AI as we know it today is not "in the likeness of a human mind". It's statistics with sexy marketing. It's being used to screw people over, but so was regular statistics before we got the sexy kind. Or haven't you seen the history of the insurance industry?
We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
71–80 of 161 posts
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#72> To slim results. Elon Musk explained his new nihilism about the possibility of stopping AI advancement on the Joe Rogan podcast, when he said: “I tried to convince people to slow down. Slow down AI. To regulate AI. This was futile. I tried for years. Nobody listened. Nobody listened.” Rather rich coming from one of the self driving car market leaders. It certainly makes business sense to mislead academia and the po…
> Rather rich coming from one of the self driving car market leaders. You don't need anything close to strong AI to do a reasonable job of driving a car. It seems like 90% of the problem is object recognition, and even in terms of brain-equivalent logic that's a really low bar.
The remaining 10% that's 90% of the effort, is interrupting what is being done and changing context.
Without this capacity, "AI" is just a tiny shard of a complete mind.
I don't think anyone's really started grappling with this yet.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#73One of the problems the Butlerian Jihad ran up against, aside from the inevitable skirting of the lines from Richese and Ix (many machines on Ix, new machines), is that it runs directly counter to "Thou shalt not disfigure the soul." Replacement of AI with Mentats (as well as other narrow specialities) has done nothing but disfigure the soul. We see few Mentats -- aside from Paul and eventually another -- who are not…
Well put. But isn't the concern here with some utilities becoming ... people? Either way could result in disfigured souls. Is AI simply a pursuit of slavery without guilt?
I think at it's best, it's a pursuit of alien intelligence compatible but different from our own.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#74I think it would be easier to emphasize and teach philosophy and ethics of computer science. The problem is, they can't even do this for business students, so focusing on the existential risk of AI alone is a drop of rain in the ocean. If you follow the topic, of let's say, sustainability, then you know this is a huge blind spot in economics and business. Look at only palm oil production as an example. The current th…
Because ethics in engineering is mostly about codified rule compliance rather than the deep navel gazing taken by actual philosophy students. The latter also rarely yields useful answers. Crack open one of the "professional" engineering ethics guide books and 90% of it is thou shalt not build a bad bridge/engine/circuit because it is very bad and you should report your boss to the authorities if they do. I never unde…
I understand your POV, but in practice, there is far more nuance to the "self-righteous morality" you describe. Take the discussion about the ethics of gene editing, for example, specifically, the editing of the human germline.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#75> To slim results. Elon Musk explained his new nihilism about the possibility of stopping AI advancement on the Joe Rogan podcast, when he said: “I tried to convince people to slow down. Slow down AI. To regulate AI. This was futile. I tried for years. Nobody listened. Nobody listened.” Rather rich coming from one of the self driving car market leaders. It certainly makes business sense to mislead academia and the po…
This is so obvious. Incumbents would like nothing better than a new law that makes it harder to operate (within “reason”, of course) in their industry. It is amazing that more people here don’t see right through the manipulation.
Obvious self-interest isn't proof that something is false.
For instance, it is obviously self-interested of me to not want the world to be blown up with nuclear weapons.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#76One of the problems the Butlerian Jihad ran up against, aside from the inevitable skirting of the lines from Richese and Ix (many machines on Ix, new machines), is that it runs directly counter to "Thou shalt not disfigure the soul." Replacement of AI with Mentats (as well as other narrow specialities) has done nothing but disfigure the soul. We see few Mentats -- aside from Paul and eventually another -- who are not…
Well put. But isn't the concern here with some utilities becoming ... people? Either way could result in disfigured souls. Is AI simply a pursuit of slavery without guilt?
>Is AI simply a pursuit of slavery without guilt?
No, ultimately AI is the pursuit of conscious existence without associated burden of bodily suffering. Breaking out of the karma wheel so to speak.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#77I think it would be easier to emphasize and teach philosophy and ethics of computer science. The problem is, they can't even do this for business students, so focusing on the existential risk of AI alone is a drop of rain in the ocean. If you follow the topic, of let's say, sustainability, then you know this is a huge blind spot in economics and business. Look at only palm oil production as an example. The current th…
Because ethics in engineering is mostly about codified rule compliance rather than the deep navel gazing taken by actual philosophy students. The latter also rarely yields useful answers. Crack open one of the "professional" engineering ethics guide books and 90% of it is thou shalt not build a bad bridge/engine/circuit because it is very bad and you should report your boss to the authorities if they do. I never unde…
> The so-called "engineering ethics" field should rebrand and follow the financial industry
Wait, what? More like the finance industry’s ethics is a desirable direction?
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#78>His point was that there are no odds that would rationally allow a parent to bet the life of their child for a quarter. Human nature just doesn’t work that way, and it shouldn’t work that way.
People have done this for most of history. Working a farm, for example, is non-trivially dangerous and fairly low profit. Children often helped on the farm in rural communities from a young age. So every time you had your child work the farm you were rolling some dice. Over and over. But eventually those quarters add up to enough to put food on the table so it was rational to roll them.
This seems like the sort of philosophical argument only someone who has grown up a very privileged life and hasn't experienced much else would make. To them it is inherently wrong but to other it is simply part of life. Which inherently makes it no longer a universal axiom but a matter cultural upbringing.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#79One of the problems the Butlerian Jihad ran up against, aside from the inevitable skirting of the lines from Richese and Ix (many machines on Ix, new machines), is that it runs directly counter to "Thou shalt not disfigure the soul." Replacement of AI with Mentats (as well as other narrow specialities) has done nothing but disfigure the soul. We see few Mentats -- aside from Paul and eventually another -- who are not…
If there is literally no possible future with dignity for all consciousnesses... that'd be pretty depressing.
Re: We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rather rich coming from one of the self driving car market leaders. You don't need anything close to strong AI to do a reasonable job of driving a car. It seems like 90% of the problem is object recognition, and even in terms of brain-equivalent logic that's a really low bar.
The remaining 10% that's 90% of the effort, is interrupting what is being done and changing context. Without this capacity, "AI" is just a tiny shard of a complete mind. I don't think anyone's really started grappling with this yet.
That's really not the 10% I was talking about. We don't need that part to follow some lanes.
Or the other way to put it is that all the other code is the first 90%, and then the "remaining 10% that's 90% of the effort" is the object recognition that was supposedly easy.