141–150 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you comparing building a nuclear bomb to running a piece of code?
Well, it depends on the piece of code, doesn't it? How many people can actually run Google's search engine on their own hardware? Assuming they had access to the code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> What is the responsible disclosure process for ideas and research around AI? Basically, we're so far away from AGI that there's no need to worry about disclosig anything. The recent advances in machine vision and speech processing are impressive, but only in the context of the last 50 years or so. A trully intelligent agent will need much more than this and there doesn't seem to be anyone alive today who knows how…
The maluse of AI is a continuum that ends with AGI. If we don't have a process for handling responsible disclosure of dumb AI that could kill millions then why should we expect that a process will be available once AGI is within a reasonable time horizon. If I have other shit in my head that I'm worried about today who do I tell?
Hence my comment about how you might as well worry about time travel and teleportation. They're just as likely to happen in any timeframe that you might be interested in. If you're going to be worried about how AGI might be misused, you can start worrying about how time machines or teleporters might be misused.
>> If I have other shit in my head that I'm worried about today who do I tell?
You could look at joining the Campaing Against Killer Robots, or look around for a similar group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> What is the responsible disclosure process for ideas and research around AI? Basically, we're so far away from AGI that there's no need to worry about disclosig anything. The recent advances in machine vision and speech processing are impressive, but only in the context of the last 50 years or so. A trully intelligent agent will need much more than this and there doesn't seem to be anyone alive today who knows how…
The maluse of AI is a continuum that ends with AGI. If we don't have a process for handling responsible disclosure of dumb AI that could kill millions then why should we expect that a process will be available once AGI is within a reasonable time horizon. If I have other shit in my head that I'm worried about today who do I tell?
That’s not to say that there’s no way the humanity can be fucked with the more pedestrian “garden variety” AI that is with our technical capabilities.
It’s to say that AGI is a nebulous, unobtainable red herring which only serves to detract from the more immediate issues.
1) An AI which independently & autonomously generates goals that in their carrying out end up hurting humanity, and
2) An AI trained & commanded by a malevolent actor to hurt humanity.
It is the 2nd case that is far more real, and far more troublesome to implement safeguards. An AI under your training & command is a neutral tool of empowerment, much like a hammer or a car. The malevolence is in the external actor, not in the tool, and there is no way for the tool to be able to censor its purposes, especially in a pre-"AGI" sense of semi-intelligent automation & problem solving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before nuclear weapons were built, the only examples of their large-scale destruction were in fiction. The World Set Free by H.G. Wells is the main example I can think of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free It got some of the details wrong (i.e. the atomic bombs exploded over a long period of time vs instantly), but the consequences were fairly accurate. If you're going to wait until all the actual deta…
This is survivorship bias. How many weapons of mass destruction have been foretold by science fiction that have never been invented? More generally, how much technology has been written about in science fiction that we have only the faintest hope of ever achieving?
Look, it comes down to this:
Is there something innate about our intelligence that makes it impossible to match except through human brains? That strikes me as something akin to spiritualism. The answer is almost certainly "no." We're not talking about warping space through some hypothetical state of matter with laws of physics different from our own. We're talking about at least human-level intelligence, which is something we already have an existence proof of (us).
And humans are the most dangerous force on the planet. No animal (beside maybe microscopic organisms) stand a chance against a group determined humans. We're nearly unstoppable due to our intelligence. Our we so unique? Is it so impossible that machines could some day (perhaps in our lifetimes) be built which achieve human-level intelligence? Considering the computer advances that have already been achieved, it is clearly a real possibility if not a certainty.
Human-level intelligence is perhaps the most powerful (thus dangerous) thing on this planet. Making a machine that is at least as intelligent (and perhaps much more so!) is clearly something that could be incredibly dangerous, and we know such a thing is physically possible, unlike many things in science fiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be frank, your comment history has all the hallmarks of a crank[1]. Specifically, points 10, 9, 7 and 6, although there's also evidence of 2 and 8. Now I could be wrong, but convincing me of that would take a demonstration, or at least explicitly describing the capabilities of your agi. [1]: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304
Old foundations are meant to be redefined/invalidate by new. - Complexity theory - Computational Theory - Graph Theory Are all subsets of Information theory. They're approaches/frames. New ones can be created that invalidate the established limits imposed by others. Everything is possible until proven. Given how little attribution is paid to people who break through fundamental aspects of understanding and given how…
You claim you have invented an AGI, but won't show anyone.
I say you are making it up. Falsify that.
So I have a question. To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? The manipulation of social media by foreign actors armed with dumb-AI / automation was an obvious conclusion to many of us well before the Snowden leaks, but what could we do exactly? I remember ha…
>> What is the responsible disclosure process for ideas and research around AI? Basically, we're so far away from AGI that there's no need to worry about disclosig anything. The recent advances in machine vision and speech processing are impressive, but only in the context of the last 50 years or so. A trully intelligent agent will need much more than this and there doesn't seem to be anyone alive today who knows how…
AI (as in "machine learning") on the other hand is something which should be worried about. Universities are actively building autonomous, ML powered weapons systems.
Just last week a pretty serious boycott of a South Korean university was announced over their autonomous weapons research.
Signatories of the boycott include some of world’s leading AI researchers, most notably professors Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. The boycott would forbid all contact and academic collaboration with KAIST until the university makes assurances that the weaponry it develops will have “meaningful human control.[1]
That's a real problem, and it is unclear if OpenAI's approach is relevant. Personally I think the academic boycott is a good start (what ML researcher will want to work there?), but it is unclear how to deal with commercial research labs in a similar space.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/4/17196818/ai-boycot-killer-...
There are 2 scenarios that are often conflated, 1) An AI which independently & autonomously generates goals that in their carrying out end up hurting humanity, and 2) An AI trained & commanded by a malevolent actor to hurt humanity. It is the 2nd case that is far more real, and far more troublesome to implement safeguards. An AI under your training & command is a neutral tool of empowerment, much like a hammer or a c…
Some people look at sufficiently powerful AI as they would a genie, and as said by Eliezer Yudkowsky "There are three kinds of genies: Genies to whom you can safely say "I wish for you to do what I should wish for"; genies for which no wish is safe; and genies that aren't very powerful or intelligent." AI safety is about making sure we get the first kind of genie, or at the very least recognizing that we've gotten the second - since that's not a "neutral tool of empowerment", that's a time bomb.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARaTpNX62uaL86j6/the-hidden...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I disagree. When you get past AGI to where it can do things that humans can't, a lot of current safeguards haven't been designed with it in mind. So things might be vulnerable. The kinds of things I'm thinking about are the various countries nuclear arsenals might not be safe from actors with very advanced AI. This I think is the potential source of existential risk, in my opinion. So it could hurt a hell of…
The world will evolve with the development of AI; I'm not so concerned with limitations of current safeguards.