Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #42

JoshTriplett wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if we build it correctly, it won't be a person at all, and won't have a value function orthogonal to our own. Building something that can self-improve and solve problems doesn't mean we need to build something that has independent will, motivation, or values. And it's a lot safer not to.

Sure, but "an AI that's smarter than humans" implies that. I'm sure we'll build many algorithms that are better than us at specific tasks, and we already have.

Post by criddell » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 8:16 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #52

criddell wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't up to me to decide, but as a participant in our democracy, I have a say just like you. > you're not allowed to be too successful or we'll steal it from you Well, maybe there wouldn't be a hard ceiling, but I could see the revival of the 90% tax bracket for big earners.

> Well, maybe there wouldn't be a hard ceiling, but I could see the revival of the 90% tax bracket for big earners. That's a very entitled, might-makes-right point of view; what gives you the right to do so, other than getting a mob together with enough might?

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 12:48 AM UTC

seiji wrote: post #24

ericjang wrote: post #16

Even though the standard of living is raised for all humans, it seems like advances in AI and automation will drastically reduce the percentage of productive members of society, in spite of educational opportunity. Improving educational opportunities (a la Udacity) is a noble idea because it levels the playing field a bit (giving the underprivileged a chance), but the end result is the same - a small number of people…

but "esteem" and "self-actualization" are really important as well. Many people fill those needs with banal things like drinking contests or sports.

Post by mathattack » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 3:00 PM UTC

jqm wrote: post #54

d883kd8 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> equity based social security or welfare payments I seem to remember Bush II proposing this early in his first term. I was quite young at the time, but I remember some some stuff about "Ownership Society" and a scheme that boiled down to "let's take the social security money and invest it."

I wasn't that young at the time and maybe I'm a cynic, but what I heard was "let's take the social security money and let my campaign contributors skim off the top". I also heard him talking about ownership in the sense everyone should own a home. Right at the peak of the housing bubble. Lots of people took a big hit.

Post by mathattack » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

analyst74 wrote: post #50

mathattack wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many great scientists (Einstein amongst them) get into trouble when they veer into Economics. Einstein predicted social unrest from massive unemployment due to productivity improvements. Productivity improvements help people in aggregate. The question here is will a small subset of the world accrue all the benefit from the AI productivity improvement? One answer is basic income, presumably based on taxation of the ri…

When people think state owned enterprises, they think the failed USSR and communism ideal. A more recent and viable model to look at is probably some of the successful Sovereign wealth fund, like Norway, UAE, Qatar and etc.