51–60 of 99 posts
Here is lengthy debate by some of best minds in the field: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Hanson-Yudkowsky_AI-Foom_... TL:DR - whether AI can become significantly smarter than Humans really fast depends on intelligence return on computational investment.
[deleted]
A happy narrative, but an unlikely one. Our brains are not designed to be end-user modifiable. It's naive in the extreme to think we could keep pace (in terms of intellectual enhancement) with minds that are.
Here is lengthy debate by some of best minds in the field: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Hanson-Yudkowsky_AI-Foom_... TL:DR - whether AI can become significantly smarter than Humans really fast depends on intelligence return on computational investment.
I'm not sure Hanson or Yudkowsky have the credentials to be considered the "best minds in the field." It makes for interesting reading though.
I don't like these all or nothing articles. Once Singularity is achieved, AI won't instantly take over the world. It is also restricted by computational processioning power and will take some time to evolve as well. Philosophically speaking, why would AI want to destroy humanity, wouldn't it be just as bad as humanity itself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the universe just a bunch of math? This leads me to wonder if we have any control over our lives. Isn't every action I take simply the result of all my senses, my previous knowledge, the environment, and the people around me? For example, if the universe just went 1 hour back in time, why would anything go differently the second time around? Unless you can prove something is truly random in the universe, and no…
You're thinking of the universe in a very classical sense. Our current understanding of physics is that quantum mechanical outcomes are truly random. Not just that we don't know what will happen but that it is inherently not predetermined before it happens. You can read up on Bell's Theorem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem ) if you want to learn a bit more about this. If you "ran" the universe over again…
We have already invented AI, and it is already running amok. The AIs are of the "hive mind" kind and it is common to refer to it as "A transnational corporation." Known identities are "IBM", "Google", "Unilever", "Monsanto" etc. These AI's are beholden to nobody, define and persue their own goals, by manipulating their environment to their advantage. And they're better at it than humans: They decide for themselves wh…
I'd go further and say that companies are alive (or at least independently intelligent) in a real sense. Companies are lively: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? [...] and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" They will lobby and sue to protect their interests, butt heads with other rival corporations, and hold grudges.
However, I've found it difficult to convince anyone that we should consider companies alive, or at least entities that are qualitatively different in intelligence from the humans that enable them. The argument usually centers on that a company is just a bunch of humans, so it is best understood as such. However, the 'more is different' effect (e.g. you can better understand a human as an independent entity than as a bunch of cells even though it is entirely composed of them), and the selection pressure molding corporations (optimizing profit), I believe leads to a new type of collective intelligence (one different from human intelligence) -- basically a true AI, as you are arguing.
I was reading, waiting for the mention to IBM Watson... and here it comes! I'm so tired of reading how Watson is a step toward Artificial General Intelligence, self-aware machines, etc. People must really understand that Watson is, like almost any successful AI (not AGI) product today, "just" a huge statistical pattern matching machine. Watson does not feel anything. Watson does not know what soccer is. Watson knows…
Arguably, that's all a human brain is as well. I don't want to start some big debate here over symbolic reasoning versus statistical pattern matching, but there seems to be quite a bit of contemporary thought along the lines of our brains being largely based on "pattern matching" as a foundational mechanism.
We have already invented AI, and it is already running amok. The AIs are of the "hive mind" kind and it is common to refer to it as "A transnational corporation." Known identities are "IBM", "Google", "Unilever", "Monsanto" etc. These AI's are beholden to nobody, define and persue their own goals, by manipulating their environment to their advantage. And they're better at it than humans: They decide for themselves wh…
http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/04/the_search_for.ph...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the universe just a bunch of math? This leads me to wonder if we have any control over our lives. Isn't every action I take simply the result of all my senses, my previous knowledge, the environment, and the people around me? For example, if the universe just went 1 hour back in time, why would anything go differently the second time around? Unless you can prove something is truly random in the universe, and no…
You're thinking of the universe in a very classical sense. Our current understanding of physics is that quantum mechanical outcomes are truly random. Not just that we don't know what will happen but that it is inherently not predetermined before it happens. You can read up on Bell's Theorem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem ) if you want to learn a bit more about this. If you "ran" the universe over again…
"True randomness" in the sense that randomness is part of our current understanding of physics is just something not being determined by the prior state of the physical universe. It is, therefore, indistinguishable from things being determined by something that is neither part of nor itself determined by any set of things within the physical universe, i.e., "true randonmness" is empirically indistinguishable from the action of causes which are not themselves determined by the physical state of the universe.
Or, IOW, free will (that is, the ability to act other than in a manner determined by the prior state of the universe) requires (but is not implied by) a physical universe in which "true randomness" exists.
So, true randomness in the physical universe doesn't imply free will, but it is necessary for free will to exist.
I am a big fan of what Joe Lonsdale calls human-computer symbiosis. He says that humans are good at certain things and computers are good at other things. For example, computers are good at looking at huge amounts of data. Humans are good at finding intuitive patterns in data. Though in time computers will undoubtedly start to be better at these things, I do not think that in my lifetime (or Matt's daughter's) we wil…
[1]: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html