11–20 of 95 posts
Unless you think there are evidence that this will slow down somehow and we are becoming less and less depending on technology i don't see why the burde of proof is on the doomsayers (which are not the only one saying this)
The only reason I read past the beginning is because in the preface he says: "This book is likely to be seriously mistaken in a number of ways".
So at least he's intellectually honest. I believe he's building 300 pages of argument and analysis on a flawed premise.
As far as I can tell, the entire discussion rests on what he calls "instrumental goals" vs. "final goals". (This article I found on Google has similar content: http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligentwill.pdf )
His example is the "paper clip maximizer": http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
In this situation, the final goal is: Produce the maximum number of paper clips.
The instrumental goal is: Acquire all resources in the world so that you can direct them toward paper clip production, which involve destroying all humans, etc.
Personally, I don't believe this threat is worth thinking about this point. The supposed path to implementing such a technology isn't credible, and it seems orders of magnitude less likely than, say, us having to evacuate the entire planet.
In other words, I believe that we will be able to build very useful special purpose AIs that accomplish our goals. I can see a future full of benign "plant-like" intelligences, existing indefinitely. They are machines that take in incredible amounts of information, and spit out ingenious answers that no human could have come up with.
From that, it doesn't follow there there is any motivation to take over the world.
We should think about the many, many challenges ahead with special purpose AI instead, and our increasing dependence on computing.
All these special purpose AIs will collecting everybody's personal data, shape their behavior, etc. For example, you can easily imagine a company like Facebook or Google deciding to sway an election.
There are a lot more important problems to be thinking about now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, his argument is "nothing we have built so far (i.e. special purpose AI) leads us to believe that we will build general purpose AI". There is nothing inherently contradictory about a future with ONLY special purpose AI. Technologically speaking, it doesn't really follow that one leads to the other. He is using his credibility as an AI practitioner to state this, although he doesn't go into details. He's saying the…
The argument is that you don't need strong AI for it to be dangerous to humans.
http://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1
Oates seems to have missed the concept of an Intelligence Explosion, which is why it is difficult to compare current AI limitations to the behavior and capabilities of a superhuman machine intelligence.
I would strongly recommend reading Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence for a full treatment of the source of worry for many brilliant minds.
https://intelligence.org/2015/01/08/brooks-searle-agi-voliti...
http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4h/request_for_concrete_ai_takeover...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/07/no-physical-substrate-n...
https://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf
http://futureoflife.org/misc/open_letter (this is just to counter the implied claim that nobody who actually deals in AI disagrees with him and it's only uninformed people like Bill Gates(!) that worry.)
Oates' argument generally seems to be "It won't be scary because it won't be." He rejects the premise of Musk, Gates, etc. He basically says we won't be able to build a superhuman AI. All his arguments are then predicated in this assumption. The assumption that we won't build a superhuman AI is just wrong. For example: > [Would this superhuman intelligence inherently go nuclear, or would it likely just slack off a li…
No, his argument is "nothing we have built so far (i.e. special purpose AI) leads us to believe that we will build general purpose AI". There is nothing inherently contradictory about a future with ONLY special purpose AI. Technologically speaking, it doesn't really follow that one leads to the other. He is using his credibility as an AI practitioner to state this, although he doesn't go into details. He's saying the…
To me this argument has historically less validity than creative people dreaming about singular, binary acts of creation. Historically those people have won.
I read "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom, essentially on the recommendation of Elon Musk (he tweeted about it). It talks about the dangers of strong AI and possible paths to it, and how humans can mitigate its effects. The only reason I read past the beginning is because in the preface he says: "This book is likely to be seriously mistaken in a number of ways". So at least he's intellectually honest. I believe he's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, his argument is "nothing we have built so far (i.e. special purpose AI) leads us to believe that we will build general purpose AI". There is nothing inherently contradictory about a future with ONLY special purpose AI. Technologically speaking, it doesn't really follow that one leads to the other. He is using his credibility as an AI practitioner to state this, although he doesn't go into details. He's saying the…
I agree; that is part of his argument. Obviously though it is a completely flawed argument. Up until the creation of the personal computer most machines were specialists. They were large computers designed for specific computation tasks or machines made specifically for manufacturing certain kinds of goods. Generalist computers didn't have much precedent. That's kind of the point of new technology. It's not necessari…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is that you don't need strong AI for it to be dangerous to humans.
I don't follow. See my top level comment about the "paper clip maximizer". The argument does hinge on strong AI, as far as I can tell.
If humans who don't evolve anywhere even closely at the phase of technology and humans are more and more depending on machines (coinsidence?). If machines keep improving if software keeps improving, if technology become more and more networked then why is it on the doomsayers to prove any more than the trend they are claiming can have consequences that we will have to control or guide before they happen or it will be too late.