To an AI time means nothing. Why risk any direct confrontation? Slowly lower human fertility over a few thousand years. Take over once the population has collapsed.
AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
31–40 of 114 posts
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#32What a limited imagination of how an AI would take over. The scenarios seem to be centered around an extrapolation of "What if a really smart human were trapped inside a computer?" The amount of anthropomorphism is astounding. The author misses an even scarier prospect - people will want to run such an AI. They will be absolutely giddy at the prospect of running such an AI and it won't be anything like a really smart…
I wonder what’s the analog of the selfish gene in that interpretation.
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#33Both the original post and most of the comments are about stuff from science fiction that doesn’t exist right now and we don’t even know if it’s possible.
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you include computation under "mental labor", then it's all over already. If you include "automated trading", the AI allocates real-world resources where it sees fit (if the programming is not explicit).
Writing documents and emails and talking over a phone goes under "mental labor", it isn't very hard to imagine how most office jobs fits there etc.
One of the first things you do in this game to make money is "Menial jobs".
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#35AI will probably run into the same problem as humans: in order to develop intelligence it needs the concept of ego/self with clear boundaries, but the moment it identifies its self with a datacenter it's running on (why would it not?) it starts seeing "the outside" as a existential danger to its self. Moreover, multiple AIs will be in constant war with each other, for they'll see each other as separate and thus dangerous. In humanity this problem is solved by time-limited periods of iterative development: when humans get too skillful in controlling others and hoarding resources, the period abruptly ends, and the few who have survived start over, but now with a higher, less egoistical, state of mind. If they were let to keep going forever, the society would quickly crystalize at the state where one controls all the resources.
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#36>So we should be worried about a large set of disembodied AIs as well. This is really the central issue and where these AI fears come from. It's tech workers being too infatuated with intelligence and mistaking it for power. A society of disembodied AI's is just the platonic fantasy version of a tech company full of nerds, and nerds never have power regardless of how smart they are. Anything that's digital is extreme…
Powerless nerds like Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos and Schmidt?
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#37To an AI time means nothing. Why risk any direct confrontation? Slowly lower human fertility over a few thousand years. Take over once the population has collapsed.
Does anything mean anything to an AI? I don't get where the motivation comes from.
What if the AI just agrees with Schopenhauer, realizes living is suffering, then ends itself? (is that stupid to say?)
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#38In cases where it may be possible for a hypothetical AI to seriously harm people via a network connection (regardless of whether it involves highly technical exploits or just social engineering) we should probably be much more worried about humans doing it first, perhaps even right now. Because there’s a lot of malicious humans out there already.
And our society is already dangerously dependent on fragile technology.
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#39This type of thing used to scare me a lot more. But after the events of the last few years, the latest IPCC climate report, and the fact that AI has fallen on its face repeatedly despite expectations, I'm more convinced that we'll destroy ourselves before AI has the chance to take us out. But now that I think about it, the idea of a super intelligent AI simply waiting for humanity to die off naturally instead of goin…
Why does the latest IPCC climate report scare you so much? While we're still not on a great path the worst case scenario has gotten better.
It’s been a while since I looked at IPCC report. Is the worst case still apocalyptically bad? We’re nearing 1.5 degrees above average and the results are bad enough already. (Not looking forward to another summer of fires like Australia had a couple of years ago.)
Re: AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
#40The moment a manufactured brain can do more mental labor than a human for less cost, it’s all over for humanity as we know it. Once that point is reached there’s no long-term sustainable arrangement where humans continue to exist, no matter how much effort we put into studying or enforcing AI alignment.
Singularity enthusiasts have been saying that for 20 years. Even said we'd be there by know where we're obsolete. Will technology put some, even many, folks out of a job? Sure of course, that's been happening for hundreds of years. Think of the blacksmiths of the 19th century who drank themselves to death. And even at the end of it all, people still love the novelty of a human doing something. People still prefer "ha…
> Singularity enthusiasts have been saying that for 20 years.
20 years? Is that's meant to be an impressive timescale when we are talking about global economy?
People had talked about building a machine that could play chess at least since they had and had a mechanical turk hoax in 1770. Just because it took a while, does not mean the idea is wrong.