Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

foundalis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#71

Post by astrofinch »

derleth wrote: post #66
astrofinch wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? 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 no…

Fair enough. Good to hear that you aren't averse to serious consideration of the far future in general.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#72

Post by micaeked »

rkaplan wrote: post #56
ars wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> of the indiscriminate use of A.I.-based warfare There is no A.I. based warfare - the drones are controlled by human pilots.

From wikipedia: "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot onboard. Its flight is either controlled autonomously by computers in the vehicle, or under the remote control of a navigator, or pilot (in military UAVs called a Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) on the ground or in another vehicle." They can be controlled by pilots remotely, but are also able to functio…

they are able to function on their own about as much as an autopilot is able to function on its own

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#73

Post by baddox »

bithive123 wrote: post #43

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…

I doubt it has anything to do with schizophrenia. I certainly read it as satire.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#74

Post by astrofinch »

bithive123 wrote: post #70
astrofinch wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Emphatically, no. I'm just highlighting, as others have pointed out, that the mere possibility of future humans using a "nuctroid" to smuggle a weapon is not philosophically interesting in the face of the inevitability that _humans_ will conspire to do harm (possibly by using robots to smuggle weapons, or jet planes, or other humans). The connection between his research and the hypothetical scenario is not demonstrat…

Glad I misinterpreted you!

Sounds as though we don't have any significant disagreements. I agree that he is assigning too much credence to this particular, very specific scenario.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#75

Post by baddox »

victork2 wrote: post #11

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…

> What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag?

Or, for that matter, a personal firearm?

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#77

Post by sciurus »

tzs wrote: post #23
busted wrote: post #13

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…

Isaac Asimov wrote a pretty good story about this. The plot is described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lets_Get_Together_(short_story) That gives away the ending, so if you like Asimov and might want to read the story, beware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Get_Together_%28short_s...

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#78

Post by [deleted] »

cageface wrote: post #61

Like many other posters, I find his specific worries a bit misplaced. However, I have had some reluctance to continue working on some of my own machine learning projects because I'm worried about the potential abuses of the technology. 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.

[deleted]

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#79

Post by astrodust »

Estragon wrote: post #45
victork2 wrote: post #11

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 .

If off-the-shelf AI has the intelligence of even a ten year old, imagine the amount of automated snooping that can go on.

Why worry about sifting for keywords in text messages when you can literally read all the text messages and infer meaning from them, even when it's deliberately obfuscated?

It could lead to a Brazil-like future where you're drawn in to a mess of trouble because you used too many euphemisms when texting your significant other. "I'm bringing home the package right now..."

What do we do to push back against this kind of thing? Drop off the grid as Stallman would have you try? Eject yourself from society as a whole? Or will it be practical at that point to have sufficiently private, well encrypted channels of communication that you won't have to worry too much about that sort of thing? Technology does cut both ways.

It doesn't require an emergent intelligence to cause a massive shift in the way we view technology. A number of low-level intelligences that can be easily replicated may be the first disruption.

Post reply on HN