Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

The author's attitude that very few Americans are "intelligent, mature," and "[respect] life deeply" impeach his opinions on both logic and geopolitical topics as far as I'm concerned:

> It is typically Americans who display this attitude regarding hi-tech weapons. (If you are an American and are reading this, what I wrote doesn’t imply that you necessarily display this attitude; note the word “typically”, please.) The American culture has an eerily childish approach toward weapons, and also some outlandish (but also child-like) disregard for human life. (Once again, you might be an intelligent, mature American, respecting life deeply; it is your average compatriot I am talking about.)

Isaac Asimov wrote a pretty good story about this. The plot is described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lets_Get_Together_(short_story)

That gives away the ending, so if you like Asimov and might want to read the story, beware.

Atomic dielectric resonance scanning obsoletes nukes anyway. It also obsoletes most concepts of privacy and most existing biological, chemical and geological analysis technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_dielectric_resonance

http://adrokgroup.com/

I think the most credible concern this post mentions is the general disregard in the United States (especially among those in charge of the military) for the long term implications of the indiscriminate use of A.I.-based warfare. Drones seem great for the U.S. now: they make it easier to kill enemies and don't directly endanger American lives. But in a decade or two when "enemy" nations start to develop them too, things get a whole lot more complicated.

Nonetheless, I think the general stance of the article is severely flawed. We cannot halt research in computer cognition because it has the potential to be weaponized (and dangerously so). As the author himself mentions, it would be akin to halting the development of the knife because people can use it to stab each other, or the development of the Internet because it makes it easier for criminals to communicate and organize.

Avoiding a potential advance in technology by doing things like cutting funding to it, and hoping it will go away as a result, is never the solution to potentially dangerous development. One cannot stop the inexorable march of progress by "making a statement." The approach with greater value is to call out the dangers that the potential advance poses (as the post has done), and then work to develop an ethical framework for which the new technology can more safely exist.

The Singularity Institute has raised awareness of this broader issue in the past, as have several others, and is promoting the creation of "Friendly A.I." [1] to help address the problem.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_AI

See also this recent article: http://www.economist.com/node/21556234

You are very right to question the interpretation of the subhuman argument. If someone has not been shot at or genuinely afraid for the life at the hands of another human being, it is very idealistic to say that the conversion of humans to subhumans by combatants is petty. As someone who has been shot at and shot back, the reduction of an unquestionably hostile enemy to subhuman is very normal if not necessary for most members of a military, on both sides of a conflict. People that judge the hatred of religiously motivated enemies are both naive and living in walled gardens.

The fact that the OP can morally object to participating in the research is the perfect definition of ideology inside a protected environment. If he had ever needed a gun, for example, to save his life, he would not question the morality of the creator, until he was once again safe from those that threatened him. I say until because people that question the need for violence have never experienced true hatred of violence. IMEO.