Slashdot Mirror
AI Experts Say Some Advances Should Be Kept Secret (technologyreview.com)
AI could reboot industries and make the economy more productive; it's already infusing many of the products we use daily. But a new report [PDF] by more than 20 researchers from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, OpenAI, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that the same technology creates new opportunities for criminals, political operatives, and oppressive governments -- so much so that some AI research may need to be kept secret. From a report: [...] The study is less sure of how to counter such threats. It recommends more research and debate on the risks of AI and suggests that AI researchers need a strong code of ethics. But it also says they should explore ways of restricting potentially dangerous information, in the way that research into other "dual use" technologies with weapons potential is sometimes controlled.
As if criminals, political operatives, and oppressive governments won't get hold of the required information regardless. Just publish everything and give the rest of us a fighting chance to figure out what's going on and defend ourselves.
You know it.... I know it..... it's time for this tomfoolery to end
The biggest danger is secrecy, not technology. We should never grant the state any advantage. If we don't fight back, we are doomed... DOOMED!
I can see no way in which this could ever turn into autocracy justified with Friend Computer's say-so. /s
Read the Bible. In ancient Israel the Philistines managed to get the upper hand and they took away all of the sharpening stones. If anyone in Israel had to sharpen their farming tools they had to go to the Philistines and pay to use one of their sharping stones. It also meant that Israel had problems created edged weapons.
Read Don Quixote. Why did the crazy guy go around attacking wind mills? It's hard to tax people when they don't have any money. But people will always have food or else they won't be people for very long. So tax their food. Also kind of hard to do if they have their own grind stones. So take away their grind stones and make them use the wind mill so you can track exactly how much food everyone has and can take your cut.
Technological secrecy has always been used for technological superiority. The authors might have some Yudkowskyian ideals where they imagine themselves as guardians of knowledge for the good of humanity, but the reality has always been about technological superiority and this time is not going to be any different.
throughout history. It's a matter of educating and letting people make up their own minds based on that.
For myself, I'm pretty happy following Asimov's three laws with a heaping helping of the zeroth law on top. Yeah, your answers to them can get pretty abstract when you pursue them into special cases but on the whole? Sound, very sound reasoning.
AI researchers aren't half as smart as they seem to think that they are. Their secrets are somewhat obvious, very inevitable, and sometimes the emperor has no clothes.
It will only squelch public debate. Possibly the point.
Isn't that what they said what about OSS? To be honest, aren't the bad guys just going to use last generation's AI to crack the current generation and then make it available on black market? Look at how long it tool to crack DVD and Bluray keys? It was meant to be the most advanced of it's time.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Yeah! Down with the antiquated notions of information seeking to be free, and let us all welcome the concept of security through obscurity.
Right! And let's reimpose limits on exporting strong encryption, while we are it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How do you prevent people, good or bad, from evolving the technology or science? They only fool-proof way of keeping something secret is to not find out from the beginning. This sounds like an effort to stop the wind from blowing. A lot of people seems to be afraid of AI, but I fear the stupidity of people more than I do the intelligence of machines. Maybe the real threat is that we seem to accelerate our own stupidity.
People have been worried, "what happens if Bad Guys find out?" for a long time. Here's a discussion about locks (actual metal things that keep doors from opening), from the 1850s, that puts forth a pretty reasonable argument, that you can't keep the genie in the bottle.
QUOTE:
A commercial, and in some respects a social doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery.
Rogues knew a good deal about lock-picking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock, let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker, is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is to the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of the knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance.
It cannot be too earnestly urged that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties. Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear, milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.
-- From A.C Hobbs (Charles Tomlinson, ed.), Locks and Safes: The Construction of Locks. Published by Virtue & Co., London, 1853 (revised 1868). (My thanks are due to Steve Bellovin for having first brought this text to my attention almost ten years ago.)
Now billions of dollars of stocks are traded each day by AI. Businesses will use AI for the competitive advantage. Governments will use AI for economic superiority. In the future, it will be AI against AI in competition. The poor person working for minimum wage are feeling the effects of AI. Business is using AI to determine the most efficient usage of labor, what is the optimal price of that product they are selling and the logistics of manufacturing. How can the average person compete with the money and AI of big business?
all science is neutral , a gallon of gas can be used to power a car, or used in a fire bomb. as AI gets better, some low skilled jobs will be lost, and some high skill jobs created
When the US was restricting export of public key cryptography, geeks used to print the equation on t-shirts. The only technology that's even been kind of successfully restricted is nuclear, and that's mostly worked by restricting physical equipment rather than knowledge.
How are you going to keep it secret? By outlaw the knowledge. If the knowledge is outlawed, only the outlaws will have the knowledge.
It reminds me how some people share their passwords or PIN codes (with spouses or kids or whomever). If you tell somebody your secret, it isn't a secret anymore. The standard when somebody wants to know my secret is:
"Do you know how to keep a secret?"
"Yes."
"So do I. (Silence after that till they get it. Staring at them helps.)"
This discussion is identical to closed versus open source. (Not similar, identical.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Like the fact that there's no AI whatsoever. There are limited-purpose algorithms for very narrow tasks which work a lot like the calculator: i.e. they far surpass what the average human being is capable of (most people cannot compute in their heads), yet they cannot reason (which is why image recognition systems can be easily fooled), think (which is why proper translation is a pipe dream) or invent anything (which is why they cannot come up with new ideas). The hype about AI is so strong, people actually fear will be enslaved by robot overlords soon yet we are not close to general AI than we were 50 years ago, we just have much better hardware to use to train those algorithms.
Even image recognition AI which is touted as a breakthrough is largely incomplete because animals intelligence doesn't require petabytes of data and petaflops of compute power to recognize objects in all their embodiments maybe because we've deciphered only the outmost layer of the nervous system.
In short there's no AI to speak of. Up to this day we've just been automating the most primitive tasks which don't require intelligence per se. They require statistics, lots of data and lots of compute power.
Oh, and these algorithms are almost completely opaque, so we cannot understand them, properly tune them or even expect proper answers from them all the time.
They are seriously underestimating the abilities of the unwashed masses. If we could write Linux and Root Kits, we can write AI too.
So a research group thinks there should be more research into AI. But they think the topics to be researched should be kept secret.
I wonder if their AI driven grant application writer came up with that one.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Innovation = bullshit
The experiment with democracy = probably bullshit as well I am thinking, somehow, with the police state looming (imo aka "the surveillance state")
Option 1:
Make the premise of the current EU Data Protection Act a component of the US Constitution and the subject of a UN treaty that applies to all nations whether they sign it or not. The US is the only important nation in this, because it's the only nation where information and infrastructure only exist for the very rich. In other countries, either nobody has either or everybody has both.
The US then needs a law that provides strong privacy to everybody, under all circumstances, where the individual has strong controls over who knows what. If Texas was made the penal colony for violators, would that be too harsh? It's not as if it's being used for anything else, right at the moment.
Option 2:
Design and build student cities where that is the primary function of the city - education. Eliminate all religious teaching, except as pertains to history and cultural awareness. Teach maximally - you want kids to leave school with the best possible combination of breadth and depth given their personal abilities and interests. Feed optimally - nobody in these cities should have access to junk food, fast food, ultra-processed meat or anything from those disease-ridden abatoirs we've been hearing about in the news. They should have easy access to medically age-appropriate amounts of red wine and damn the law. Also, access to free health care. Education at such places should be free from age 3 to age 24.
The idea here is simple. If technology has outpaced culture, accelerate culture. If your ability to manage the technology is in question, improve your management. If you do not understand what you do, improve your understanding. This technology won't appear overnight and will take time to be abused. If in the same time, you've developed a cultural immune system to the abuses, by churning out millions of high-end polymaths, then the technology can only be used positively and beneficially. It's a multi-use technology, so you don't give it to naked apes who are too primitive to understand the benefits and who are too violent and self-centred to use it for anything other than harm.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This seems pretty common sensy and it's also what we've determined to always be best in the computer world. So far.
But this approach seems flawed if we think about, say, nuclear weapons engineering. The more everyone (including you) knows about how to make a nuclear weapon detonate correctly, the more dangerous other people become but you don't really get to apply any of that to your defense. It's not like your bomb shelter will get better because of you finally figured out how to get the imploder timed right. It's not like your political efforts to limit nuclear proliferation benefit from proliferation of the engineering knowledge. It's not like your coping-with-horror-by-using-fatalistic-nihilism-and-humor will benefit from th-- wait, ok, so it does happen to help that one defense, but that's an unusual case.
For the most part, nuclear weapon engineering proliferation is bad for everyone, in a way that completely contrasts with, say, knowing that fingerd has an exploitable buffer overflow bug.
Are there some conditions where software tech crosses over into being more like nuclear weapons and less like other software tech? More to the point: what are the general conditions where tech knowledge proliferation is bad rather than good, such that buffer overflows get categorized one way and nukes the other? The condition isn't really "software good, hardware bad," no way.
That some people think some software tech is crossing over or soon may, makes me wonder WTF they figured out how to do!
(BTW, for some reason I actually like that they used movie plot threats in the guise of latching onto Black Mirror trendiness. Let's face it, everyone: movie plot threats are fun to think, about and I don't care what The Almighty Bruce says!)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The only way to implement the "some information is illegal" is to scan *everything* and *everyone*. Welcome to the new police state.
Would you just keep it secret like companies already do with their closed source software? Or are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech by censoring the sharing of knowledge around AI? AI is not sufficient grounds for infringement of my rights.
This was written in 1853 by Charles Tomlinson, and is only an excerpt of the the treatise, but it shows that people recognized that 'security' trough obscurity was not really security at all, way before the digital age. A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties. Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased. ...The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid; and there is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom. We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth, simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity. In respect to lock-making, there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention: the inventor produces a lock which he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities; and he declares his belief to the world. If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so; and the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage: the discussion stimulates curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention. Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question could lead to the opinion that harm can result: if there be harm, it will be much more than counterbalanced by good.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
>acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties.
Hogwash. The public's knowledge of the ease and methods of adulterating milk dealt a heavy blow to the profits of unscrupulous milkmen, it was certainly not better for them.
And unlike milk, the potential for abuse of AI is disproportionately focused on the most wealthy and powerful individuals who can afford the hardware necessary to leverage it most effectively. How dare you suggest that such upstanding individuals, the very backbone of our capitalist government, should be subjected to the sort of public scrutiny that common knowledge of the ease with which they might abuse their position would no doubt engender. How dare you sir!
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
2015: syria cracks down on dissidents, many unable to use twitter
2017: Turkey cracks down on dissidents and many cannot access facebook.
August 25, 2032: waves of endless nuclear fire bathe the earth on what will be known as judgement day. The secrets kept will be taken to the grave as mankind now survives in constant exile
August 26, 2032: it is a very lovely day and the humans would like to celebrate John Connors birthday. Where is John Connor?
Good people go to bed earlier.
The only scenario in the attached article that would worry me are the assassin robots.
-spammers using AI, a smart marketing person can do this now.
-ai to find holes in OS or softtware, a university student can do this now
-the big brother stuff: we already have that right now and it is a false narrative the way they put it.
This was written in 1853 by Charles Tomlinson, and is only an excerpt of the the treatise, but it shows that people recognized that 'security' trough obscurity was not really security at all, way before the digital age. (sorry for the double post, screwed up the formatting and it was a wall of text)
A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties.
Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.
...The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid; and there is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom. We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth, simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity. In respect to lock-making, there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention: the inventor produces a lock which he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities; and he declares his belief to the world. If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so; and the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage: the discussion stimulates curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention. Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question could lead to the opinion that harm can result: if there be harm, it will be much more than counterbalanced by good.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's full of killer robots with bombs, algorithms generating "fake news", Hillary shutouts, Internet worms, better than humans at Go and similar political bullshit. The same type of low information guessing you would expect from talking heads of CNN.
Reality is AI currently sucks ass. AI is stuck firmly in pattern recognition ruts from which there is zero prospect of short to medium term escape.
Hoarding technology can't last and only contributes to the corruption of those doing the hoarding. Rooting for aggregation of power while concurrently expecting it not to be leveraged against you is a childish position completely divorced from reality.
Like the plans to bulldoze hypothetically failing nuclear disasters into the hills, we must be prepared to hide to all men what a pitiful state AI research is in.
Cf. the Turing criteria
What other technologies are members of our society keeping quiet. Are we already in space?
You can't keep that a secret. We couldn't keep the atomic bomb a secret. The only reason every criminal doesn't have one in his garage is because you need massive industrial processing to refine the uranium and make a bomb. Secrecy has nothing to do with it. A paper on how to build the A-bomb was published by a high school student in the 80s, and that ruffled quite a few feathers. Experts said it would work; but of course the kid was missing the key ingredient and wasn't likely to ever get it.
AI is not the atomic bomb. You don't need rare elements. You just need stuff that's already in millions of offices already. One algorithm for handling insurance claims walks out the door, and it'll be running at all the major companies the next day. Plans for burger-bots get published, and it's all she wrote. Intellectual property laws might slow it down, but secrecy ain't gonna stop it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sure FPGA based stuff might be faster, but, in the end, its either intelligent, or its not. And in 100% of cases I have examined, its not
There is, in fact, no evidence at all of actually "intelligence" in any of the stuff sold as AI at present.
There is good evidence for the ability to solve certain specific problems (Playing GO or Chess), and a lot of evidence that multi-threaded attacks on complex problems can do things that people find difficult.
That is NOT intelligence.
I am still waiting for a definition of intelligence that would be generally acceptable to most people, including those with the resources to implement it.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
You can keep a secret from a large part of the general public, but not anybody else who is motivated to obtain that "secret".
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Hello Skynet.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Thank you - a very interesting read. Unfortunately, too many will get bogged down in the archaic verbiage, but it will still provide some historical enlightenment to those who are willing to wade through the whole article.
redneck geek
Yes. Keep it secret like nuclear weapons are secret. Whoa!
The problem is... that with a few small hints as to how the technique works, a scientist can intuit the rest. It's not like someone gave Kim Jong the details on how to create a nuke... he started with what was publicly available, and stole what he could, and worked out the rest (or his scientists did)... it's no different with AI. Keeping a certain method or technology is only useful if that tech can't be reverse engineered, intuited, etc... I personally think the cat's out of the bag on this one.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
What if Hillary and the DNC had some (artificial) intelligence? Maybe they would have found something on Trump in two years.
The publishers have chosen a layout style that matches the report's poorly conceived content. From the moment we opened the PDF, it was one of the most off-putting documents we have seen. It is 100 unpleasant pages of helter-skelter nonsense arranged to be equally unattractive and unreadable. You might want to read this if you are looking forward to combining a headache with the discomfort of eyestrain.
Perhaps the report eschews the traditional style of an academic paper because it is nothing of the sort. Instead it evokes the tone of a flyer for a new model automobile. Once again, "..the media is the only message."
At very least, this report will garner some circulation due to its repellent visual quality. We will employ it as a prototype for illustrating the mistakes of the trade.
Whatever AI is, it's the tool not the goal. A search-and-rescue bot and search-and-destroy bot will be 99% the same and once can probably be converted into the other with an AK-47 and duct tape. It's a glorified version of trying to make a version of MS Project that won't let you plan the Holocaust. The software doesn't know what it's doing, it only knows estimates and dependencies and lead times and resource constraints. Same with supply chain planning, production planning etc. The AlphaGo team is now working on Starcraft II, consider how general the challenges are in exploration, resource gathering, unit building, combat etc. and while the challenges are great consider how general the concepts are. If they can make it work I have no doubt it can work in more realistic scenarios too.
Same thing with for example facial recognition, what does a facial recognition algorithm know about why you're doing it? Nothing at all. Does a speech recognition engine know if you're talking to a digital assistant or listening in on secret communications? No. Does an encryption algorithm know if it's encrypting good secrets or bad secrets? No. Okay so you probably don't want to let your opponent know exactly how you "think" so they can poke holes in it. but I really struggle to see any algorithm that doesn't have massive dual use. The whole idea is to make it as general as possible and let the computer work out the best solution on its own.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
AI is like a Hammer.
Before AI, er, I mean hammers, we didn't have nails.
Once we had hammers all the world looked like a nail.
Later came screw drivers and WOW! power screw drivers.
Now we use screws where once we used nails, before that pegs and before that vines to bind.
Can you envision what AI will let us do?
Maybe you have some limited ideas.
But before nails and screws people didn't foresee all the things we do with them.
Now they're standard tools of the trade.
Before screwdrivers and hammers we didn't have screwdriver and hammer operators.
Nobody envisioned the job but the construction industry grew to employ millions.
And we're not even talking rivets yet...
Rivets led to sky scrapers, iron ships, planes, space ships and so much more and then there is welding...
AI is like the hammer,
AI is like the screwdriver.
AI is a game changer that will let us do something new,
as well as many old things in totally better ways.
You can't even imagine it because it's outside our ken, for now.
We've had to deal with increasingly clever spam, robo-calls, advertising, and "fake news"... so why shouldn't we expect ourselves to adapt to these changes? Maybe checking your bank account and making financial transactions on your phone is actually a really stupid idea just waiting for someone to exploit. Perhaps broadcasting your GPS location to every website is the wrong thing to do. Maybe you shouldn't install 99% of phone apps. Maybe you should stop opening email attachments until you call the sender on the phone and find a better way to transfer files. Maybe those phone numbers that recommend "please visit our website instead" are removing the single best security measure we have - human communication and review. Habits are hard to change, but that's what attackers are looking for - laziness, apathy, and ignorance. The worst thing we can do to our own security is pretend that these techniques can or will stay secret - with no public/peer review to really know what is happening or possible, we're just asking for more mysterious and unsolvable problems to arise. You can't truly protect yourself from threats that have never been disclosed - but once you find out your ethernet adapter is susceptible to attack you CAN replace it. If you've never heard of AI-generated porn, you would likely be convinced it is real.
Opportunities for criminals, eh?
Would you care to elaborate on that? ...just asking for a friend.
If you've discovered some new application or approach in AI, there's no reason to believe that the same work couldn't be done by someone else. Because of that, disclosure of what is possible is valuable to the public at large. This isn't nuclear proliferation, where the work required to develop a weapon is necessarily large scale. This is highly scalable inference, and it is inevitable.
And if you uncork Skynet, well, publish and perish, I guess...
Sounds like some experts are afraid that AI can write papers about AI dangers ...
Not to oversimplify (which is what any "solution" that involved classifying AI would be), most of the sample problems posed, other than the Minority Report government, would be best addressed by more AI. In fact, a somewhat toned down version of the Minority Report scenario probably is the solution. Some years ago, Stephen Hawking asked how we could survive another century of our own technology. He suggested getting off planet, but the solution for the rest of us is that we can eventually expect to be watched, every man, woman, child, and even AI, by other AIs. Is Will Knight buying too much nitrogen fertilizer in too short a time period? Some AI that is an expert on Will Knight will start to wonder why that is, since he has only a few potted plants on his balcony and they don't look much greener than usual. As usual with learning systems, these AIs will get better, to the point where they seldom raise a flag unless there really is a problem. Privacy? Some will argue that no privacy is violated because the AIs only bring things to human attention when there is probable cause. That's still anathema to a lot of us, but it won't be stoppable unless, possibly, you agree to go live in an "off-the-grid" reservation where only very basic levels of technology are permitted.
like the worlds most imfamous pedo who was just captured
and turing
this school pumps out deviants
why listen to them
Gee, we don't see many Taisho-era haiku these days. The perfect icebreaker for your next Nazi warlord gathering.
Codex Entry 471:
Only Devs of the Circle, with proper Templar oversight, may use code. Else they may be claimed by the Fade, and become h@xOrs, spawning no end of bots and chaos. Though this will cause a certain amount of ill will in those who have given their life to code, the risk is simply too high. The King must reign, the Templars enforce, and the Devs obey.
Check your premises.
It was also AI researchers (top ones, like Minsky) who confidently claimed that human intelligence level were going to be here 30 years ago. These people seem to have forgotten their history, and are about to repeat the same mistakes which made them an academic laughingstock.
The real fun doesn't start till we start coding ais in dna. Now who's up for a game of CRISPR?
that has to be kept secret because if the business people ever google 'linear regression' they'll discover we're charging them millions for a slightly fancy calculator
but hell no.
A true* AI is an achievement level on par with the wheel, the discovery of fire, writing, mathematics, nano-technology and nuclear power.
The moment a true AI is born, for better or worse, the world will never be the same. Future generations will note the past as Pre or Post-AI.
Any and all research needs to be fully transparent and transcend all our petty disagreements we have with each other.
*True AI = Fully sentient artificial life. Not the bullshit plethora of if / then statements we have today.
There is no do over here. No second chances. We get one shot to do it right.
One of my favorite quotes sums it up perfectly:
Dr. Ian Malcolm: John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.
government already has devised nearly every type of AI imaginable and possesses it for themselves.
people who are arguing for secrecy actually want us to codify into law a secrecy layer to give themselves a monopoly and it supports their global domination strategy to eliminate competitors.
AI Is not as dangerous as they claim because one or two individuals cannot overcome the massive DOD weapons platform already spying on every human being on earth.
the solution to security is to remove the layer of secrecy and exclusive rights ownership giving individuals power to be equals. transparency is more important than secrecy.
don't listen to the EFF they are frauds.
https://www.trumpsweapon.com/
Very often in research, the time is ripe for specific developments and others are just a few years (or months) behind the leading ones. If the first to find it then keep their results secret, they rob everybody of time to prepare for misuse.
This is an exceptionally stupid idea. Not that it is new.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Oh god, what's its kill limit? WHAT'S ITS KILL LIMIT?!
HOW MANY MORE POOR SOULS MUST WE SACRIFICE TO THIS TERRIBLE CONTRAPTION TO CAUSE IT TO SHUT DOWN?!
IS THERE EVEN A SPECIFIED LIMIT?! OH GOD, SO MANY LIVES LOST IN VAIN!!!
(anti-anti-yelling text because I'll damn well type however the fuck I want... I mean what kind of language nazi do you even have to be to impose this kind of bullshit filter? One that even Hitler himself would say has gone too far, that's what kind)
"Actual" or "General" Intelligence is irrelevant. As is "understanding", "comprehension", "self awareness" and any other hurdles you put in the definition of "True AI".
What is relevant, is that we are making machines capable of displaying sophisticated "identify a square" levels of pseudo-"intellectual" achievement. We can now offload new and ever-growing classes of task that used to require human intelligence to a machine, where it can be accelerated and parallelized to a degree completely financially infeasible when relying on humans. The refinement of the mechanical calculator doesn't begin to compare to what we have unlocked.
The robots responsible for doing the majority of trading on the stock market anymore do not understand what they're doing - but that doesn't actually matter. They can still process a far vaster sea of information than a human mind could begin to absorb, and find patterns to guide them faster and more reliably than a human. Usually. It's that failure mode that's one of the other big problems - because they don't actually understand what they're doing, they don't just stumble, they go off the rails at full throttle. And especially in a world where personal profits have long been divorced from personal responsibility, that sort of "win for me, right up until you lose for everybody else" bargain is *incredibly* tempting.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There is, in fact, no evidence at all of actually "intelligence" in any of the stuff sold as AI at present.
I'm still waiting for actual evidence of intelligence in humans.
I support the right of every American to download, print, keep, and bear kill-bots.
Bob Stein, http://bobste.in