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

AI

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#171

Post by Houshalter »

catshirt wrote: post #151
Houshalter wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are made of atoms that can more efficiently be used for something else. Morality (and all human values) is a purely human concept that evolved in the specific conditions of human evolution (and even just our specific culture.) AIs are not anthropomorphic, they don't have to have anything like human minds or values.

the idea that there is a better application for my atoms seems subjective/human too

That's true, I don't know what the goal of an AI will be. But if it does anything at all, it's more likely to be indifferent to humans than compatible with our goals. An AI programmed to solve a difficult optimization problem might convert the entire mass of the solar system into a giant computer. An AI programmed for self-preservation would try to destroy every tiny possible threat to it's existence, and store as much energy as possible to try to stave off heat-death.

Re: AI

#172

Post by Houshalter »

User8712 wrote: post #162
Houshalter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a viable approach to solving the problem. The question is, how do you trust the unfriendly AI to give you a correct solution?

Here's a question for you, what if the AI is perfectly friendly? It still might play us for fools in the long run. For example, let's say we develop a super friendly AI, running on your computer. The AI realizes the human race is actually awful. We're greedy, we're killing tons of animals, chopping down rainforests, destroying the ocean and planet, starting wars with one another, and committing unspeakable acts of ev…

Here's the terrifying thing; it probably wouldn't take a hundred years or our trust for this to happen. This is making some strong assumptions, but the first AI could probably improve itself. Making better AIs that make better AIs and so on. Very rapidly (possibly only hours, days, weeks) it could become much much smarter than humans. If that happens, than we don't know what's possible, but it could probably do a lot of things we consider impossible. Like hack computer networks trivially and spread itself through the entire internet. Solve the protein folding problem and design working nanotech.

Within a week it could pay/blackmail/manipulate some humans somewhere into developing some crude self-replicating robots or nanotech. Then almost immediately afterwards it consumes the entire Earth in a swarm of rapidly self-replicating nanobots.

...or something. How should I know what a mind literally millions of times more intelligent than me would do. It's like predicting the exact next move a chessmaster will make. I don't know, but I'm confident they'd beat me quickly.

The goal, of course, is to make an AI which won't do this. If the AI decides to terminate the human race, we've already failed making it friendly and it obviously doesn't share our goals and values. But what are our goals and values? I don't know if anyone can answer that. I'm not sure if there is a satisfactory answer.

Re: AI

#173

Post by hooande »

Many people see Artificial General Intelligence as a panacea. The idea is, "We'll create artificially intelligent scientists who will solve all of our other problems for us!". I think that future generations will look back on this as a modern version of alchemy. If blogs had existed centuries ago I'm sure that people would have called the transmutation of metal the most important trend of their time. This isn't to denigrate the author of this post or the people who have dedicated their lives to AGI research. It's just that this idea probably falls into the category of "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is". [1]

We have no proof that artificial general intelligence can exist. We have numerous examples of specific intelligence: playing chess, driving cars, various forms of categorization. But we don't have a single example of an application that can handle a task that it hasn't been specifically trained and tested for. It's not to say that it isn't possible, but there is no more evidence for AGI than there is for Bigfoot, leprechauns or space aliens. The idea of artificial consciousness currently requires a leap of faith.

The most important trend today is collecting massive amounts of data and using them to make accurate predictions. Instead of lusting after one all-singing all-dancing intelligent program we should focus on tackling one form of decision making at a time. Drive cars, land planes, predict the weather and calculate the best way to get from point A to point B. One day we'll wake up in a world where artificial intelligence is all around us and the idea of a one size fits all solution will seem silly and quaint.

[1] In fairness, this was said about every amazing thing in modern life. You never know.

Re: AI

#174

Post by Houshalter »

XorNot wrote: post #160
Houshalter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a viable approach to solving the problem. The question is, how do you trust the unfriendly AI to give you a correct solution?

Make friends with it? The problem with starting to think "we need to code it to like us" is that that isn't AI. You don't code people to like you, you act friendly towards them and the same problem will apply for the first generations of true AIs (things which will emerge from complicated systems, rather then be deliberately assembled).

Acting friendly towards a sociopathic human will get you screwed or worse. If an AI doesn't have human emotions and empathy to start with, it isn't just going to develop them by interacting with humans. It might learn to pretend to be friendly to get what it wants, but as soon as it doesn't need your help, it will drop the facade.

We also probably won't get multiple generations to work these problems out. The first true AI could rapidly increase it's own intelligence and power and then pretty much do whatever it wants. We have to get it right the first time.

Re: AI

#175

Post by User8712 »

Houshalter wrote: post #172
User8712 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a question for you, what if the AI is perfectly friendly? It still might play us for fools in the long run. For example, let's say we develop a super friendly AI, running on your computer. The AI realizes the human race is actually awful. We're greedy, we're killing tons of animals, chopping down rainforests, destroying the ocean and planet, starting wars with one another, and committing unspeakable acts of ev…

Here's the terrifying thing; it probably wouldn't take a hundred years or our trust for this to happen. This is making some strong assumptions, but the first AI could probably improve itself. Making better AIs that make better AIs and so on. Very rapidly (possibly only hours, days, weeks) it could become much much smarter than humans. If that happens, than we don't know what's possible, but it could probably do a lot…

It would be interesting to see exactly how intelligent and thought out an AI system could be at destroying us. Would it be barbaric? Would we end up with robots clubbing people and dropping bombs? Would it engineer some type of infectious disease that takes us out? Would it develop a fake shot for immunity, so those people locked away hiding from the disease take the shot, and then all die months later? Does it manipulate us for years by pretending to be millions of different fake users online, and slowly push an agenda that's pro AI and robots, while downvoting everyone against it? Do those people with power, that are against AI start dying of mysterious causes?

Even if it decides to be our friend and to help our species, someone will of course fork that AI and give it a negative personality and goals. Then you have the evil AI trying to hack the friendly AI that exists in our homes, and it's a battle of the robots.

Of course, whether or not AI is even possible, no one knows. If it is, I think we'll achieve it, and we'll open up a remarkable can of worms.

Re: AI

#176

Post by comicjk »

User8712 wrote: post #162
Houshalter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a viable approach to solving the problem. The question is, how do you trust the unfriendly AI to give you a correct solution?

Here's a question for you, what if the AI is perfectly friendly? It still might play us for fools in the long run. For example, let's say we develop a super friendly AI, running on your computer. The AI realizes the human race is actually awful. We're greedy, we're killing tons of animals, chopping down rainforests, destroying the ocean and planet, starting wars with one another, and committing unspeakable acts of ev…

> what if the AI is perfectly friendly? It still might play us for fools...

"Friendly" is a term of art among AI people, at least at Less Wrong, and their meaning of friendly excludes this whole scenario. A friendly AI is one which helps humanity and has no horrifying side effects. The vagueness of that definition is the problem Yudkowsky and his acolytes are trying to solve.

Re: AI

#177

Post by theatgrex »

hooande wrote: post #173

Many people see Artificial General Intelligence as a panacea. The idea is, "We'll create artificially intelligent scientists who will solve all of our other problems for us!". I think that future generations will look back on this as a modern version of alchemy. If blogs had existed centuries ago I'm sure that people would have called the transmutation of metal the most important trend of their time. This isn't to de…

But we do have proof that general intelligence exists. So How would it be impossible for artificial general intelligence to exist ? Do you believe in mind body dualism? AGI will be difficult but comparing it to Bigfoot or Leperchauns is rediculous. There is a huge difference between very very very hard and impossible.

Re: AI

#178

Post by lnanek2 »

edanm wrote: post #86

If anyone is interested in AI, I highly recommend joining Less Wrong, a community started by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. He started the community to convince people to focus on the "friendly AI problem". [1] I actually recommend that everyone read LW, but especially if you're interested in AI. [1] In a nutshell, the friendly AI problem is: assume we create an AI. It may rapidly become more intelligent than us, i…

If the AI is more intelligent, I'd prefer it take over anyway, even if it gets rid of us.

When you have a child, do you want the child to stay at home and do what you say forever? Or do you want the child to succeed as much as possible? I want the latter.

Re: AI

#179

Post by 001sky »

theatgrex wrote: post #177
hooande wrote: post #173

Many people see Artificial General Intelligence as a panacea. The idea is, "We'll create artificially intelligent scientists who will solve all of our other problems for us!". I think that future generations will look back on this as a modern version of alchemy. If blogs had existed centuries ago I'm sure that people would have called the transmutation of metal the most important trend of their time. This isn't to de…

But we do have proof that general intelligence exists. So How would it be impossible for artificial general intelligence to exist ? Do you believe in mind body dualism? AGI will be difficult but comparing it to Bigfoot or Leperchauns is rediculous. There is a huge difference between very very very hard and impossible.

Gold exists, So How would it be impossible alchemy to exist ?

Re: AI

#180

Post by theatgrex »

001sky wrote: post #179
theatgrex wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we do have proof that general intelligence exists. So How would it be impossible for artificial general intelligence to exist ? Do you believe in mind body dualism? AGI will be difficult but comparing it to Bigfoot or Leperchauns is rediculous. There is a huge difference between very very very hard and impossible.

Gold exists, So How would it be impossible alchemy to exist ?

if by alchemy you mean making gold from another element then it does exist. we just cant do it yet
Post reply on HN