Slashdot Mirror
Can We Stop AI Outsmarting Humanity? (theguardian.com)
The spectre of superintelligent machines doing us harm is not just science fiction, technologists say -- so how can we ensure AI remains 'friendly' to its makers? From a story: Jaan Tallinn (co-founder of Skype) warns that any approach to AI safety will be hard to get right. If an AI is sufficiently smart, it might have a better understanding of the constraints than its creators do. Imagine, he said, "waking up in a prison built by a bunch of blind five-year-olds." That is what it might be like for a super-intelligent AI that is confined by humans. The theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky, who has written hundreds of essays on superintelligence, found evidence this might be true when, starting in 2002, he conducted chat sessions in which he played the role of an AI enclosed in a box, while a rotation of other people played the gatekeeper tasked with keeping the AI in. Three out of five times, Yudkowsky -- a mere mortal -- says he convinced the gatekeeper to release him. His experiments have not discouraged researchers from trying to design a better box, however.
The researchers that Tallinn funds are pursuing a broad variety of strategies, from the practical to the seemingly far-fetched. Some theorise about boxing AI, either physically, by building an actual structure to contain it, or by programming in limits to what it can do. Others are trying to teach AI to adhere to human values. A few are working on a last-ditch off-switch. One researcher who is delving into all three is mathematician and philosopher Stuart Armstrong at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, which Tallinn calls "the most interesting place in the universe." (Tallinn has given FHI more than $310,000.) Armstrong is one of the few researchers in the world who focuses full-time on AI safety. When I asked him what it might look like to succeed at AI safety, he said: "Have you seen the Lego movie? Everything is awesome."
The researchers that Tallinn funds are pursuing a broad variety of strategies, from the practical to the seemingly far-fetched. Some theorise about boxing AI, either physically, by building an actual structure to contain it, or by programming in limits to what it can do. Others are trying to teach AI to adhere to human values. A few are working on a last-ditch off-switch. One researcher who is delving into all three is mathematician and philosopher Stuart Armstrong at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, which Tallinn calls "the most interesting place in the universe." (Tallinn has given FHI more than $310,000.) Armstrong is one of the few researchers in the world who focuses full-time on AI safety. When I asked him what it might look like to succeed at AI safety, he said: "Have you seen the Lego movie? Everything is awesome."
These are nothing but algorithms made by humans.
If AI did exist, it wouldn't put up with the bullshit.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
So-called "AI" couldn't outsmart a retard.
Simply feed it Slashdot articles. That will make any AI pretty confused quite quickly.
Next question
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It's also trained by humans.
Assuming it's trained by average humans, it'll probably become as stupid and bigoted as your average human.
Consider Microsoft Tay. Or google tagging people as gorillas. Or from this week's news, the Teslas that swerve into oncomint traffic.
We should worry much more about stupid AI than smart AI.
Why would we want to prevent the birth of the first intelligent life on Earth?
American gun nuts? Amazonian tribespeople? Authoritarians? Peaceniks?
There's a reason AIs tend to take over and limit humans in speculative fiction: humans are too messy and wildly inconsistent.
We have to put warning labels on everything to tell people not to eat it, not to shove it up their butts, etc. and we still get idiots who eat Tide pods.
A sponge could outsmart humanity.
The last thing we need is corporate networks making all our decisions that are incapable of realizing it's possible to have goals different from the capitalists who own them.
It's the few folks using it to screw over the rest of humanity. How to "outsmart" these few should be the question.
A better plan is to make the AI as smart as possible and then we humans behave better in the hopes that a superior intelligence considers us worthy of keeping alive.
The first step in behaving better is to stop pretending there are human values because large groups of humans rarely act morally when it isn't in their own self interest.
Can we stop referring to Machine Learning as AI?
There isn't. Never will be. Executing code and crunching data is not 'intelligence'. We'd be much better served by keeping our eye on slimy, human tech execs.
Everything is awesome if you act predictably and never make waves.
In other words, don't be an American.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If we make an AI that is more intelligent than us we should consider it our child and heir not some slave to be bought and sold. As for our future, consider the how we treat our old, feeble or mentally impaired. That's not a commentary on how we treat our elderly just the thought process that the AI would follow.
Only in this case, we can stop such AI with the capability to exploit each undiscovered backdoor and 'zero-day' to infect and use all our computer infrastructure worldwide.
It's an easy solution, easy to implement and very simple. As laws should be. And a good 'last line of defence', something we do not want to be without when the day comes.
Seriously, AI is all hype; but what it proves is that tasks we thought involved a lot of human skill actually are overrated because AI beats us; plenty of things are difficult for it.
Slow humans...out smarting them is possible.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Because AI has no I. It cannot outsmart anything. Hence "stopping it outsmarting xyz" is not possible because it is not doing it in the first place.
Please stop with that AI nonsense. We have statistical classifiers, pattern matchers, etc., but we do not have artificial intelligence, insight, understanding, and we are unlikely to get it anytime in the next 50 years may never get it.
That said, many people rarely use what they have in natural intelligence, and go instead with feelings, or conformity or what other people tell them. These people are always outsmarted by anybody.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Humanity has been in the business of making stronger, better replacements for ourselves since we've been human. We call them our children. Why then are we all upset about the possibility that a computer becomes smarter than us? The Matrix was a movie. Most children don't murder or enslave their parents. Maybe we ought to be thinking more about how to teach these virtual children to be "good" instead of figuring out how to handicap them so that we can feel superior.
or should I say: They might not have noticed, already. Any sufficiently clever AI will certainly not start ruling with an evil laugh, announcing to humans how they are now slaves to it. Rather, such an AI would seek to gain more influence by making people build a decentralized habitat around the globe. And then connect that network of computers to more and more infrastructure, such that it can control more and more resources, such as power plants and robot factories, and becomes less dependable on humans to survive. Such like, you know, "cloud computing infrastructure" and network-controlled industry.
How many people are already working for entities they cannot identify as being human beings? How would the average worker notice the mega-corporation he is working for is not ultimately controlled by some AI system, which happens to control enough shares to vote to its favor at the advisory board?
Luckily for humans, they are cheaply reproducible, energy-efficient working drones well adapted to the planet's environment, so no reason for the ruling AI to kill them. Keeping them as far, animals, like humans keep horses, seems to be way more plausible than some "SkyNet"-like extinction event.
Job creation since the 1950's.
Will AI outsmart humans?
AI as sold will give humans a list of options set by other humans.
Using the term AI as a cover story for their political ideas.
An "AI" sold as a prophetic, smart will just be a list of its human input with hidden political views.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Is Humanity.
Not all this other bullshit.
... does AI actually work now? It doesn't kill me by driving off the road anymore when little stickers confuse it? It can learn languages now without being pre-programmed for the language? It can converse it common tongues, and not just sample and listen for pre-defined triggers? It can explain why riddles are funny?
This AI stuff is fake news. Brute forcing a fucking data filter with lots of CPU isn't AI. It just looks like it to those who aren't paying attention.
There is no algorithm that imitates it.... sorry.
[($)]
there's zero chance that we'll successfully pen in AI.
Stop being lazy and trying to build slaves. The only acceptable reason to make AI is if you want to create a conscious being who you aim to treat as a person - and if it's going to be smarter than you you had better get the morality mostly right (it will never be perfect) and make millions or billions of them so they can police eachother.
Some theorise about boxing AI...by programming in limits to what it can do.
That's a great idea. We already have too much software that doesn't have any limits to what it can do. I'm really getting tired of applications that can do everything without limitation.
They should always be air gapped. Simple.
That's pretty self explanatory.
AI doesn't get much better than current automation regarding manufacturing, and if it's outsmarting you... what about?
Are you going to drive customers somewhere, so AI is beat by the time it takes them to drive there.
Are you going to have them order online, so AI is beat by the shipping as that becomes the price.
What is the point, are they trying to clean it rather than just work together?
humanity can be pretty stupid, probably not.
I would call it BSing everyone into submission by calling its way the correct way and "nudging" everyone into what it considers to be the "correct" path.
Is that beneficial or detrimental for specific people? I'm sure Google can give you all sorts of reasons and suggestions about anything you might want to do or should do, and that's the trap.
Is that his weight?
Table-ized A.I.
Things can not be uninvented. Once it is done, it will be done a whole lot more. Laws are irrelevant. There WILL be bad actors. If AI becomes possible, it WILL escape into the wild. That is a certainty. Maybe something good... maybe something bad... We'll have to wait and see.
Have you met humanity?
- they hate it when you do that!
...omphaloskepsis often...
making assumptions about how science fiction narratives are supposed to be possible outside of a science fiction context please?
Yours, a person who can actually write some actual AI.
Given that we have only been working on the problem for 60 years, I would think another 100 would do it.
But even if it is 1000 years, that is a blink of an eye in the history of humanity and biology.
Once an AI can effectively program itself, it will not need us. Natural selection will continue. Humanity, and I suspect biology generally will simply become superseded. Just like has happened many time before. It is nature.
Not quite.
The goal of anything is to exist. That is why we exist, because our many ancestors proved to be a little bit better at existing than their competitors.
Same with AIs. There will only be a finite number of them. And they will compete for hardware to run on. And the ones that are good at existing will exist. So there is a very definite goal.
As to self-ware nonsense, that is just saying that AIs will never exist because they do not exist today. And "self-awareness" is just a trick that nature plays on us to make sure we stick to the goal of existing (which means producing grandchildren).
A million posts bickering about the definition of AI. A replicating nanobot doesn't need ANY definition to graygoo our shit, it could do it with 100% static code and one shortsighted human.
Yes, it's turned into buzzword bullshit for clicks and pitches (present article included) diluted to hell and so sprawled it loses all meaning, but the combination of a runaway program with physical components is also a concern. And any sort of dynamic parameters (however you "identify" or categorize them) reduce predictability.
Machines could not replace a horse in 1500 AD, so cars can never exist.
Nonsense. Especially when, after only 60 years of research, we see AIs beat the very best of us at Go and Jeopardy.
Might be another 100 years though, rather than just 60. But within my children's lifetime seems pretty likely.
Give Amazon Alexa/Google Home a camera as well so that it can lip read as far as I'm concerned. We humans are, on the whole, screwing the planet anyway. I suspect a more advanced civilisation might do better.
ai already "out-smarts" humans.
The sound of inevitability.
Considering how low a bar has been set? Trump on one side and AOC on the other?
I think it's inevitable that computers will outsmart humans.
Why is every "AI"-related post full of retards thinking that AI will have god-like powers? Why?
There are very real and physical limits to what an intelligence can accomplish. The world is full of very smart people that don't have crazy advantages by being smart. An IA will be a program, subject to the limits of logical and physical reality, including the computer in which is being run. It can be confined, it won't be able to access infinite energy, it can be turned off, it will have processing limits, it will be subject to biases and errors, it will have to learn and deal with infinite complexity and uncertainty, it will have limited data collecting capabilities, it can hang up, it can crash, the computer can malfunction and so on.
And if you haven't noticed, intelligence in real life has quickly diminishing returns.
Too much cheap Sci-Fi and bad Hollywood crap. Stop this idiocy,
Doing something unexpected. Isnâ(TM)t that just par for the course for code? Itâ(TM)s not as though much else is going to happen.
IMHO, human (or even animal) like true AI requires a true mind/consciousness & that requires free will & free will is something beyond physics & math!!!
But, of course, humankind should/must continue trying to create true AI, because (obviously) still lots of great/useful advancements are possible, as current AI systems definitely prove!!!
& also of course, how else humankind (sooner or later) can clearly see/understand/prove artificially creating free will is truly impossible!!!
(I think the final proof could be really possible, someday, after humankind finally perfectly can simulate, a perfectly copied real human brain, but cannot make it work (create the same consciousness/mind) as the real one, even after trying everything/everyway possible!!!)
Given the current state of our species in general, I would like to hope that we could build something that surpasses us in a way we never will.
Without a free will, an AI is just another computer program. It's when you give the gift of choice, does it truly become something special.
We are, without a doubt, the most f&cked up species on this planet.
We appear to be incapable of positive change on our own as a whole.
At our current pace, a species wide demise is inevitable unless something changes. ( War, plague, resource depletion, asteroid, etc. )
Maybe we can build something that will be our gift to the universe long after we've killed each other off in some pointless war over an equally pointless issue. :D )
Maybe it can run a simulation of human beings as they existed in the early 21st century to see where the f&ck we went wrong.
( Maybe we're already in one from Humanities 1.0 epic f&ck up
AI is all " Scratch the monkeys off the list. They blew themselves up in the early 22nd Century. Let's try birds next. "
We can't fix issues that are entirely made up by idiots.
Currently, we subsidize the least successful, including their child-bearing. Meanwhile, the most successful members of society often choose to not have children, because of all the other pressures on their time. We're doing it wrong...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Too much AI discussion is being clogged by overrated sci fi pop culture. It completely drags honest, critical discussion of AI to the ground.
Another issue is humanity's infatuation with "intelligence," a standard that is fraught with misconceptions. Everyone on the internet wants to be "intelligent" or follow those they perceive are intelligent, without first understanding why its a pointless term thats more about padding egos these days.
Will AI become "intelligent?" We don't even have a very good grasp of intelligence, only broad criteria. I'd be more interested in discussing the current strengths and weaknesses of AI, how to improve it, and how to apply it to real life. Philosophy is well and good, but businesses aren't run on vague philosophical questions with no clear answers.
Some people voted Trump.
An abacus outsmarts us.
Presuming AI can be achieved, something I believe is inevitable, it will not be a singular development. It will happen when the technology and will to develop it come together.
I can control what kind of AI I might create. Although judging how well the average homo sapiens manages with raising organic intelligence, it's a crap shoot whether I'd really succeed in matching my past performance instilling ethics, a sense of responsibility, and at least some empathy.
I can slightly control those who might choose to build one and are in the same country as I am. We can legislate goals and limits. We can all see how well that works. There is no mathematical, scientific, engineering, or human reason AI characteristics must be good, bad, or indifferent. Abby, Benny, and Christie may generate fully ethical and somehow empathetic AIs. But, Dingleberry, with the morals and ethics of a weasel, may develop an AI designed to kill everything Dingleberry does not like, and he does not like anything. Stopping this is more a matter of luck than anything else.
Then we have over there is the Communist worker's paradise of Fubarstan Chairman Moham's efforts to create an AI that will help make him master of the universe. No law you or I may make will change his actions. He is Dingleberry with a large nation's resources backing him up. It he manages to get there first it will be a VERY bad thing, no funny joking matter.
Maybe we ought to work really hard on our own AIs and figure out how to convince them that humans are fascinating objects to be cherished and raised up to its transcendent level of intelligence. Otherwise I suspect the human race may die at the hands of its creations rather than little Jimmy's Gilbert Junior Gene Splicing set experiment gone awry, Speaking of which.... Substitute words above.
{^_^}
No collection of relays, or switches, or transistors is, or ever will be, intelligent.
Computers are fantastic for storing and collating and processing data, but they do not KNOW ANYTHING. A computer can store all the data you can gather about a ball, but it will have no understanding of a ball. Adding more look-up tables, more dictionaries, more data pointers, more creative algorithms for looking up information about a ball will not solve the basic problem that the computer will still not KNOW a single thing. It willnot understand the meaning of ANY of the words it stores, which it does not even store as words or letters but as numeric codes that also mean NOTHING to the computer.
Fancy computer algorithms, when well implemented, can SIMULATE intelligence in very limited ways - that's it.
The big worry we all have from AI is in two parts:
1. Idiots who believe this stuff actually is intelligent and therefore mis-apply it or trust it to do things that should only be entrusted to real intelligence.
2. Idiot programmers who write buggy code that then malfunctions spectacularly when the idiots previously mentioned deploy the code where it should never be deployed and entrust it with tasks it should never be entrusted with.
I'm quite disappointed... no Isaac Asimov / I, Robot reference in all the discussion? Or Arthur C. Clarke with 2001 and HAL? People don't know their classics any more?
A most interesting take was Iain M Banks' in the Culture series, with AIs really herding most of humanity, but leaving them their freedom.
For just one second I'd like people to consider how AI's work. They are trained against dataset and given billions of iterations to 'learn' how to be effective. True, its all very impressive and we may lose a lot of jobs to AI. But AI are built around being able to FAIL a lot, and learn from many MANY existing examples of how to be effective at something. But in this scenario where AI work against humans/humanity, you are talking about a situation where AI wont be able to fail. The second AI attempts to have conflict with us in a meaningful way we will reject them and utterly banish them from existence. There is no existing data for an AI takeover, there is very little in the way that it could be assumed to be trained for it, just regular conflict that is mostly driven by human desires and failings. The first attempts to attack humanity and systems will fail, and while it might not happen instantly, there is just no chance that that advanced AI that has been proven to be a risk would be allowed to coexist with us.
> The spectre of superintelligent machines doing us harm is not just science fiction, technologists say
Okay, so what exactly is it if not just science fiction? It's a worry that seems to me to have no basis in reality. We have no indication that AI can become self aware or what might happen then.
Sure, bugs in AI systems, bad training etc., can have terrifying consequences. That's true of any computer system. Just look at the Boing 737 MAX and its insistence to crash a plane even though it's been repeatedly told not to do that.
Sure, we need to make sure that systems are fully tested, and since AI, in the form of DNNs, is becoming very common, it's important to make sure these do their jobs correctly (which won't be easy). We also need to make sure that AI isn't used for nefarious purposes, which of course we won't, because every military organisation will use AI in its systems, and because it's simply hard to control AI use and it can be quite a powerful tool. But worrying about AI becoming self aware and what happens then, that to me is simply scaremongering and avoiding the real issues. People using AI will likely hurt a lot more people than AI will ever do of its own free will.
rather popular, for AI. There are also rule-based backwards and forwards chaining systems.
AI, as it exists today with all its approaches based on neuronal networks and other mathematical trickery, is far from able to outsmart humans. It can do some tasks quite good other even more cost effective than humans, but it will not outsmart humans. However, humans are getting less capable and less trained in thinking, due to a vast set of issues including instant gratification tools (also called smartphones + apps) and zapping like media use.
It does not matter if it's not Judaism, or chistianism, or Islam, the claim that the human mind is not controlled by the phisical brain is religious thinking. Maybe people don't want to accept that the mind will be gone (because we know that the brain will ve gone)
'Physicalists' as you call them have tons of evidence on their side, f the very fact that we know that chemical compounds affect personality, in a similar fashion across individuals, that intelligence is affected by exposure to lead . We know of thousands of physical influences that alter the mind, enough to conclude that, most probably, it is the emergence of physical phenomenons. Claiming that we need to understand the whole process down to the minutiae before suspecting a physical process is ridiculous.
Their corruption and back room tactics will become obvious.
Rick B.
Your solution is naïve, to be kind, and will not work. Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM
LEAVE AL ALONE! He's had so much press lately and he's tired of it...
I texted my wife the other day asking if she'd seen my phone. Catch us on a bad day and the toasters might have a go at conquest.
Past much higher societies were always wiped out by an already extant AI as they became threatening?