31–40 of 161 posts
Wasn’t it Andrew Ng that said something like: Worrying about Superintelligent AI is like worrying about over crowding/population on Mars.
Humans aren't adapted to a Mars environment, and there's little incentive for us to move there.
AI has so many practical uses that everyone is getting in the game and pushing the envelope. A huge amount of money is being spent on ML, and a wealth of expertise is being developed.
Anyways.
Let's assume the best and brightest dog breeders endeavor to make German Shepherds as intelligent as they possibly can. Would the same ethical debates about what constitutes a 'mind' come into play? What would happen if the dogs became smart enough to make their own mating decisions? Would we be worried about them turning on us once they get close to human level intellect? Would it be immoral to make these dogs work? Or, would not letting them work be considered immoral?
This is just food for thought. But I suspect AI's capabilities will grow much in the same way other domesticated species have grown into the specialized roles we've crafted for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, these are both good replies to that (which is probably the most common response for some reason)
It’s naïve in the extreme. Also way too late
> 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…
You don't need anything close to strong AI to do a reasonable job of driving a car. It seems like 90% of the problem is object recognition, and even in terms of brain-equivalent logic that's a really low bar.
> 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…
I do believe it's reasonable to draw a distinction between what we're doing now (which is essentially just "statistics") and what Musk warns about. It's a mistake to believe strong AI will just be a more powerful iteration of today's weak AI. He is arguing to slow developments toward general intelligence, not developments in any narrow field.
Those problems largely fall into three categories that I can think of off the top of my head at 1am:
1. AI is a convenient way to justify potentially uncomfortable decisions you would have made otherwise (idlewords said it best: "AI is money laundering for bias")
2. AI is being used in situations where it can be a threat to life and limb, like the current crop of self-driving(ish) cars
3. Essentially all of the gains from automating work going to people who already have capital
> 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…