161–165 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says the people won't rise up and attempt to destroy thinking machines in some kind of holy war? No one likes being marginalized.
But then the thinking machines will make machines of their own to protect them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even assuming we end up with some society where robots do most of the labor and universal basic income becomes a thing, what do you think 90% of people will do? People need to be occupied, and the typical person isn't an inventor or artist. Furthermore, good luck making kids want to go to school when they see it as pointless since they can just get everything free from the robots while they watch TV. If you think obe…
I think the current theory is: play video games.
Have any of these tech "visionaries" (aka millionaires that we pretend have more insight than non-millionaires) considered that at the same time that we've increased our wealth we've also done more damage to our environment? If the cost of increased wealth is decreased habitat, will peak wealth result in the death of nature? Aside: people are still comparing AI to a machine that feels, and this is so stupid it boggle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even assuming we end up with some society where robots do most of the labor and universal basic income becomes a thing, what do you think 90% of people will do? People need to be occupied, and the typical person isn't an inventor or artist. Furthermore, good luck making kids want to go to school when they see it as pointless since they can just get everything free from the robots while they watch TV. If you think obe…
I think the current theory is: play video games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a good algorithm optimizes for "quantity of paperclips produced", then it would recognize that "prevent humans from turning me off right now" is an optimal strategy. No fear of death involved, only pure rational optimization.
The thought experiment is not realistic, because no intelligent system would think it could produce paperclips infinitely, and it would already have an "off feature" which was designed for a purpose (maintenance, update, replacement), and was intended to be used. An intelligent system would not reject proper use. We already replace humans at their jobs all the time and they only very rarely kill their masters to prev…
This is irrelevant, being turned off while it's still possible to produce more paperclips would not be the optimal strategy for the machine trying to maximize paperclip production.
> and it would already have an "off feature" which was designed for a purpose
Look up what the control problem is. We don't know how to design such a feature for a General AI that also lets it do it's job effectively. It's not as simple as it looks. If you're not talking about a General AI than sure, it's easy, but non-General AI's are not very scary.
> We already replace humans at their jobs all the time and they only very rarely kill their masters to prevent it.
But humans don't have "maximize my production for this company" as their main life objective. Things like food, not going to jail, not dying, etc usually come first.