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

Machine intelligence, part 1

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#81

Post by mark-r »

Udo wrote: post #73

in an effort to accomplish some other goal (most goals, if you think about them long enough, could make use of resources currently being used by humans) wipes us out This is a line of reasoning put forward a lot, not only in reference to SMIs but also extraterrestrial entities (two concepts that actually have a lot in common), most notably by Stephen Hawking. We're instinctively wired to worry about our resources and…

A superintelligence would likely pursue both paths simultaneously - stripmine the Earth, and head for space.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#82

Post by Jeema101 »

I dunno, I'm not too worried. Seems to me that the Drake Equation should apply to AI as much as it does to extraterrestrial life, shouldn't it?

I mean if superintelligent AI is possible, then where are they? Surely they would have come about somewhere else in the universe by now.

So either they are hiding from us on purpose in which case they do regard us in some fashion as at least something to take note of and not disturb, or else they don't really have the inclination or ability to spread across the universe, in which case maybe they aren't as powerful as we've been led to believe.

Or maybe they don't exist to begin with because superintelligent AI just isn't possible for some reason...

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#83

Post by [deleted] »

jey wrote: post #74
fchollet wrote: post #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 f…

Stuart Russell, AI professor at UC Berkeley and co-author of the Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach textbook, cares: http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015

[deleted]

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#84

Post by fchollet »

jey wrote: post #74
fchollet wrote: post #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 f…

Stuart Russell, AI professor at UC Berkeley and co-author of the Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach textbook, cares: http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015

His thoughts seem quite sensible, although extremely abstract and theoretical. This is lightyears away from the Elon Musk / Bill Gates / etc. fear-mongering.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#85

Post by mod »

jgrowl wrote: post #33

An alternative view: Development of superhuman machine intelligence is the only way anything resembling humanity will be preserved. We are much more likely to be wiped out by natural disaster, asteroid impact, a dying sun, etc... Unless we come up with some amazing new physics, I don't know how humans will ever make it very far from earth. --edit Oh.. I just now saw part 2 which addresses this.

Where is part 2?

I can't find a link here or on the blog.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#86

Post by convexfunction »

fchollet wrote: post #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 f…

Andrew, in that case, is definitely right in that long-term AI safety has almost nothing to do with near-term AI implementation.

More generally, when I see people assert that these people don't know what they're talking about, it pretty much always seems like a case of reference class confusion. People seem to expect that AI safety research must look exactly like AI implementation research, otherwise it's illegitimate. (Kind of like how biology research must look exactly like chemistry research, otherwise it's illegitimate.)

This is a game theory problem; it might be informed by knowledge of machine learning, like how a broad understanding of chemistry helps in much biology research, but they're not the same level of abstraction; insisting that anyone who wants to study a problem that kind of touches on your own research interests must do it in exactly the same way you do it and focus on exactly the same things, otherwise they're hacks and crackpots, reeks of narrow-mindedness.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#87

Post by mod »

Kenji wrote: post #7
cowpig wrote: 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?

Speciesism is the answer. Probably genetically hardcoded in our brains.

Hopefully! Otherwise something has gone wrong.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#88

Post by joesmo »

"Because we don’t understand how human intelligence works in any meaningful way, it’s difficult to make strong statements about how close or far away from emulating it we really are."

It's also equally difficult and rather stupid to assume that we will ever be able to emulate it at all, which is the entire premise of this idiotic article.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#89

Post by x0x0 »

delluminatus wrote: post #71
x0x0 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider myself particularly alarmist about too many things, but I have to admit I'm a little worried about machine intelligence on one front: What happens when most people have no salable skills due to the combination of robotics and AI? We're essentially going to have to live w/ income supports for the 90+% of Americans, and worse for the countries to which we've exported eg electronic device construction a…

I think this is a more legitimate concern than the fear of the "Matrix outcome" that some people seem to have. But, what you're describing is the process of people being replaced by technology. Generally speaking, this will probably not be a problem for a free-market economy, although it will certainly result in some unemployment. The key point is that replacing humans with machines does not only cause unemployment,…

Just for starters, consider how an unemployed walmart cashier, strawberry picker, or janitor becomes a doctor. They don't. Replacing humans with machines exactly causes unemployment, as could be easily seen by eg the last 40 years of economic history. Unemployed people can't buy anything.

You could also consider comparing the approaching wave of robotic mechanization with the first wave. Again, there was a lot of violence and it took many decades for increased standards of living to reach the working class.

Your entire post is economically illiterate.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#90

Post by mod »

jonny_eh wrote: post #9

This is just another made up problem to wring our hands about. Remember The Singularity, is that not cool anymore? How about we focus on actual problems that actually exist, e.g. climate change, government corruption, and income inequality.

Corruption and inequality are not threats to the existence of our species.

Also, this is a common illogical argument, akin to "how can you own a smartphone when kids are starving in Africa?"

Your smartphone is just another made up necessity to waste your money on...

Post reply on HN