* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm.
* Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law.
* Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
41–50 of 158 posts
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#42Computers based on neuromorphic design are the best bet for intelligent Machines. The question is, how to control analog computations with a programming language?
> Computers based on neuromorphic design are the best bet for intelligent Machines.
I wouldn't go that far. We don't understand enough about the nature of intelligence and the way brain works; right now saying that "the best bet for AI is for computer to look like a brain" is like saying "the best bet for heavier-than-air flight is for a machine to flap wings like birds", which was a stupid idea for the reasons we now understand well.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agricultural technology already replaced most manual human jobs (from the era when most human jobs were agricultural). Humans found other things to do, and we found ways to use the surplus. If it gets to the point where there isn't any unskilled labor left to do, we can always choose as a society to vastly expand the welfare state and divvy up at least part of the accumulated surplus to everyone. We have already move…
"vastly expand the welfare state and divvy up at least part of the accumulated surplus to everyone" That's a technology we haven't had much luck with so far. We've had economies where "distribution" was related to direct wealth creation (make a sandwich and eat it myself), property & labour (you make a sandwich with my bread,we eat half each), thievery (gimme your sandwich). We've done sharing in small groups, that m…
We disagree about how well redistribution can and has worked at scale. My ultra-compressed (lossy) take is "pretty inefficient, but somewhat effective improving the lives of the less-wealthy".
One of the most dramatic and promising examples of redistribution, GiveDirectly, is actually doing some followup research on the effectiveness of their redistribution, and it looks pretty good so far: (pdf warning) http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/haushofer_shapiro_u...
That's an extreme example - a relatively-small scale transfer from wealthy donors to a much poorer country - but it speaks well to the principle.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#44Call it what it is, an expert system, market research, a database of decisions/observations. Real "artificial intelligence" only exists in science fiction, in the minds of children playing with toys. Your computer (doll) won't ever love you back or have any awareness or understanding no matter how bad you want it to. It's a cool sounding buzzword for marketing, but if there's any intelligence here it's coming from a few developers hiding behind their tricky algorithms.
A computer will never have intelligence, no matter how many factors and randomizations you code in to give the illusion of intelligence. Calling a collection of observations "intelligence" is an insult and severe underestimation of what intelligence is. If you believe artificial intelligence is possible, you're missing out on what life has to offer--or you would never think a box of switches could come alive.
There's no hint of evidence you = your brain. It's safe to say the brain processes information literally. But we have no idea where intelligence originates. Sadly, some people never get beyond a literal interpretation of things.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#45The AI winter is very much over, and we're back to the good old days of selling the future. I bet this team is very sharp, but there's still merit to "over-promise, under-deliver." "Phoenix, the co-founder, says Vicarious aims beyond image recognition. He said the next milestone will be creating a computer that can understand not just shapes and objects, but the textures associated with them. For example, a computer…
Funny to think that instead of curing diseases or making cheap renewable energy, we'd instead try to spend resources to invent a computer to do that for us...
NASAs goal to go to the moon brought a lot of the innovations we enjoy in our day to day lives.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#46* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
* Zeroth Law: A robot must never harm humanity or, by inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
I encourage anyone to read the robots series, specifically( in that order ): The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn, where the three laws are used in the story, and even the zeroth law is implied in the third book.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#47Probably Larry Page already knew about this when he recently said he'd rather invest in Musk biz than Gates charity? (Not that I agree with him, but it helps explain why he uttered such a thing.)
Larry didn't actually utter that, BTW. Check the transcript:
http://insideevs.com/google-ceo-larry-page-billions-go-tesla...
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#48* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
You do realize that, as stated, these laws are (1) practically impossible to implement, (2) routinely broken by humans (especially the first law - life-sacing and cosmetic surgery, piercings, sport, euthanasia, abortion), and (3) a matter of philosophical/moral subject, decisions about which, IMO, should be in the domain of humans, not robots.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#49Have we cracked the brain's "programming language" yet? I am affraid that until now research has been focused on the biological side of it; and it makes more sense to me to replicate the logic instead of replicating the brain's biological structure. I believe that dataflow/reactive programming is the answer and the direction to follow as its principles are pretty close to how neurons work; plus it can be made to work…
This comes under the category of neuromorphic engineering. It is an excellent question, of which I am trying to find an answer for months now!
I bet there is more, just buried under varied publications, and I am sure that they created a DSL for their specialized brain based chip.
The most obvious and battle tested way to program a NeuroSynaptic hardware is to create models of the brain (any application) in an algorithm and burning it with an HDL into an fpga or an fpaa. For computation of numerical entities, a small controller running a customized embedded software is used.
Re: Zuckerberg, Musk Invest in Artificial-Intelligence Company Vicarious
#50* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
You forgot law zero:
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.