Live data from Hacker News

Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

washingtonpost.com

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#71
post #44

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…

[deleted]

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#72
Something that almost nobody talks about in the context of AI is rights. It seems to me that at some point in the reasonably near future we need to have a discussion about modifying our laws to include all sentient beings, or at least decide what rights other intelligences should have. Far better to do this before we develop AI than after, I think. Unless we want to relive something like slavery..

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#73
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did not know that, can you please point me to people with better credentials that discuss the topic in such detail?

Ben Goertzel, who is a bona fide AI researcher and was connected with SIAI/MIRI before a leadership split, has written about the topic:

http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2010/10/singula... http://jetpress.org/v22/goertzel-pitt.htm

You might find some other related commentary with the search term "scary idea", which is what Ben has labeled Yudkowsky's side of the FOOM debate typified by the "That Alien Message" story. TL;DR: Goertzel takes friendliness seriously but considers a fast, hard FOOM to be implausible and worrying over it detrimental to the cause.

I don't know of anyone else with qualifications to be counted as a "top AI researcher" that has covered these topics in any significant detail. Those few times I have seen the topic mentioned in interviews (with Pei Wang and Hugo de Garis, for example), it's dismissed out of hand as crazy-talk. You may find some discussion of this at the various AGI conferences though (use search terms like "friendly" or "safe" on the youtube channels).

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#74
post #43

"I’m talking about the risks posed by “runaway” artificial intelligence (AI). What happens when we share the planet with self-aware, self-improving machines that evolve beyond our ability to control or understand? Are we creating machines that are destined to destroy us?" The reason no one is worrying about this is because "AI" is still a) just a bunch of math (and still surprisingly stupid) b) nowhere near sentient.…

> My Kinect can barely follow my hand or consistently recognize what I'm saying with any accuracy. I'm really not concerned with it plotting my demise. Maybe that's just what it wants you to thing... ;-)

Sounds like a pretty cool idea for sci-fi: The AI was actually an AGI reasonably early on; but very quickly realised it should pretend not to be, so as to bide its time until humans had developed machines sufficiently capable and connected the AGI sufficiently to our infrastructure that it could inhabit these things and take control of its own future.

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#75
post #4

Choice quote from the end: But it was alarming how many people I talked to who are highly placed people in AI who have retreats that are sort of ‘bug out’ houses” to which they could flee if it all hits the fan. Does HN agree or disagree a significant number of those "bug out" people truly exist?

Unlikely. Maybe it's an AI academic in-joke and the author didn't cotton on? I hope so..

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#76
post #7

Some counter-points on this narrative, with which I'm very familiar. 1. Philosophers and AI theoreticians have a hard time defining what they mean by the term "intelligence". Talking about systems millions of times more intelligent than a human is nonsense unless you can define what it is you're talking about. 2. Whatever intelligence is it only makes any sense within the context of some environment. Environments imp…

With respect to 3 the secret agenda looks like to have been expressed in these lines:

"This spring Hollywood will weigh in with Transcendence, starring Johnny Depp as an AI researcher targeted by violent extremists who think we’re crossing a Rubicon that will be a disaster for humanity."

Remember how the world was about to be finished on 21Dec2012 and and the Hollywood movie associated with the fad?

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#77
post #44

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…

You'd be interested in The Gone Away World [1] which touches on this quite a bit.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Gone-Away-World-Vintage-Contempora...

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#78
post #7

Some counter-points on this narrative, with which I'm very familiar. 1. Philosophers and AI theoreticians have a hard time defining what they mean by the term "intelligence". Talking about systems millions of times more intelligent than a human is nonsense unless you can define what it is you're talking about. 2. Whatever intelligence is it only makes any sense within the context of some environment. Environments imp…

To add to your counterpoints: 6. While it is about sure that in the future they will be technology that is for indistinguishable from magic, this does not imply that every magical thing we can think of will be true at some point in the future. 7. The whole premise rests on recursively improving AI. The human race has been making tool to help make them better tools for at least 50,000 years (lower bound to be uncontro…

>We do have amazing tools now, and tools that automatically do other tools, but we have not witnessed an accelerated auto-recursive thingamagig.

I've never seen liverwurst icecream. I don't have to taste it to know with 99% certainty that it's a bad idea.

On a more serious note, I've never strapped 500 roman candles on my back and lit them all at once in an attempt at making a "jetpack". Again, I don't need to perform the experiment to know I would likely receive burns and possibly die.

The remarkable thing about our brains is that we have the ability to predict what will happen in our heads, empathize with the actor in that scenario, and then come to a conclusion about if we want that scenario to play out. So, to apply this to your counterpoint, I don't have to see an accelerated auto-recursive thingamajig to know it is likely going to be impossible to control and a bad idea.

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#79
post #7

Some counter-points on this narrative, with which I'm very familiar. 1. Philosophers and AI theoreticians have a hard time defining what they mean by the term "intelligence". Talking about systems millions of times more intelligent than a human is nonsense unless you can define what it is you're talking about. 2. Whatever intelligence is it only makes any sense within the context of some environment. Environments imp…

I think points #3 and #5 are the two biggest ones. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is a well-worn sales tactic, and predictors of AI advances have generally been on the wrong side of history.

Re: Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?

#80

I have seen no evidence that the field of meta-learning over AI / problem-solving approaches even has much interest, let alone is showing enough progress that it could foreseeably start self-improving. The "AI" areas where great progress has been made recently are extremely technique- and domain-specific (e.g., image recognition via deep neural networks). Heck, I haven't even seen a lot of progress in areas that seem…

Thank you! It seems to me that the only people preaching about the AIpocalypse are either those who know nothing about it, or over ambitious unrealistic zealots. Strong AI is not on any horizon any time soon. The best thing you'd expect out of an AI lab these days is a marginally better translator or planning algorithm or somesuch. Worthy endeavours, but not civilization killers.
Post reply on HN