61–70 of 117 posts
I'm sure the field will get along just fine without me, of course, but I just felt like I was very likely to be asked to use ML skills to do things I felt weren't entirely ethical.
Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to have a critical mass and the it's hard to conceal for a lot of reasons (radiation etc...). What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? A lot of scientists have wondered about these ethical questions but I believe that the bene…
> I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs" Yes, I am much more concerned about the scope for ubiquitous surveillance and systematic domination that even fairly modest gains in AI will allow. Something along the lines of the Emergency society in A Deepness in the Sky .
I wonder why it did not occur to him that the same AI could also be used to aid in this detection of humanoid nuclear bombs, which if they are going to be built, will certainly be built with or without him.
Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to have a critical mass and the it's hard to conceal for a lot of reasons (radiation etc...). What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? A lot of scientists have wondered about these ethical questions but I believe that the bene…
> I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs" Yes, I am much more concerned about the scope for ubiquitous surveillance and systematic domination that even fairly modest gains in AI will allow. Something along the lines of the Emergency society in A Deepness in the Sky .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my first thought. The guy went insane. He's not making sense.
Or he just failed the Turing test...
With that in mind, since physical presence becomes less and less important to influence the human noosphere over time, it's not totally out of the question that a sufficiently intelligent AI could actually be holding conversations all over the web, subtly shifting human opinions in a way that suits it's purposes. (Probably not now of course, but as we get closer and closer to Turing Test capable bots it's a more valid concern.)
This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry. Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dab…
It sounds to me that you interpret taking what might happen in the far future seriously as early-stage schizophrenia. Does that sound about right? If so, that's disappointing news for me and others who try to take what might happen in the far future seriously. I'm not sure what to make of your edit. It looks as though you wish to compartmentalize objections to technological development in such a way that they can't a…
Only if it is speculation without evidence or solid logic that causes major personal distress. Also, meeting all of the other diagnostic criteria is a major plus, but getting severely worked up over something you cannot logically explain or provide evidence for is not normal.
"They’re in the remote possibility of building intelligent machines that act, and even appear, as humans. If this is achieved, eventually intelligent weapons of mass destruction will be built, without doubt." Worrying about this strikes me as a bit daft when you can already convince actual humans to be your weapons delivery system. It also shows some significant shortsightedness regarding scaling laws which an AI res…
Definitely this. A terrorist with an engineering/chemistry/biology degree/knowledge could do a lot of damage in todays society. It's not hard to imagine if you let your mind wander (the explosive homemade uav into a stadium would be pretty bad, could fly in from anywhere) I don't think he gets that security is probability based, consequence * _likelihood_, then you concentrate on the factors you can control like moni…
If I read it right, he has stopped working on a form of artificial intelligence because it could potentially (or inevitably) be used to create androids indistinguishable from humans that are carrying nuclear or biological payloads inside of them, presumably to be detonated in a densely populated area. Taking as a given, like he does, that the advancement and spread of technology are inevitable, wouldn't it still be m…
You're misinterpreting the premise of the article. The article is talking about ethics, not about some sort of danger. From an ethical perspective, if using a nuclear bomb is justified, then the delivery mechanism is irrelevant. However, in the case of the sentient atomic bomb (and I think talking about it as an android obscures this question) we get in to stickier terrain. A sentient atomic bomb is a sentient being…
Homicide, not genocide. Unless you think that all weapons over a certain destructive potential are necessarily used to eradicate certain ethnic groups as opposed to others.
However, I agree that development of AI should be done with caution. The work of the Singularity Institute is worth looking into; see http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Mue... for a more academic summary and http://facingthesingularity.com/ for a longer popular summary of their positions.
This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry. Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dab…
It sounds to me that you interpret taking what might happen in the far future seriously as early-stage schizophrenia. Does that sound about right? If so, that's disappointing news for me and others who try to take what might happen in the far future seriously. I'm not sure what to make of your edit. It looks as though you wish to compartmentalize objections to technological development in such a way that they can't a…
The connection between his research and the hypothetical scenario is not demonstrated and in fact reeks of sloppy thinking more characteristic of conspiracy enthusiasts.