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

Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

the-american-interest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#41

Post by mellosouls »

ryandvm wrote: post #15
bko wrote: post #2

> Even lovemaking is at risk, as artificially intelligent robots stand poised to enter the market and provide sexual services and romantic intimacy. This perfectly encapsulates why I'm so skeptical of AI alarmists. They tend to boil down the human experience to such coarse terms that it undermines their legitimate issues. > AI is a collection of passive silicon and metal. It does not speak. It has no mind. Like an oc…

AI is the perfect term for what we have now - it's artificial intelligence. It _seems_ intelligent, but the reality is that all we have now is pretty good pattern recognition coupled with an index of an incredible amount of information. That's not intelligence. Sure, it _seems_ smart when it can tell you the volume of the moon or whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, but ask it to explain a joke if you want to…

I'm uncomfortable with any term involving "intelligence" just because it's so misleading when describing the current state of affairs with computers.

Also, should machines ever actually become sentient to our level (and beyond), the "artificial" is then misleading - and their intelligence, and default right to be considered human (or human-equal) is undermined by implication.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#42

Post by xamuel »

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I have a few thoughts about doomsday level AIs: 1. We _will_ eventually crack "general intelligence". If nature is able to do it with 9 months of build time and a few pounds of meat, there's no physical reason we can't do it on silicon (or whatever substrate is next)... 2. When we finally develop a half-way decent general intelligence, much like human intelligence, we're not going to have any idea how it works. 3. It…

Our Tower of Babel _will_ eventually reach heaven.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#43

Post by Tenoke »

WoodenChair wrote: post #35
naasking wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. So unless you're going to suggest that the Bekenstein Bound has no empirical support, which would be a pretty wild claim, then yes, there is…

> The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. That would be "many numbers" not "a number." So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.

If human reasoning can fit in say a 2m^3 object, you can (in theory) always build a machine that encodes the information in 2m^3 or less.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#44

Post by bjornsing »

This was an absolutely fascinating read...

> An atomic bomb is a frantic explosion. Yet none of these phenomena is active; they are all passive. They lack the power of cause.

To me it’s completely incomprehensible that an obviously intelligent and well educated (MD PhD) person can think like this... How is it possible to deny that a thermonuclear explosion can cause... a lot of things...?

I’ve lately come to realize that there is much more variation in how people see the world and reason than I thought possible. I would genuinely like to understand those “modes of thinking” that are most far removed from my own. Can anybody explain how this particular worldview works or point me to something I can read?

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#46

Post by naasking »

WoodenChair wrote: post #35
naasking wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. So unless you're going to suggest that the Bekenstein Bound has no empirical support, which would be a pretty wild claim, then yes, there is…

> The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. That would be "many numbers" not "a number." So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.

> That would be "many numbers" not "a number."

A distinction without a difference, honestly. Your computer conceptually has "many numbers", but its addressable storage is finite, and so is really just one big number.

> So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.

The very fact that the brain exists is proof that a machine of this size fully mimicking the brain's capabilities is feasible. Encoding information digitally is at best a constant factor difference from other numerical bases.

And this is assuming a quantum-level reproduction, which very likely isn't necessary.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#47

Post by ryandvm »

xamuel wrote: post #42
ryandvm wrote: post #12

I have a few thoughts about doomsday level AIs: 1. We _will_ eventually crack "general intelligence". If nature is able to do it with 9 months of build time and a few pounds of meat, there's no physical reason we can't do it on silicon (or whatever substrate is next)... 2. When we finally develop a half-way decent general intelligence, much like human intelligence, we're not going to have any idea how it works. 3. It…

Our Tower of Babel _will_ eventually reach heaven.

And mankind will never be able to soar like the birds.

shrug

We've seen this play out many, many times before...

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#48

Post by xamuel »

ryandvm wrote: post #47
xamuel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our Tower of Babel _will_ eventually reach heaven.

And mankind will never be able to soar like the birds. shrug We've seen this play out many, many times before...

To "soar like the birds" would mean to be able to fly at will and land at will, wherever and whenever you desire, as effortlessly as walking. You're absolutely right, mankind will never be able to soar like the birds. Even if we could figure out the technology, it would be a privacy/safety/liability nightmare and they'd make laws against doing it.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#49

Post by mellosouls »

bjornsing wrote: post #44

This was an absolutely fascinating read... > An atomic bomb is a frantic explosion. Yet none of these phenomena is active; they are all passive. They lack the power of cause. To me it’s completely incomprehensible that an obviously intelligent and well educated (MD PhD) person can think like this... How is it possible to deny that a thermonuclear explosion can cause... a lot of things...? I’ve lately come to realize…

I think the author is distinguishing between intent/agency/free will in the case of mental action and the empty, meaningless quality of material "causes".

For causality and the slipperiness of it, read Hume.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#50

Post by rpmisms »

azdacha wrote: post #22
rpmisms wrote: post #4

My problem with these articles isn't that they overestimate AI, but that they underestimate humanity. Yes, many millenials have a serious electronics addiction, but many Gen Z kids are really good about managing their screen time, and try to make face-to-face communication happen more and more. tl;dr: Humanity is really good at adapting to coexist with technology. Stop Panicking.

What about all other thechnological controversy ? Everything is not about Screen-Time.

I'm using a specific example of a panic to point out that the panic is often unfounded.
Post reply on HN