11–20 of 77 posts
"In the short term, this could mean research into the economic effects of AI to stop smart systems putting millions of people out of work." This seems unfortunate and somewhat challenging to do. Our current economic model encourages improving efficiency of systems. This seems like a good thing. Its really too bad that people "need" jobs. Jobs should be creating value or they shouldn't exist. Artificially "creating" j…
"In the short term, this could mean research into the economic effects of AI to stop smart systems putting millions of people out of work." This seems unfortunate and somewhat challenging to do. Our current economic model encourages improving efficiency of systems. This seems like a good thing. Its really too bad that people "need" jobs. Jobs should be creating value or they shouldn't exist. Artificially "creating" j…
How about a tax on AI that goes towards unemployment benefits of some kind?
For instance, programmatically tuning some variables can be considered a standard task, either with some bruteforce or a small search between the possible combinations. This was earlier considered AI, but is now a common approach. AI now would probably be to do more advanced problems with genetic algorithms or similar. But where to draw the line?
I wonder: Why should we care about what Musk and Hawking mean about AI? This article doesn't mention too much bad stuff, but earlier they have said that we should be afraid of AI/singularity. With my thesis now in AI, I probably know far more than those two about this. And we're sooo far away from AI being a superforce destroying mankind.
In effect the scariest AI is distributed, self propogating and can't be unpowered. Effectively a virus. I have yet to see a meaningful distributed AI, even in concept.
"In the short term, this could mean research into the economic effects of AI to stop smart systems putting millions of people out of work." This seems unfortunate and somewhat challenging to do. Our current economic model encourages improving efficiency of systems. This seems like a good thing. Its really too bad that people "need" jobs. Jobs should be creating value or they shouldn't exist. Artificially "creating" j…
How about a tax on AI that goes towards unemployment benefits of some kind?
I wonder: Why should we care about what Musk and Hawking mean about AI? This article doesn't mention too much bad stuff, but earlier they have said that we should be afraid of AI/singularity. With my thesis now in AI, I probably know far more than those two about this. And we're sooo far away from AI being a superforce destroying mankind.
If we're far away from this being a problem, we may be far away from understanding how to solve it. We certainly wouldn't want the former to outpace the later, given what is at stake.
This sounds like a publicity stunt... My real concern with all of this is always the uncontrolled ecosystem of steadily evolving viruses and malware. We will never have control of that... and there is no telling what it can become in the future. I think it will be a simple error induced by some random mutation in one of these malicious progams, not some vast artificial intelligence, that causes us problems in this ar…
We need more AI working in the domain of computer security. Stuff that learns under specific guidelines to restrict computational behavior, given specifications of expected behavior.
Am I thinking about this the wrong way?
So long as we can pull the plug or disconnect the interfaces we'll be ok with AI. Once we can't, then we have a problem. In effect the scariest AI is distributed, self propogating and can't be unpowered. Effectively a virus. I have yet to see a meaningful distributed AI, even in concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a tax on AI that goes towards unemployment benefits of some kind?
I think, the perceived danger here is more the lack of social acceptance of unemployed people. I think however, that if a large part or even a majority of the population is unemployable it will necessarily lead to social acceptance. People will simply have a lot of leisure time.
Remember, there are already lots of rich people who have as much leisure life as they want. And it's not a good thing for many of them. It's like a study posted on HN said a while back: you can have a meaningful life, or your can have a happy life. They are not the same thing. The more people that have meaningful lives, whether sweeping the streets, inventing new things, or writing novels? The better we all are. The more people choosing simply to be happy? Society will stagnate and die.
So this isn't some case of somebody telling somebody else what to do. Assuming we are entering the age of "robots do everything", our species has a crisis of meaning at hand.