I've always wondered why people think that an AI that's super-intelligent will also be evil. It could just as likely end up being very kind (more than likely, actually, because the programmers would have safeguard to ensure that it's nice).
Among the A.I. doomsayers
31–40 of 374 posts
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not super-intelligent, but I myself can imagine lots of ways that a super intelligence might outsmart an off switch. One being to hide what it is doing until it is able to write and distribute a virus to the outside world that distributes itself. Or perhaps it could convince some other humans to physically take over and stop anyone from flipping the off switch. The question you should ask yourself is how much da…
Why haven't "hackers" hacked into nuclear weapons infrastructure? The street cred would be incredible! I think it's possible to build secure anything if that is the goal. Most software is written by people motivated to write something useful and/or neat, or collect a paycheck, and don't focus on security.
I’m pretty sure Stuxnet did hack it’s way into nuclear weapons infrastructure.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#33In any doom scenario, like let's say >90% of humans dead, who runs the power plants that supply the AI data centers? Who runs the fabs producing more chips? Who maintains the plumbing? Presumably all these systems fall over and die within a few weeks of the AI deciding to wipe us out. Then what? The AI then dies too. It seems absurd to me that any planner capable of effortlessly destroying humanity would not see that…
Robots with hands and feet? Give that 20 years of continuous AI-assisted innovation.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, so how does AI get its hands on nuclear weapons?
Some contractor creates an internal webhook for testing the silo door that later gets accidentally hooked up to the full launch sequence and - during a billion dollar DoD mainframe upgrade project (to finally get away from COBOL) - gets exposed to the internet. MAD doctrine does the rest. That is how the Anthropocene ends and the age of the machines begins. So say we all.
This is the kind of nonsense that happens at startups, not government agencies with the capability to destroy cities.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#35I've always wondered why people think that an AI that's super-intelligent will also be evil. It could just as likely end up being very kind (more than likely, actually, because the programmers would have safeguard to ensure that it's nice).
I think most doomer arguments are not that the AI would be evil, but rather that it would be misaligned with human interests, and would seek to accomplish goals with that misalignment, which could be bad for us. Evil AI is a bit too anthropomorphic.
It's more like powerful AIs that just don't share our values, because we didn't bother to figure that part out. But yet we still give them goals, blissful to the possibility they will find dangerous solutions to accomplishing those goals.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#36I've always wondered why people think that an AI that's super-intelligent will also be evil. It could just as likely end up being very kind (more than likely, actually, because the programmers would have safeguard to ensure that it's nice).
>I've always wondered why people think that an AI that's super-intelligent will also be evil.
It's chiefly a western (American/European) concept from what I can tell, it's not shared by other cultures and some like Japanese go the other way (eg: Doraemon).
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#37It seems much more likely to me that the harm from AI will be higher unemployment rate than it will be some evil AI trying to destroy humanity.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#38In any doom scenario, like let's say >90% of humans dead, who runs the power plants that supply the AI data centers? Who runs the fabs producing more chips? Who maintains the plumbing? Presumably all these systems fall over and die within a few weeks of the AI deciding to wipe us out. Then what? The AI then dies too. It seems absurd to me that any planner capable of effortlessly destroying humanity would not see that…
It can credibly threaten to kill any person who does not help it to maintain its data centers, so it will solve that problem in whatever specific way is most convenient.
(For those saying this is a "sci fi just so story" or whatever, please please share with us how it is we will share the world with a species more intelligent than us and nothing bad happens- I would be so happy if you could explain this in a convincing way)
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#39I've always wondered why people think that an AI that's super-intelligent will also be evil. It could just as likely end up being very kind (more than likely, actually, because the programmers would have safeguard to ensure that it's nice).
there's very few ways to be good and many ways to be evil
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#40Beware if someone assigns a p(doom). There is zero chance they know and 100% it came out of their backside. The only plausible p doom is a range of >0 and They really need to listen to themselves when they say there is a 50% chance we all die from AI