61–70 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that a singularity by definition can never be reached. It's like the speed of light or absolute zero; infinity just out of reach no matter how much energy you spend trying to get there.
A black hole is a singularity. You can reach it, you just can't come back from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk by no means is an authority on AI. It's just an opinion. He's being a futurist.
Indeed it is an opinion. An opinion of someone who recently invested millions in an AI company.
How exactly does it end the human race? It takes over our cars and drives us all off a cliff? It infects all computers and overheats the batteries? This planet is well suited to biological life, it'd be pretty hard to kill all of us. Hopefully instead of random annihilation "it" calculates the optimum number of humans for the size and resource limit of the planet and assists us in lowering our numbers.
pretty much all machines are already capable of killing us. they're just not smart enough to be able to want to yet. :)
My hand drill is not capable of killing me with the right software nor is it network capable. And once we know that the larger machines have bad software then what? We keep using them? What's my TV going to do, short circuit the video port?
There isn't a market for strong AI yet, anyway. We don't want machines that think like humans. We want machines that can perform certain tasks with an error rate less than or equal to that of humans (adjusted for other economical factors like price of labour). While strong AI is a great plot device for science fiction, it's still fiction. Sure, there are attempts in academia to replicate human intelligence, but even…
I disagree. If you could run a machine that performed equally well in a real-world environment as a human, at a lower cost than it costs to feed and pay a human laborer, it would be a no-brainer to invest in thousands of these machines to perform various consulting services that are bought and sold over the internet. And here I've only touched the slice of the world economy that exclusively consists of information-in…
To all those saying it is impossible: The point you are making about it being impossible is as moot as the one those that fear AI are making. From logical point of view, singularity (a moment when AI has modified itself to the point beyond our capacity of control or even understanding) seems possible. I don't see a way for us to tell what will happen when it hits. One needs to remember that AI itself may not be evil,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know it's far away? If I have to side with you or Musk (extremely intelligent engineer with insider knowledge of advancements), I'm siding with Musk.
I know it's far away because I develop software for a living. In software development, you have to understand the problem space in order to create something that works (duh). Relatively speaking, we know absolutely nothing about how human intelligence works from an algorithmic point of view, therefore we can't model it in software. Sure, we can develop "AI" that is good at a very narrow range of tasks (e.g., playing…
I would even argue that may make us less competent, because we use our day to day development routine as a reference for that, while in fact it's very highly probable that the first true AI will have nothing to do with the technologies and paradigm you use everyday. I highly doubt it will coded in Java and AngularJS.
Moreover who told you a dangerous AI needed to be based on human brain? Even if that is true, and even if we are not able to do it today, it's quite realistic to assume that we will be able to at one point, not too far in time, in some decades.
So why not start reflecting today on the threat AI could cause? Rather than waiting for it to be embedded everywhere in our everyday life, and then asking if maybe we should start regulating it.
For a parallel look at the global warming issue, and how it's extremely difficult to make industries reduce their emissions now that they are responsible for a significant part of the GDP and are responsible for so much jobs. Same thing for ICE cars, we know they pollute, but we just can't stop using them like that.
To all those saying it is impossible: The point you are making about it being impossible is as moot as the one those that fear AI are making. From logical point of view, singularity (a moment when AI has modified itself to the point beyond our capacity of control or even understanding) seems possible. I don't see a way for us to tell what will happen when it hits. One needs to remember that AI itself may not be evil,…
I understand that a singularity by definition can never be reached. It's like the speed of light or absolute zero; infinity just out of reach no matter how much energy you spend trying to get there.
> "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue"
It's a different use of the word singularity outside the mathematical sense. Also absolute zero isn't so absolute it seems: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-z...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A black hole is a singularity. You can reach it, you just can't come back from it.
Didn't Hawking a while ago say Black Holes don't exist?
I'm tired of this fear mongering. There are hundreds of viruses that could end the human race. There are millions of rocks in space that could end the human race. There are people that could end the human race with push of a button. Human race could be history by the time I stop writing this rant. AI has a great potential and could help us prevent most of our existential threats. AI is not a god. It will not suddenly…
Fear mongering? This isn't Sarah Palin and her death panels. I'm sure Hawking and Musk are smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us, so maybe it's worth listening to them rather than dismissing out of hand. I don't see what they would have to personally gain by raising the alarm here. Read Superintelligence by Bostrom to help see where they're coming from. It doesn't think AI will be evil eithe…
That is not a reasonable argument. They have demonstrated nothing but a fear and postulation and we cannot accept authority as evidence. Thus is the nature of science.