Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

foundalis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#41

Post by ars »

unimpressive wrote: post #14
victork2 wrote: post #11

Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to have a critical mass and the it's hard to conceal for a lot of reasons (radiation etc...). What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? A lot of scientists have wondered about these ethical questions but I believe that the bene…

Maybe I'm just naive but it seems to me like in a world where the power of the atom bomb can fit in a briefcase, theres no need for androids to get bombs within striking range of their intended targets.

That world already exists. The hard part is getting the isotopes necessary, but there are elements that will do the job. See my post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4067089

For a terrorist getting the elements would be hard, but a government would have no trouble, and given the long half life it's a pretty safe bet to assume this bomb actually exists somewhere.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#43

Post by bithive123 »

This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry.

Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dabble in quackery later in their careers.

Edit: I'm not trying to dismiss his claim that technology has moral implications but he's trying to turn a well-worn social issue that's been around since pointy sticks into a technological one by waxing paranoid about the implications of the (by-definition nebulous) idea of "strong AI".

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#44

Post by [deleted] »

busted wrote: post #13

If I read it right, he has stopped working on a form of artificial intelligence because it could potentially (or inevitably) be used to create androids indistinguishable from humans that are carrying nuclear or biological payloads inside of them, presumably to be detonated in a densely populated area. Taking as a given, like he does, that the advancement and spread of technology are inevitable, wouldn't it still be m…

[deleted]

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#45

Post by Estragon »

victork2 wrote: post #11

Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to have a critical mass and the it's hard to conceal for a lot of reasons (radiation etc...). What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? A lot of scientists have wondered about these ethical questions but I believe that the bene…

  > I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"
Yes, I am much more concerned about the scope for ubiquitous surveillance and systematic domination that even fairly modest gains in AI will allow. Something along the lines of the Emergency society in A Deepness in the Sky.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#46

Post by rorrr »

bithive123 wrote: post #43

This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry. Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dab…

That was my first thought. The guy went insane. He's not making sense.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#47

Post by sp332 »

codgercoder wrote: post #2

two words: "Dark Star"

To add a bit more to the conversation: The movie "Dark Star" which cam out in 1974, predating and anticipating many of the sci-fi tropes popularized by Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. The characters have a conversation with a bomb and try to rationalize that it shouldn't detonate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_%28film%29

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#48

Post by unimpressive »

ars wrote: post #41
unimpressive wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just naive but it seems to me like in a world where the power of the atom bomb can fit in a briefcase, theres no need for androids to get bombs within striking range of their intended targets.

That world already exists. The hard part is getting the isotopes necessary, but there are elements that will do the job. See my post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4067089 For a terrorist getting the elements would be hard, but a government would have no trouble, and given the long half life it's a pretty safe bet to assume this bomb actually exists somewhere.

>That world already exists.

Which was my point. Worrying about hypothetical android bomb carriers is silly when we live in a world where you can pack an atomic bomb in the space of a travelers briefcase. That allows for enough mundane methods of delivery to make suicide androids unnecessary. And as pointed out elsewhere, you don't have to have sentient AI to create something sophisticated enough to deliver a bomb.

EDIT: Struck the word "almost" from it's place next to silly in the above sentences.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#49

Post by ars »

rkaplan wrote: post #27

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, thi…

> of the indiscriminate use of A.I.-based warfare

There is no A.I. based warfare - the drones are controlled by human pilots.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#50

Post by lukeschlather »

busted wrote: post #13

If I read it right, he has stopped working on a form of artificial intelligence because it could potentially (or inevitably) be used to create androids indistinguishable from humans that are carrying nuclear or biological payloads inside of them, presumably to be detonated in a densely populated area. Taking as a given, like he does, that the advancement and spread of technology are inevitable, wouldn't it still be m…

You're misinterpreting the premise of the article. The article is talking about ethics, not about some sort of danger. From an ethical perspective, if using a nuclear bomb is justified, then the delivery mechanism is irrelevant.

However, in the case of the sentient atomic bomb (and I think talking about it as an android obscures this question) we get in to stickier terrain. A sentient atomic bomb is a sentient being whose sole purpose in life is essentially genocide. That is definitely morally repugnant to me, and by extension I'd say it's problematic in any sane ethical system.

Creating a sentient atomic bomb would be no different in my ethical system from raising a child from birth to be the guidance system for an atomic bomb airplane.

Post reply on HN