Live data from Hacker News

Machine intelligence, part 1

blog.samaltman.com

41–50 of 188 posts

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#41
I have yet to meet a serious AI researcher who worries about AI ending the human race. At every AI conference I've been to lately, some guy would inevitably ask the same question to the speaker: "do you think we should be concerned by superhuman AI?". The answer was always the same, for instance from Andrew Ng at the Deep Learning Summit a few weeks ago: "dude, stop it. That's such a distraction".

> One of my top 4 favorite explanations for the Fermi paradox is that biological intelligence always eventually creates machine intelligence, which wipes out biological life and then for some reason decides to makes itself undetectable.

Since you are so knowledgeable about the unknowable, may I ask, Sam, do you think angels are male, or are they female? It has been a long standing question among the sort of people who like to predict the coming end of the world.

Seriously, billionaires and pundits warning us about our impending AI doom is is such a distraction. Does AI have its dangers? Yes. And nobody talks about them. The danger of AI is that is will put increasing power in the hands of those who have the data and the know-how, i.e. large corporations and governments. The power of mining usefully the troves of data they have on every citizen, both on a micro level and a macro level, to understand what people are doing, what they are thinking, and what they are going to do next. And ultimately, to control what they think (to give you an idea, Facebook can already influence your mood by selecting what goes into your newsfeed).

First comes intelligence, then prediction, and finally, control.

Yes, AI is something we should probably be worried about, in the same way that we should have discussed the privacy implications of the Internet years before the NSA files. But a terminator-like end of the world scenario is not a concern. If you are clueless about a topic, please refrain from making grand statements about its future.

A great quote from Neil Gershenfeld: "The history of technology advancing has been one of sigmoids that begin as exponentials."

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#42

I read the essay few times and it is not clear to me what Sam Altman is talking about. I think answers to these questions will help me understand Sam's essay. Can you please help me? 1. What is superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) in the context of this essay ? [edited to add the qualifier] 2. What is the danger from SMI to humans and other current life forms that we are concerned about? It seems to me that concerns…

1. Machine intelligence, traditionally called artificial intelligence, which surpasses human intelligence. 2. Your category (b) is generally the primary concern in these types of discussions. 3. The anecdote of the progress of humanity. Compare the impact of human life/intelligence vs. evolutionary relatives like chimpanzees. I do not know that chimps have hunted species out of existence, for instance, but people hav…

Thanks. Seems to me these anecdotes have to do with humans.

So is the implicit assumption that machines will do what humans are doing ('bad' things) but at several orders of magnitude faster and without the ability to comprehend longer-term consequences of their actions any more than humans do at the present time?

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#43
I don't understand how we'll ever have a "superhuman" AI in any meaningful sense. If by some AI in the far future is ever engineered to (or accidentally) starts doing something to destroy humans, we could always repurpose the algorithm to create a counter-AI to solve that problem. The errant AI may cause a lot of damage, but in terms of smarts, it won't be smarter than the smartness humans can harness.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#44
Did sama not simply consider that, by the time AI becomes so powerful as to be dangerous, we might also be able to program an AI with the opposite function, ie 'save humanity', and watch it fight the 'bad AI'?

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#45
post #32

[deleted]

In fact AI was essentially paused for years during the AI Winter.

That's completely false. AI winter wasn't about AI research being "essentially paused" but about AI startups becoming essentially non-fundable. It was backlash to the intense hype that surrounded the category.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#46

I'm seriously so sick of hearing about how machine intelligence is going to spell the end of humanity. The amount of gears that would have to fall into place is never mentioned. We aren't close to SMI. Its much more likely that we humans are excelling at dreaming up apocalyptic scenarios, much like we have always done..... The "sloppy, dangerous thinking" is the aversion these types of articles create within the gene…

Militaries are developing AI-controlled guns and mobile gun platforms. They have already accidentally killed humans. http://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/ Another incident like this with more intelligence and mobility could kill a lot more people.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#47
post #39

Funny to see the skepticism here. It's hard to understand the danger machine intelligence poses to humanity for the same reason it's hard to understand the danger tiny startups can pose to big industries. Current implementations look like toys, humans have bad intuitions about exponential growth, and most will disagree on how _probable_ the threat is (something that might not be known except retroactively) while syst…

[deleted]

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#48

I have yet to meet a serious AI researcher who worries about AI ending the human race. At every AI conference I've been to lately, some guy would inevitably ask the same question to the speaker: "do you think we should be concerned by superhuman AI?". The answer was always the same, for instance from Andrew Ng at the Deep Learning Summit a few weeks ago: "dude, stop it. That's such a distraction". > One of my top 4 f…

How about Shane Legg (One of the cofounders of DeepMind)?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/691/qa_with_shane_legg_on_risks_from...

Quote:

Q6: Do possible risks from AI outweigh other possible existential risks, e.g. risks associated with the possibility of advanced nanotechnology?

Shane Legg: It's my number 1 risk for this century, with an engineered biological pathogen coming a close second (though I know little about the latter).

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#49
post #6

Why are humans so special? Seems like we generally feel alright ravaging Earth's existing species, so why isn't it ok for some hypothetically superior intelligence to ravage us?

It's "ok" in the absolute sense, but not ok in the context of human perspective, which, by definition, is the only one that matters.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#50
I always thought that people bringing up things like "Look at how this AI beats humans at chess or plays a damn fine game of Snake" to be a total cop-out, largely because these types of bots overwhelmingly use primitive techniques and are written pretty much every time a video game is being developed, and the latter field isn't usually what you think of cutting edge AI research?

It's not that I discount strong AI, but I treat people being quick to bring up game bots when trying to convince of an AI apocalypse to be a red flag. Do try to give information to the contrary.

Post reply on HN