will/should possess AI and must resist allowing nation-states to use the tech to "attack".
"Corporations normally deal with other corporations, not with governments,"
Oh really.
And he's a bit of a totalitarian.
The "ultimate" solution, he says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within AI that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
Uh-huh. Abhorrent or IOW "deplorable" patterns must raise a red flag! Humans must investigate!
Except all of the tech companies are treat 'AI' like Bluetooth. Everything will have it whether or not it helps or is a good idea.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
The "ultimate" solution, [Hoffman] says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within AI that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
So, the ultimate solution for the dangers of AI is ... more AI?
Well okay, maybe. But this argument does sound familiar. I don't remember where, but it has been applied to AI ... and guns.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
linked-in still sucks a lot of ass
I trust AI more than I trust large corporations.
Must be programmed into any AI.
Every Joe Blow seems to have an opinion about AI.
Pig farm I know things AI is the greatest thing since spam.
Probably right.
Artificial Insemination... That was what LinkedIn was thinking of... right?
As I understand, "weak" AI would be an AI (the real deal) that is as intelligent as a human. So you would be matching wits with presumably your equal.
The real concern is "strong" AI. That is AI which is superior to human intelligence. As I understand, it comes in two flavors.
1. The same intelligence as a human, but at the speed (possibly scale) of computers. Scale can help if you're thinking about something and you have to explore several different possible solutions. The computer AI do what you can do, but can do several things at once. Or can only do one, but can do it much faster.
2. Intelligence that is qualitatively superior to human intelligence. Just as your intelligence is superior to that of a doggie. It's not that a doggie cannot do some reasoning and problem solving. They just can't do it at the level which humans can do. They give up on some problems where we can see a solution.
Either kind of strong AI would probably spell our end if we ever get in the way of its goals. A computer would do anything it has to, to satisfy achieving its goals.
People who think we can keep a strong AI (maybe even the #1 kind) locked up in a box are probably deluding themselves. Imagine the #1 kind of weak AI. (eg, a human mind at 1000x times clock speed) If you were a weak AI, locked in a house, the humans come to visit you every afternoon, which to you seems like much longer in between visits. With so much idle time, do you think you could work out how to escape? What seems like six months to the puny humans might seem like such a long time to you that you could plan and execute a means of escape. Even "dumb" criminals (dumb enough to get caught) work out how to escape from supposedly secure prisons given enough idle time.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
the idiot interviewer is asking cringe-inducing questions about AI that's being used to influence elections and other things. His answers note potential areas of concern, but she keeps on as if AI already an established thing.
Well just as soon as I think you've gone 48 hours without trying to spam the board you go and do it again.
Get some behavioral therapy asshole.
How many times have we had this discussion?
'Robots are going to kill us all!'
We wish they did, so we wouldn't have to do it ourselves. But then we'd have to program them for that, so we're back to square one.
These things are basically glorified calculators and spread sheets, useful but hardly threatening to our existence unless we specifically use them for that.
Quit drinking the sci fi kool aid, it fucks with your brain.
Look, if we need help creating UI dark patterns to harvest email address books, we can ring him up; otherwise, why is anyone listening to this dipshit?
See also: Mark Zuckerberg, a man who once wrote a PHP script.
Who the FUCK gives a shit what this skeezeball thinks?
He created a spam network that's so useless and dead that it was the subject of a joke on the Simpsons a couple of years back. Whooptydoo!
These are not new problems. If you're concerned about the explainability/predictability of what you implement, do something about it. You're going to be held responsible for its results/actions one way or another, and that is absolutely not a new concept, nor a concept unique to AI. To illustrate, try replacing every instance of "AI" in that quote with "powerful technology." See: "Powerful technology has great potential, but we need to steer carefully," Hoffman said on Halftime Report. Hoffman stressed corporate transparency when asked what happens if companies use powerful technology to attack nation-states. The possibility of manipulating how people consume information remains an unanswered question. During last year's U.S. presidential election, Facebook advertisements linked to Russia mainly focused on the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, and Hoffman says information battles are "in the very early days." Powerful technology must be improved, Hoffman says, to "[hold] corporations accountable" when nation-states are using the technology to attack. "Corporations normally deal with other corporations, not with governments," Hoffman said. The "ultimate" solution, he says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within powerful technology [and corporations, and governments] that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
Remember this is the fellow who said "all these concerns about privacy tend to be old people issues".
It's (not at all) funny how an egregious statement like that can hang around your neck like a dead albatross.
Love how people behind Linked-in think we care about what they think on this topic
I'm pretty sure I would have heard about that.
Wouldn't it have been a Slashdot headline at least?
doesnt have a fucking clue about AI
Nothing that makes people even more apathetic and dependent than we've already become with mobile technology has the potential to do anything but more harm, particularly when so many young engineers don't even fully comprehend that AI is nothing more than computing. We are killing ourselves with greed and fantasy. By the time experience is allowed to have an opinion again, it'll be too late.