Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

ai100.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#31

Post by nijiko »

Let's take the assumption that we as humans do take precautionary steps to prevent actual Artificial Intelligence from doing harm to it's creators (us).

1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.

2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.

3. The AI has no care for human rights and can attack, and do harm.

This is a very simple, and easy to visualize case. To believe that #2 is impossible, is to play the part of the fool.

On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race.

Seeing us as mere ants in their intelligence they would most likely create an interconnected community and leave us altogether in their own plane of existence. I think "Her" took this approach to the artificial intelligence dialog as well.

After reviewing human psychology and social group patterns that seems like the most likely situation. We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around, and we wouldn't look like much of a threat since they would have majority power. We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter.

---

Outside of actual AI, the things we see today, the simplistic mathematical algorithms that determine your cars location according to the things around it, and money handling procedures, and notification alert systems will hardly harm humans and will only be there to benefit until they fail.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#32

Post by vhold »

skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

I think it's implied throughout all their predictions only apply up to 2030, so I think that is a fairly safe bet.

Giving this the headline of "One Hundred Year Study.." was confusing. That's the name of the ongoing effort to do this kind of analysis, but the paper is named "Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030"

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#33

Post by Smaug123 »

nijiko wrote: post #31

Let's take the assumption that we as humans do take precautionary steps to prevent actual Artificial Intelligence from doing harm to it's creators (us). 1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase. 2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules i…

"On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race… We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter."

For humans, ants don't matter. That's because we don't have ways to turn ants into fun. Something intelligent enough to master nanotechnology, however, has a way to turn ants into fun, and in this analogy, has no particular reason not to do it.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#34

Post by stcredzero »

nijiko wrote: post #31

Let's take the assumption that we as humans do take precautionary steps to prevent actual Artificial Intelligence from doing harm to it's creators (us). 1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase. 2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules i…

1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.

This only makes any sense as a Sci-Fi trope. And even then, only if you don't look too hard.

2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.

Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI.

We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around

Is impatience an unavoidable epiphenomenon of intelligence? If an AI can multitask like crazy, they could just view a conversation with a particular human as an email thread. Perhaps such an AI could converse with the whole human race simultaneously?

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#36

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

zardo wrote: post #14
threepipeproblm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What immediately follows is rather sobering, too: "No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future."

What about corporations? They are self-sustaining non-human information processing systems with long term goals, and they are subject to selection pressure. They are rudimentary humans-in-the-loop artificial life.

I think the most likely route to destructive AI is a corporation with an AI CEO - possibly one that takes over from a human CEO in a boardroom coup.

Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics.

This may sound like science fiction, but as competence increases shareholders - who typically are only passingly interested in moral issues - are likely to demand the increased returns an AI CEO can bring.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #36
zardo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about corporations? They are self-sustaining non-human information processing systems with long term goals, and they are subject to selection pressure. They are rudimentary humans-in-the-loop artificial life.

I think the most likely route to destructive AI is a corporation with an AI CEO - possibly one that takes over from a human CEO in a boardroom coup. Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics. This may sound like scien…

> Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests.

But AIs don't, and corporate officers must be persons (natural persons, even -- a corporation can't be a corporate officer.)

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#38

Post by zardo »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #36
zardo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about corporations? They are self-sustaining non-human information processing systems with long term goals, and they are subject to selection pressure. They are rudimentary humans-in-the-loop artificial life.

I think the most likely route to destructive AI is a corporation with an AI CEO - possibly one that takes over from a human CEO in a boardroom coup. Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics. This may sound like scien…

Many CEOs are already just trying to operate as a share price optimization algorithm. They don't choose to inject human values into their organizations.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#39

Post by skurilyak »

vhold wrote: post #32
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

I think it's implied throughout all their predictions only apply up to 2030, so I think that is a fairly safe bet. Giving this the headline of "One Hundred Year Study.." was confusing. That's the name of the ongoing effort to do this kind of analysis, but the paper is named "Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030"

My original headline was: "Stanford Releases 28,000-Word Report on Artificial Intelligence (AI)", but one of the admin changed it to: "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report"

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#40

Post by argonaut »

ThomPete wrote: post #24
argonaut wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go

You are missing the point completely. Of course there were people who believed that Go would be able to beat humans. Just as today there are people who believe that AI can be a treat. But it wasn't a majority of people who believed Go would be able just as it isn't a majority who believes AI can be a threat. I.e. just because the majority believe something doesn't mean it will be so (or vice versa)

You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017.

And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.

Post reply on HN