11–20 of 44 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't connect it to any network and keep it in a guarded bunker, like ICBMs.
It will have some means of I/O (otherwise it would have no use). Using that I/O, it can trick us into releasing it, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't connect it to any network and keep it in a guarded bunker, like ICBMs.
It will have some means of I/O (otherwise it would have no use). Using that I/O, it can trick us into releasing it, for example.
Considering that we have lots of geniuses (e.g. Godel, Nash) that were far from the ultimate social manipulators, I think it will most likely be an awkward "Rain Man" style intelligence -- as it has all the "brain" (cpu) circuitry, and none of the social opportunities and inputs that people have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn off power / cut the battery. Specifically, avoid the machine getting control of low level details like power. I imagine that the machine architecture is layered. This means, the machine is not aware of its own power control. It's similar like us humans not aware of digestion.
So what stops the machine bribing/blackmailing someone to give it the said details or to force it to sabotage the emergency stop mechanism. As in information security, the weakest point is the human in the chain, not the technology.
The fact that it's some code running in a box. No need to give it text-to-speech capabilities, or let guards have access to its console.
"Google claims is working on fluff technology for cheap marketing".
That's silly. How can you keep an intelligent self-aware machine that can modify its own code from becoming whatever it wants? I would expect it to become provably impossible at some point, just like solving the halting problem.
Turn off power / cut the battery. Specifically, avoid the machine getting control of low level details like power. I imagine that the machine architecture is layered. This means, the machine is not aware of its own power control. It's similar like us humans not aware of digestion.
By the time AI becomes a threat intelligence-wise, it'll be in a position to unplug us.
It can reboot after a power failure, we can't.
Genetics is a good analogy. People always knew that traits are inherited from parents. Around 150 years ago we started to get some serious scientific theory and knowledge on the subject (Mendel, Darwin, Wallace, Etc.). We started using the word “gene” 50-60 years later. The actual discovery of DNA molecules happened in in the 50s.
Before we knew about DNA, “gene” was an abstract idea, not really different from the word “trait.” That’s where we are now with consciousness, intelligence and such. We name these things based on their observable characteristics. We don’t really know what “memory,” “desire” or “logical conclusion” are, only what they do.
IE A trait is some observable characteristic of an organism, like bioluminescence. A gene (genome, genoplex..) is a sequence of amino acids that causes traits. We don’t know what the gene equivalents for natural intelligence are yet.
Discussing questions like the morality of enslaving AI, strategies for making it play nice, the provable impossibility of limiting it, the possibility of giving it a moral compass…. it’s all silly. We don’t know what we are talking about, literally.
It’s like talking about what would be or wouldn’t be impossible to do with genetic engineering before the discovery of DNA.
All this speculating about AIs (eg Nick Bostrom) has me pretty puzzled. On one hand it’s fun and interesting, on the other it seems quite silly and ignorant. We don’t know what this “superintelligence” is, how are we supposed to know how to make it safe. Genetics is a good analogy. People always knew that traits are inherited from parents. Around 150 years ago we started to get some serious scientific theory and know…
All this speculating about AIs (eg Nick Bostrom) has me pretty puzzled. On one hand it’s fun and interesting, on the other it seems quite silly and ignorant. We don’t know what this “superintelligence” is, how are we supposed to know how to make it safe. Genetics is a good analogy. People always knew that traits are inherited from parents. Around 150 years ago we started to get some serious scientific theory and know…
That's silly. How can you keep an intelligent self-aware machine that can modify its own code from becoming whatever it wants? I would expect it to become provably impossible at some point, just like solving the halting problem.
Don't connect it to any network and keep it in a guarded bunker, like ICBMs.