Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear? • Hacker News Board

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#61

Post by jandrewrogers » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

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.

No, a set of "many numbers" trivially maps 1:1 to a single number with the same information content. Constructs like space-filling curves are a manifestations of this relationship. The property is occasionally exploited in algorithm designs in order to modify the number of elements in a set.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#62

Post by laughingbovine » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

Sure, let's dive into the philosophy of causation and completely butcher it. Very clear article /s

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#63

Post by xwdv » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #51

xwdv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what do you propose be done? If you accuse someone of having an extremely racist AI you need a way to prove they set out to make it that way. You don’t just get to say “It’s racist” and shut it down.

You look at the outcome distribution.

And then what? Shut it down if it doesn’t conform to your expectations or world view?

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#64

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

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…

Don't let bad, misguided, or low-quality alarmism distract your from legitimate concerns or cautions.

Dworkin's critique is ... frankly, fairly bizarre to me. He himself is an anesthesiologist who's studied political philosophy, and his floundering in deep waters here shows. He's well out of his depth.

That does not mean, however, that there aren't very legitimate concerns to be made, and the have and are being made. Cathy O'Neil, Nick Bostrom, Jonathan Zittrain, Zynep Tufekci, and others, have raised numerous salient points.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#65

Post by mellosouls » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #53

mellosouls wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me from your post or essay whether you are saying the current state of AI is absurdly overhyped and is not even remotely close to producing actual intelligence (I agree strongly); or if you are claiming it's not possible with computers even in principle because "numbers", in which case I don't understand the justification at all, as it implies a mystical quality to human intelligence you rightly dis…

Definitely your first point. As for the second point, I don't think there is a mystical quality to human intelligence. I guess its mystical in the sense that no one really understands consciousness just yet. But I think something else is going on other than the brain being a rote inefficient chemical cruncher. I find the whole AGI, singularity, and AI hysteria reductive

Yeah I'd agree with most of that, consciousness (as opposed to cognition) definitely fascinatingly different to ponder.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#66

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 11:34 PM UTC

windsurfer wrote: post #6

This article completely misses what I see as the biggest problem with intelligence in machines: Corporations can use them to be unaccountable. Insider trading? No, that was our "algorithm". Racist policies? Oops, sorry that was just our bot. Inhumane practices? Sorry, we are still "working" on our artificial intelligence since you know it's very difficult. Where most people see mysterious advanced help in day to day…

[deleted]

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#67

Post by jakeogh » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:59 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #31

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. There's an assumption that consciousness is just a series of numbers, and some more or less credible philosophical arguments for/against this point of view. But believing there's more than that is faith-based, not empirical.

> 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…

We can't in principal encode it as a numeric copy; it's not measurable. Position or momentum.

The mind isnt a closed system unless it's drawn as lightcurves.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#68

Post by ozim » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 10:05 AM UTC

jacknews wrote: post #11

"The sea makes people feel as if they are in a whirl of action ... But this is wrong thinking, We say waves “cause” a ship to break up ... but the wave itself is passive and without the power to act." Nope, the wave is energy transmitted, from the sun, to the wind, to the sea ... to the ship. In the same way a mind is a wave, constrained and channeled by it's neuron substrate, and by external stimulii. The article is…

I think main point is that "wave" does not have any agenda, it does not have any purpose. By itself atoms cannot "decide" to cause chain reaction. All of this is just "programmed".

This kind of topic is taken on by Stanislaw Lem in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible

Really liked this book.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: What’s to Fear?

#69

Post by ozim » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

ozim wrote: post #68

jacknews wrote: post #11

"The sea makes people feel as if they are in a whirl of action ... But this is wrong thinking, We say waves “cause” a ship to break up ... but the wave itself is passive and without the power to act." Nope, the wave is energy transmitted, from the sun, to the wind, to the sea ... to the ship. In the same way a mind is a wave, constrained and channeled by it's neuron substrate, and by external stimulii. The article is…

I think main point is that "wave" does not have any agenda, it does not have any purpose. By itself atoms cannot "decide" to cause chain reaction. All of this is just "programmed". This kind of topic is taken on by Stanislaw Lem in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible Really liked this book.

To add to previous comment. "What's to Fear", if author would read that book, he would notice there is still a lot to fear. Synthetic life form, without even mimicking humans could be dangerous. The same as waves in the ocean, even if those waves have no agenda to kill us all, if it is 10 in Beaufort scale you better stay away from those waves.