Live data from Hacker News

Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

blogs.scientificamerican.com

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#61

When I hear about Hawking or Musk etc. being feared of AI, I always think about how cats & dogs could have also been scared facing human evolution. But yet here they still are, obviously smarter than us since they don't do shit but sleep all day ;).

I can speak for Hawking, but Musk just seems like a pretty disingenuous voice in this debate. He has a very strong financial interest in human spaceflight, so making robots and AI seem scary is within his interest. Space is best explored by robots and Musk has to propagandize the opposite.

A nanny AI is the more rational outcome considering that if we built a AI mind, we could control its parameters (make it non-violent, etc). Also fears of being enslaved and such are positively archaic. Slavery, as an economic system, makes little sense as its more liabilities than assets. If you were to suddenly conquer the world, keeping the capitalistic system in place would make the most sense. It confers a level of control and civility when done right. No need for a violent peasant or slave uprising when most everyone can find a job, rent/buy a home, start a business, advance their careers, etc.

Sadly, I imagine these high-profile attacks on AI are causing a chilling effect from a funding and research point of view. Its sad that instead of celebrating AI as something that could help humanity, we've instead demonized it and dismissed it. Shame billionaires like Musk can so trivially control public opinion and how so few of us are skeptical of his hysterical claims.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#62

> Despite the fact that they had been fully socialized, the wolves treated each of the situations as physical problems rather than social ones. Same problem arises in many humans.

Dunno why you were downvoted. It sounds cynical when you phrase it that way, but I know many people who don’t think to ask for help when they need it.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#63
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's worse than that. The best evolutionary strategy for animals seems to be evolving into humans' pets, human food, or scavengers of human waste... Other can survive -- with human help -- by serving as entertainment.

Becoming human food is an evolutionary strategy for animals?

Of course. Animals that serve as food are much more plentiful than those similar to them that aren't. Of course, they may or may not be happy about it (compared to their wild relatives, who also live unimaginably cruel lives by human standards), but nature could care less about it.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#64

When I hear about Hawking or Musk etc. being feared of AI, I always think about how cats & dogs could have also been scared facing human evolution. But yet here they still are, obviously smarter than us since they don't do shit but sleep all day ;).

I can speak for Hawking, but Musk just seems like a pretty disingenuous voice in this debate. He has a very strong financial interest in human spaceflight, so making robots and AI seem scary is within his interest. Space is best explored by robots and Musk has to propagandize the opposite. A nanny AI is the more rational outcome considering that if we built a AI mind, we could control its parameters (make it non-viol…

> if we built a AI mind, we could control its parameters

A "mind" and being able to "control its parameters" could very well be mutually exclusive. So far, the minds we know are quite intractable, and can be affected in very crude ways (i.e. things that make you less violent also make reduce cognitive skills).

> If you were to suddenly conquer the world keeping the capitalistic system in place would make the most sense.

There is no "capitalistic system", but many systems, some rather different from others. Besides, why does it matter that keeping the existing order "makes more sense". Who says that an AI will be especially rational? It is quite possible that being intelligent and completely rational are mutually exclusive. And even if it is rational, I'm not sure we can fully predict the interests of intelligent beings so different from ourselves. Much of what makes sense to us is a result of us being accustomed to living in a society, with all its consequences. The society the AI will live amongst might be very different from ours, and so its assessment of what makes sense. I spent some time writing about people living in poor, high-crime neighborhoods. Their society was very different from the one I grew up in, and as a result their behavior was different even when it was rational. For example, turning to violence was often a very rational, sensible choice on their part.

> Sadly, I imagine these high-profile attacks on AI are causing a chilling effect from a funding and research point of view.

I think this is all a PR stunt. We're many, many decades, if not a century or more, away from what people imagine when they say AI. Unfortunately, software can be very dangerous to society even without being considered AI[1], and unfortunately few people talk about that.

[1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/01/bla...

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#65
post #54

As described, the experience doesn't really show that dogs use humans as tools, but rather that they look to their face for hints as to how to behave. This is the almost-universal behavior of low-status individuals to high-status ones (in a boardroom everyone looks at the boss to know how to react to a joke). So it could mean, not that dogs "use humans" but rather that they recognize humans (and specifically their tr…

>My guess is, if there are two humans in the room, a "recognized leader" and a "recognized non-leader", and if the non-leader knows how to solve the riddle, and the leader does not, then the riddle will never be solved because the dog will never seek the help of the non-leader.

Why do you think that? Why not the dog search each available human for cues?

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#66
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can speak for Hawking, but Musk just seems like a pretty disingenuous voice in this debate. He has a very strong financial interest in human spaceflight, so making robots and AI seem scary is within his interest. Space is best explored by robots and Musk has to propagandize the opposite. A nanny AI is the more rational outcome considering that if we built a AI mind, we could control its parameters (make it non-viol…

> if we built a AI mind, we could control its parameters A "mind" and being able to "control its parameters" could very well be mutually exclusive. So far, the minds we know are quite intractable, and can be affected in very crude ways (i.e. things that make you less violent also make reduce cognitive skills). > If you were to suddenly conquer the world keeping the capitalistic system in place would make the most sen…

>So far, the minds we know are quite intractable, and can be affected in very crude ways

Depends on your definition of crude. With a virtual mind, you probably have a good understanding of how things work and be able to edit them trivially. You can have a working mind without complete freedom or with limited capacities. Look at accident victims with brain damage who, say, can no longer do math or some other weird edge case. Its plausible to selectively edit minds but to also have an acceptable range of self-determinism.

>A "mind" and being able to "control its parameters" could very well be mutually exclusive.

Maybe with biological beings but there's no reason to assume that with artificial beings.

>We're many, many decades, if not a century or more, away from what people imagine when they say AI.

Except guys like Musk are helping move that number farther and farther into the future for their own selfish and short-term need (sell rockets to the government) via politically charged anti-AI propaganda. If AI research is chronically underfunded and feared, then it will never happen. Decades aren't too far out. Imagine if there was a big anti-computer backlash in the 1960s. We wouldn't have the toys we have today. Its important to keep a steady head and consider plausible scenarios and stop feeding the anti-AI bullshit of "OMG SLAVERY!!!"

As far as the economic argument goes, I still am very skeptical that AI would instantly run to a discredited and inefficient economic system (slavery). Its laughable to even think it plausible. It just shows how easy it is for guys like Musk to make people scared.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#67
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we built a AI mind, we could control its parameters A "mind" and being able to "control its parameters" could very well be mutually exclusive. So far, the minds we know are quite intractable, and can be affected in very crude ways (i.e. things that make you less violent also make reduce cognitive skills). > If you were to suddenly conquer the world keeping the capitalistic system in place would make the most sen…

>So far, the minds we know are quite intractable, and can be affected in very crude ways Depends on your definition of crude. With a virtual mind, you probably have a good understanding of how things work and be able to edit them trivially. You can have a working mind without complete freedom or with limited capacities. Look at accident victims with brain damage who, say, can no longer do math or some other weird edg…

> With a virtual mind, you probably have a good understanding of how things work and be able to edit them trivially

We can't explain the inner workings of deep-learning NNs today (hell, it seems like we can't even explain emergent behavior in a simulation game), so you think we'll be able to understand and edit a mind? All signs point to the contrary.

> but there's no reason to assume that with artificial beings.

But there is. We can't even fine tune complex software that's a far cry from AI.

> Except guys like Musk are helping move that number farther and farther into the future

I seriously doubt that even the venerable Elon Musk could have such a profound effect on the progress of humanity.

> It just shows how easy it is for guys like Musk to make people scared.

Oh, Elon Musk scares me, but that has absolutely nothing to do with AI.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#68
post #54

As described, the experience doesn't really show that dogs use humans as tools, but rather that they look to their face for hints as to how to behave. This is the almost-universal behavior of low-status individuals to high-status ones (in a boardroom everyone looks at the boss to know how to react to a joke). So it could mean, not that dogs "use humans" but rather that they recognize humans (and specifically their tr…

>My guess is, if there are two humans in the room, a "recognized leader" and a "recognized non-leader", and if the non-leader knows how to solve the riddle, and the leader does not, then the riddle will never be solved because the dog will never seek the help of the non-leader. Why do you think that? Why not the dog search each available human for cues?

Because (IMHO) the dog doesn't search "humans" but "the leader", and if the leader can't help him, that's it -- it's not interested (still IMHO) in humans that it doesn't see as its master.

This should be testable and I'm surprised it apparently wasn't.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#69

when I was a kid, we had a pet dog who turned out to be half-wolf. when we learned he was half-wolf, we treated him differently, and a ton of serious behavioral problems vanished instantly. these researchers had their dogs and wolves treated identically, and concluded that "even after being raised by humans, wolves simply do not see humans as potential social partners." but my interpretation is that they learned that…

> if you show a wolf tons and tons of affection, like it was a dog, it thinks you're trying to kiss its ass and take a subordinate position to it.

I'm curious, what behaviors did you change? Did you have to be conscious of how much you pet it?

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#70

when I was a kid, we had a pet dog who turned out to be half-wolf. when we learned he was half-wolf, we treated him differently, and a ton of serious behavioral problems vanished instantly. these researchers had their dogs and wolves treated identically, and concluded that "even after being raised by humans, wolves simply do not see humans as potential social partners." but my interpretation is that they learned that…

> if you show a wolf tons and tons of affection, like it was a dog, it thinks you're trying to kiss its ass and take a subordinate position to it. I'm curious, what behaviors did you change? Did you have to be conscious of how much you pet it?

Yeah, you can't pet it as much as you would with a dog. Instead, when you first come home, you put your hand out, just a bit above its nose, so the dog/wolf can touch your hand with its nose. It's this very peaceful and utterly simple ritual whereby the dog/wolf acknowledges that you're in charge.

When my dad and I started doing this, the dog/wolf calmed down incredibly. Pretty sure he had thought that he was in charge of our pack, but the responsibility was stressing him out because had no idea how he was supposed to organize our hunting, and couldn't figure out where we went during the day, either.

You also can't let it beg, because it doesn't really understand begging as begging. You have to eat first, then give the dog/wolf their food, the same way that I think you do with a Rottweiller.

Post reply on HN