Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity • Hacker News Board

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#111

Post by harry8 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

I like Barack and this is not a party political statement when I say I am about as interested in what he thinks about tech as Jim Carter, George Bush Jnr & Snr or Bill Clinton. Now he's not likely to affect much in the way of policy there are just more insightful people to read and listen to so what we're left with is a bit of celebrity worship, which is fine with me as long as I acknowledge it as such.

What the two possible next presidents think is more interesting simply because they may affect policy, regardless of their being more or less insightful than B.O.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#112

Post by imtringued » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:54 AM UTC

inimino wrote: post #87

gefh wrote: post #38

I wish people would stop bringing up the trolley problem as somehow relevant to self driving cars. In any situation,a car is going to brake as hard as possible while maintaining control, and only serve if there's no way to stop and a clear space. Other than that, a good enough interview that I can't see taking place again next presidential term.

The trolley problem is a simplification of a difficult ethical question. I wish people would stop dismissing it as though whatever simple answer they come up with makes the problem go away. In many situations, a car is going to have to choose between alternatives that each carry different risks. There simply are no universally acceptable simple rules to follow in such cases.

There is one universally acceptable rule: Do not choose your victim. If they are unlucky, they are unlucky. That's all there is to it.

Choosing who should be "unlucky" doesn't solve the problem. By assuming unavoidable failure you effectively give up solving the underlying problem. The solution is to avoid the failure in the first place.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#113

Post by azag0 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 8:35 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #90

robotresearcher wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a problem because there is no such thing as generalized AI. There's just specialized AI for lots of things added together. Keep getting better at things and after a while you are good at lots of things, so appear to be general to an observer (until they see you outside your domain of expertise). This theory compactly explains why no one knows how to do general AI. I don't believe there is a special sauce…

That's not what General AI is though (at least how I define it), real AI would have to be able to invent new things, not just be good at existing things. Many humans go their whole lives without doing that, so I'm aware it's a high bar. But it's a bar that some humans do pass, and if AI is to be more than just a helpful gimmick, it'll have to do that as well, since I'd like to believe all humans have that potential,…

But brain still is "just" a neural network, granted, with immensely more complex neurons and extraneuronal mechanisms that might as well be absolutely crucial for learning. But the difference between a highly intelligent and blank-stare person can be as small as switching off a small part of the brain or tweaking a neurotransmitter. Which shows me that general intelligence is something extremely sensitive as oposed to something like vision processing, which takes much more drastic changes to disturb.

Looking at the brain, it often does look like a bunch of interconnected specializes neural networks.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#114

Post by aoeuasdf1 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 8:55 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #112

inimino wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trolley problem is a simplification of a difficult ethical question. I wish people would stop dismissing it as though whatever simple answer they come up with makes the problem go away. In many situations, a car is going to have to choose between alternatives that each carry different risks. There simply are no universally acceptable simple rules to follow in such cases.

There is one universally acceptable rule: Do not choose your victim. If they are unlucky, they are unlucky. That's all there is to it. Choosing who should be "unlucky" doesn't solve the problem. By assuming unavoidable failure you effectively give up solving the underlying problem. The solution is to avoid the failure in the first place.

No system can avoid failure 100% of the time. It may find itself going too fast with a unexpected loss of some control - brake failure, intentional sabotage, (imperceptible) oil slick, whatever. However, the system still has some control to choose between several terrible and costly outcomes. It must choose its victim. How should it chose?

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#115

Post by V-2 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 8:57 AM UTC

> JOI ITO: This may upset some of my students at MIT, but one of my concerns is that it’s been a predominately male gang of kids, mostly white, who are building the core computer science around AI, and they’re more comfortable talking to computers than to human beings. A lot of them feel that if they could just make that science-fiction, generalized AI, we wouldn’t have to worry about all the messy stuff like politics and society. They think machines will just figure it all out for us.

Why is that a problem that they're mostly white? The interviewer doesn't bother to elaborate, it's sort of mentioned in passing as if it were something obvious. To me (a non-American here, mind you) it isn't. Would the difficulties they mention be alleviated if that wasn't the case? Why? Couldn't - say - an Asian student fall into a misconception that machines will come up with answers to all questions? Is it less likely? What substantiates such a claim?

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#116

Post by jmickey » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 8:59 AM UTC

brokenmasonjars wrote: post #48

zaroth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider a broader timeline. It used to take humans over 500 hours of labor spinning, weaving, and sewing to produce a single shirt. Automating textile production has "put more people out of work" than computers ever will. Do you think for a second we would ever want to go back to how it was? Do you ask the inventor of the sewing machine how they will start giving back? These inventions free humanity for more worthwh…

I often feel what will replace jobs is people just going to school and earning a PhD or two or three. It'll certainly destroy their idle time of unemployment and make them and everyone else - the collective a whole lot smarter. Perhaps subspecialties emerge with dual-PhDs. I often hear that not everyone is capable of getting a PhD, but then again if we take the same energy and dedication of a career and push it over…

OK, but is there a demand for so many PhDs? Having a PhD doesn't really guarantee a good income now. It will be worse once everyone has one.

This makes sense, if there is some sort of government sponsorship or grants, but providing these to all people would mean drastically higher taxes, and companies are opposed to those.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#117

Post by imtringued » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 9:08 AM UTC

brokenmasonjars wrote: post #48

zaroth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider a broader timeline. It used to take humans over 500 hours of labor spinning, weaving, and sewing to produce a single shirt. Automating textile production has "put more people out of work" than computers ever will. Do you think for a second we would ever want to go back to how it was? Do you ask the inventor of the sewing machine how they will start giving back? These inventions free humanity for more worthwh…

I often feel what will replace jobs is people just going to school and earning a PhD or two or three. It'll certainly destroy their idle time of unemployment and make them and everyone else - the collective a whole lot smarter. Perhaps subspecialties emerge with dual-PhDs. I often hear that not everyone is capable of getting a PhD, but then again if we take the same energy and dedication of a career and push it over…

Not every job needs a PhD and the purpose of university isn't to prepare you to get a high paying job.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#118

Post by mtgx » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 9:11 AM UTC

eric_h wrote: post #3

notliketherest wrote: post #2

"But it also has some downsides that we’re gonna have to figure out in terms of not eliminating jobs. It could increase inequality. It could suppress wages." No doubt that advances in technology have always done away with jobs. We're almost to the point at which the biggest blue collar industry (truck drivers) is about to be wiped out by self driving trucks. What I'm concerned about is the government stifling innovat…

I'm more and more convinced that a UBI is the only way to deal with this problem, so the unemployed have a buffer to retrain to a new skillset. Of course, replacing the current social safety net (food stamps, et. al.) with a UBI would likely result in the trimming of government bureaucratic jobs. Everything's a trade off.

"Choosing" (even if you have a choice at that point) UBI when only 10% of the population is employed anymore is easy.

The question is when do you start implementing UBI? When only 80% of the population have jobs anymore? 60%? 40%?

Because when you do implement it, the money that goes to the unemployed people is going to have to come from those that still make money. And they will probably be pretty pissed off about it, too.

Also, in a two-party system country like the U.S., the party you vote for may literally decide this outcome. Like say 70% of the people still have jobs and they don't want UBI, and the Democrats support switching to UBI after the election. It's very likely that the Democrats will not win an election again until a majority of the population supports implementing UBI, no matter what other terrible things the Republican party promises to do, while also promising not to implement UBI.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#119

Post by imtringued » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 9:14 AM UTC

pmyjavec wrote: post #11

notliketherest wrote: post #2

"But it also has some downsides that we’re gonna have to figure out in terms of not eliminating jobs. It could increase inequality. It could suppress wages." No doubt that advances in technology have always done away with jobs. We're almost to the point at which the biggest blue collar industry (truck drivers) is about to be wiped out by self driving trucks. What I'm concerned about is the government stifling innovat…

Why aren't you "concerned" about people losing their jobs? The alternatives are tech companies start to pay their taxes and humans start to use tech to care for one another, genuinely, not just wealthy Silicon Valley types trying to make buckets because their "entitled" to do so and pretend it's all in the name of progress. The idea of the Internet and Automation were exciting to me as it was about liberation and dec…

They are giving back.

If clothes used to cost $60 and now cost $20 that is equivalent to giving back $40.

The problem starts when their wages are falling faster than the cost of the goods.

If as a employee you earn $20 per hour you need to work 3 hours to afford your own clothes and now only earn $5 per hour you need to work 4 hours.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#120

Post by macns » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

I was intrigued by this:

Part of what makes us human are the kinks. They’re the mutations, the outliers, the flaws that create art or the new invention, right? We have to assume that if a system is perfect, then it’s static. And part of what makes us who we are, and part of what makes us alive, is that we’re dynamic and we’re surprised.

And then he goes on: One of the challenges that we’ll have to think about is, where and when is it appropriate for us to have things work exactly the way they’re supposed to, without surprises?

One might argue that in software development things never work exactly the way they're supposed to.