21–30 of 161 posts
> “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” Great. We aren’t!
“Thou shalt not make a flying machine that gathers its own fuel from nature.”
Or maybe:
“Thou shalt not make a vehicle that travels on legs.”
> To slim results. Elon Musk explained his new nihilism about the possibility of stopping AI advancement on the Joe Rogan podcast, when he said: “I tried to convince people to slow down. Slow down AI. To regulate AI. This was futile. I tried for years. Nobody listened. Nobody listened.” Rather rich coming from one of the self driving car market leaders. It certainly makes business sense to mislead academia and the po…
Elon wasn't calling for a hard halt like this article. He's talking about the dangers of general AI (AGI). I don't think most people would consider a self-driving car a likely path to accidental superintelligence; it's a highly-targeted application like a chess engine. OpenAI's GPT-X engines OTOH, IMO, have a lot more potential danger because it's very unclear what they'll be used for.
Yes. The inevitable defeatism that will show up in these comments is "Oh, but China will do it anyway, so there's no point." Which is pretty easily counterable: 1) We don't know if China would cooperate with a ban. We haven't tried. China is very complicated, and if you think you can predict what Xi will do, you are wrong. 2) If AI is truly a global existential and moral crisis, the US _could_ absolutely shut down Ch…
It worked before! What could go wrong!?
Yes. The inevitable defeatism that will show up in these comments is "Oh, but China will do it anyway, so there's no point." Which is pretty easily counterable: 1) We don't know if China would cooperate with a ban. We haven't tried. China is very complicated, and if you think you can predict what Xi will do, you are wrong. 2) If AI is truly a global existential and moral crisis, the US _could_ absolutely shut down Ch…
This is astonishingly optimistic (or naive). I'm sure China would happily agree to cease AI development in public and then continue in private.
Getting any country to actually stop AI development is as likely as getting them to give up all their nuclear weapons. AI is a weapon, both in military and economic contexts.
Yes. The inevitable defeatism that will show up in these comments is "Oh, but China will do it anyway, so there's no point." Which is pretty easily counterable: 1) We don't know if China would cooperate with a ban. We haven't tried. China is very complicated, and if you think you can predict what Xi will do, you are wrong. 2) If AI is truly a global existential and moral crisis, the US _could_ absolutely shut down Ch…
lol never heard of nukes or mutually assured destruction? Can’t even stop Iran or North Korea and you think China can be stopped?
But the US could absolutely glass every semiconductor fab (and datacenter, and research facility) in mainland China using a combination of conventional + atomic kinetic options.
> To slim results. Elon Musk explained his new nihilism about the possibility of stopping AI advancement on the Joe Rogan podcast, when he said: “I tried to convince people to slow down. Slow down AI. To regulate AI. This was futile. I tried for years. Nobody listened. Nobody listened.” Rather rich coming from one of the self driving car market leaders. It certainly makes business sense to mislead academia and the po…
That is reasonable. The driver is expected to be alert incase intervention is needed.
If we take the manual override away, then we'll be squarely in the world that Mr. Musk is concerned about.
We should be actively building this new "AI Species" because we are going to be extinct eventually and should think about making a better successor for the human species. The morality argument is nonsense. How about this: "The primary objective of humanity should be to build an intelligent system with far more precise perception, reasoning and physical manipulation capabilities than humans" That's my starting point.
I know things that I would like to see. Like humans "in the loop" (as opposed to "on the loop" or "out of the loop") for certain classes of decision making - for example target selection of military strikes or law enforcement. Or what kinds of information we use to train the decision making models, for example if you feed ML a racist data set and you get a racist algorithm - use that algorithm to decide who to give mortgages and you'll get systematic depression in generational wealth based on racial lines.
But this isn't some crusade on AI because it's AI; it has to be based in reality - what AI or ML is being used for, what information it operates on, what decisions it is used to make, and ultimately the human beings that are responsible for those decisions. The reason it is so hard to convince people as to how we should legislate (or otherwise regulate AI) is that every conversation drifts into science fiction and not concrete examples of the ethical issues today and what can be done today. Otherwise it comes off as Luddite fearmongering.
Don’t come across many Dune references these days.