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

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#171

Post by rybosome »

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,…

I'm not an economist, but my understanding of the massive social impact observed in the Industrial Revolution was not so much that it happened at all, but rather the rapidity with which it happened. We ultimately reached a new, stable equilibrium, but until various social forces and trends, government policy, etc. caught up, there was massive disruption.

People like Jeremy Howard believe that we are in for a similar wave of disruption. I have no doubt that there is a new, stable equilibrium which we _could_ eventually reach, but if the change is so sudden and the shock strong enough, perhaps there could be permanent or semi-permanent negative consequences before the new equilibrium is reached.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#172

Post by plikan13 »

x0x0 wrote: post #40
crazypyro wrote: post #14

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…

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…

> a job market that doesn't need cashiers, janitors, gardeners, cooks, taxi drivers, car washers, many farmers, or most menial labor?

The job that I consider most threatened by advances in AI is actually the job of programmer.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#173

Post by rybosome »

sgt101 wrote: post #115
dicroce wrote: post #51

I've been studying machine learning lately... Here is my take: Well before we create an ASI (artificial super intelligence) we will have put 90% of the human race out of work with specialized (non conscious) intelligent agents... (for example, self driving cars). I believe that this will be a disaster for our society as it exists today. My hope is that we will adapt and make the necessary societal changes so that we…

90% out of work, but wealth (in terms of resources and services) increased. Just seems to be a challenge about sharing to me. 4 year olds solve it regularly, I think we can. Interestingly it will make a liberal arts education the hottest, most interesting thing going!

I think we could get it right eventually, but the only solution I can imagine seems to be along the lines of a universal basic income, or access to basic resources (food, water, shelter, education, clothing, healthcare, etc.) without cost.

Given the resistance we are currently observing to Obamacare, the fact that "socialism" is regularly bandied at the current administration as a pejorative and the disdain for "handouts", this seems like a stretch. Perhaps we'll get there eventually, but not before a lot of pain.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#174

Post by olalonde »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #169
olalonde wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of http://lesswrong.com as a community?

Frankly, not much - but it's not like I think they are doing bad things it just seems like it's yet another philosophical forum. I was active from 2007~2010 when it was just transitioning from the Hanson/Yudkowski combined blog with a robust comments section to the beginnings of what you see now. I'm sure some of my comments are still floating around there somewhere. I think in the early days it was a pretty good pla…

Thanks. I'm just an occasional lurker there but your opinion resonated with me (especially the "talking vs doing" and "cultish behaviour" parts). I remember once seeing a comment about someone who stated his intention to start working on AGI get heavily down voted and criticised (as if the rest of the world should stop researching AGI until LW figured out the Safe Way to do it).

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#175

Post by AndrewKemendo »

olalonde wrote: post #174
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, not much - but it's not like I think they are doing bad things it just seems like it's yet another philosophical forum. I was active from 2007~2010 when it was just transitioning from the Hanson/Yudkowski combined blog with a robust comments section to the beginnings of what you see now. I'm sure some of my comments are still floating around there somewhere. I think in the early days it was a pretty good pla…

Thanks. I'm just an occasional lurker there but your opinion resonated with me (especially the "talking vs doing" and "cultish behaviour" parts). I remember once seeing a comment about someone who stated his intention to start working on AGI get heavily down voted and criticised (as if the rest of the world should stop researching AGI until LW figured out the Safe Way to do it).

as if the rest of the world should stop researching AGI until LW figured out the Safe Way to do it

That's basically MIRI's ethos - basically, once they figure out how to build it safely then everyone will be permitted to go start building it. You can see how ridiculous this is on it's face.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#176

Post by indrax »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #37
crazypyro wrote: post #14

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…

This is an ugly situation because usually the geeks defend technology from the luddites, but in these cases the geeks are the luddites. I find the more someone sees themselves as an intellectual the more they are afraid of AI. I guess a cynical explanation is that AI will knock them off that intellectual pedestal. Personally, I welcome something smarter than us. We've just been tip-toeing through endless warfare, poo…

Here are some hard problems to crack then, in particular Value Learning: https://intelligence.org/research-guide/

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#177

Post by flycaliguy »

neuralk wrote: post #103

Why are all these people (Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, now Sam Altman) who have no background in Artificial Intelligence coming out with these alarmist messages (particularly when there are more plausible imminent threats such as nuclear warfare, superbugs, etc)? As a grad student doing work in AI, I find it really frustrating. Why not instead talk to some current practitioners such as Mark Riedl, who is one of the pr…

I think it's a distraction developed by people who's profits rely on large databases of human activity.

The scariest thing about sophisticated AI is the tremendous power it will grant owners of the kinds of databases being built at Facebook, Google and the NSA. They will become the most effective marketers, politicians and general trend watchers in history.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#178

Post by cowpig »

ozziegooen wrote: post #12
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?

If we have a superior intelligence replace us, we'd prefer that it not be a cluster of Daleks. If future intelligences didn't experience happiness or whatever we find valuable, then the future of the universe could be quite sub-optimal according to many philosophical stances. The danger isn't that humans will be replaced, it's that we'll be replaced by a paperclip maximizer

Why do you we think we'll be replaced? Why wouldn't we be 'enhanced'?

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#179

Post by delluminatus »

rybosome wrote: post #171
delluminatus wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I'm not an economist, but my understanding of the massive social impact observed in the Industrial Revolution was not so much that it happened at all, but rather the rapidity with which it happened. We ultimately reached a new, stable equilibrium, but until various social forces and trends, government policy, etc. caught up, there was massive disruption. People like Jeremy Howard believe that we are in for a similar…

I think you're right, that does seem like a possibility. It seems unlikely to me that our wage-paying jobs will be phased out by automation that rapidly, especially if you consider the whole global economy. Of course, I could be completely wrong -- I guess a true Singularity could invalidate almost all labor in a matter of years or even months, depending on what form the AI takes and what it invents.

Re: Machine intelligence, part 1

#180

Post by benkant »

fchollet wrote: post #52
mej10 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

Shane Legg is known for being a co-founder of DeepMind, in a business role (as I understand). He's a complete nobody as a researcher (is he even an AI researcher? I would be surprised). The big names of deep learning have all taken a vocal stance against the recent end-of-the-world punditry (most notably Yann LeCun and Andrew Ng). Also notable: roboticist Rodney Brooks http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/artificial-intell…

> Shane Legg is known for being a co-founder of DeepMind, in a business role (as I understand)

You are quite mistaken. He leads the applied AI team there, and has significant history in research.

http://www.vetta.org/publications/

Post reply on HN