Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear? • Hacker News Board

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#31

Post by naasking » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25

unwoundmouse wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And humans are not just a series of numbers?

No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. There's an assumption that consciousness is just a series of numbers, and some more or less credible philosophical arguments for/against this point of view. But believing there's more than that is faith-based, not empirical.

> No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers.

The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number.

So unless you're going to suggest that the Bekenstein Bound has no empirical support, which would be a pretty wild claim, then yes, there is indeed empirical evidence that consciousness is just a number.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#32

Post by naasking » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #28

dagw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIs can absolutely do all those things. The question is if they can do it well enough to be of any value.

i believe this is a category error. AI is not sentient or aware, it defintionally cannot “do” anything.

I see no reason why "doing something" requires sentience.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#33

Post by nradov » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #17

bko wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporations can use them to be unaccountable. Insider trading? No, that was our "algorithm". Racist policies? Oops, sorry that was just our bot. I would say the opposite. Insider trading? No, here are the inputs to our algorithm. Racist policies? No, here are the inputs to our algorithm.

"Our" algorithm ? I was under the impression that AI were generating their own algorithms.

It's an algorithm, just at a higher level of abstraction. Turtles all the way down.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#34

Post by naasking » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

xwdv wrote: post #30

naasking wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk about underplaying the difficulties. Computer science needed a whole new package system (Nix) just to guarantee reproducible builds. Compilation is pretty much the definition of a pure input/output function, and most builds are simply not reproducible. If even builds aren't reproducible, good luck reproducing anything more complex like machine learning.

Auditing is a complicated process, if you don’t want to do the work you’ll just have to take their word for it.

The problem is the feasibility of auditing, not whether the motivation exists. And no, taking their word for it is not adequate.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#35

Post by WoodenChair » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #31

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. There's an assumption that consciousness is just a series of numbers, and some more or less credible philosophical arguments for/against this point of view. But believing there's more than that is faith-based, not empirical.

> No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. So unless you're going to suggest that the Bekenstein Bound has no empirical support, which would be a pretty wild claim, then yes, there is…

> The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number.

That would be "many numbers" not "a number." So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#36

Post by xwdv » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #34

xwdv wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auditing is a complicated process, if you don’t want to do the work you’ll just have to take their word for it.

The problem is the feasibility of auditing, not whether the motivation exists. And no, taking their word for it is not adequate.

Then what do you propose be done? If you accuse someone of having an extremely racist AI you need a way to prove they set out to make it that way. You don’t just get to say “It’s racist” and shut it down.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#37

Post by solstice » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #23

windsurfer wrote: post #6

This article completely misses what I see as the biggest problem with intelligence in machines: Corporations can use them to be unaccountable. Insider trading? No, that was our "algorithm". Racist policies? Oops, sorry that was just our bot. Inhumane practices? Sorry, we are still "working" on our artificial intelligence since you know it's very difficult. Where most people see mysterious advanced help in day to day…

This already happens. It's actually bureaucracy, but it's rarely called that. Try dealing with YouTube after a fraudulent copyright strike, or getting money from Amazon or PayPal after your account has been suspended for an arbitrary reason. AI has the potential to automate bureaucratic corporate hostility and indifference to weaponised levels.

See also the unfolding Internet of Shit saga. While everybody is afraid of artificial intelligence, I am currently more afraid of Artificial Stupidity...

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#38

Post by mellosouls » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #2

> Even lovemaking is at risk, as artificially intelligent robots stand poised to enter the market and provide sexual services and romantic intimacy. This perfectly encapsulates why I'm so skeptical of AI alarmists. They tend to boil down the human experience to such coarse terms that it undermines their legitimate issues. > AI is a collection of passive silicon and metal. It does not speak. It has no mind. Like an oc…

It's not clear to me from your post or essay whether you are saying the current state of AI is absurdly overhyped and is not even remotely close to producing actual intelligence (I agree strongly); or if you are claiming it's not possible with computers even in principle because "numbers", in which case I don't understand the justification at all, as it implies a mystical quality to human intelligence you rightly dismiss in the current hype.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#39

Post by Tenoke » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #2

> Even lovemaking is at risk, as artificially intelligent robots stand poised to enter the market and provide sexual services and romantic intimacy. This perfectly encapsulates why I'm so skeptical of AI alarmists. They tend to boil down the human experience to such coarse terms that it undermines their legitimate issues. > AI is a collection of passive silicon and metal. It does not speak. It has no mind. Like an oc…

>No, AI is a series of numbers.

Roughly as much as human reasoning is a series of numbers, yes.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#40

Post by zwieback » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

I waited for something insightful at the end but didn't find anything there. Just a bunch of "metal and silicon isn't intelligence." Ok, fine, but a whole article without any reference to the Turing test? That should have been the starting point.