91–100 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't fear mongering, it's simply a question of due diligence. AI is a big unknown (unlike viruses, comets, nuclear weapons, incidentally, all of which we have at least some grasp of -- ever seen an AI?)
AI is also, at present (and in the foreseeable future) science fiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't fear mongering, it's simply a question of due diligence. AI is a big unknown (unlike viruses, comets, nuclear weapons, incidentally, all of which we have at least some grasp of -- ever seen an AI?)
AI is also, at present (and in the foreseeable future) science fiction.
It’s not clear how sophisticated a neural network needs to be in order to yield AGI. It could be very simple (then you would be wrong with high probability), or it could extremely complex (then you would be right with high probability).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fool, that's precisely anti science. Pics or it didn't happen. If they want to fund or partake in research, dope sauce, if the wanna just talk, then they get dismissed.
Thank you for the compliment. Stephen Hawking partakes in research, with Intel, mostly on speech recognition, to help him being able to better express himself. Elon Musk funds several startups in the field of advanced AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that a singularity by definition can never be reached. It's like the speed of light or absolute zero; infinity just out of reach no matter how much energy you spend trying to get there.
When talking about AI or technology in general the singularity isn't a mathematical one. John von Neumann who used it in this context first said: > "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue" It's a different use of the wo…
That below-absolute-zero is in the quantum sense, not the classical sense. Entropy cannot be stopped (absolute zero) in the classical sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that a singularity by definition can never be reached. It's like the speed of light or absolute zero; infinity just out of reach no matter how much energy you spend trying to get there.
A black hole is a singularity. You can reach it, you just can't come back from it.
I'm tired of this fear mongering. There are hundreds of viruses that could end the human race. There are millions of rocks in space that could end the human race. There are people that could end the human race with push of a button. Human race could be history by the time I stop writing this rant. AI has a great potential and could help us prevent most of our existential threats. AI is not a god. It will not suddenly…
Fear mongering? This isn't Sarah Palin and her death panels. I'm sure Hawking and Musk are smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us, so maybe it's worth listening to them rather than dismissing out of hand. I don't see what they would have to personally gain by raising the alarm here. Read Superintelligence by Bostrom to help see where they're coming from. It doesn't think AI will be evil eithe…
A lot of people didn't understand this about 2001: Hal was actually doing the logical thing, he was doing his job. The human was unreliable and was indeed endangering the mission. Hal was a tool of mankind, just like the bone that the ape uses to kill in the first scene.
In the same way when we talk about the dangers of AI we tend to personify them and expect them to be either intelligently nefarious (skynet, matrix) or out of control (bug, malfunction).
What we don't imagine is that we might end up being on the wrong end of a perfectly rational decision, or that we don't realize the consequences of the process that we set them to do.
Why is this submission not on the front-page anymore? Was it removed by the moderators? Or were there too many comments in a short amount of time? Too many killer arguments? This seems like an important topic to discuss. I don’t get it.
It's interesting how people so smart in one field can be so ignorant in others, to the point of not being aware of their own ignorance. While science fiction and hollywood really love the idea of this magical moment where AI is created and becomes self aware and destroys us all, real AI is so far away that these concerns are laughable. It's just like all those dummies worrying the LHC would destroy the earth. It's fe…
How do you know it's far away? If I have to side with you or Musk (extremely intelligent engineer with insider knowledge of advancements), I'm siding with Musk.
From what I've seen on Musk about this before, he's much more measured in his comments than Hawking is in this article. Maybe Hawking is being misrepresented.
When I've seen Musk make comments about it he talks about it in the way that people talk about the sun eventually expanding and swallowing the earth. It's not something that's going to happen really soon.
We're not even anywhere near an AI that can simulate the simplest living organisms let alone a truly intelligent AI. It's absurd to worry about a Skynet like scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fear mongering? This isn't Sarah Palin and her death panels. I'm sure Hawking and Musk are smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us, so maybe it's worth listening to them rather than dismissing out of hand. I don't see what they would have to personally gain by raising the alarm here. Read Superintelligence by Bostrom to help see where they're coming from. It doesn't think AI will be evil eithe…
I'm sure Hawking and Musk are smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us... That is not a reasonable argument. They have demonstrated nothing but a fear and postulation and we cannot accept authority as evidence. Thus is the nature of science.
I never said we should defer to their 'authority' either. But it is a conversation worth having, and the sooner the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. If you could run a machine that performed equally well in a real-world environment as a human, at a lower cost than it costs to feed and pay a human laborer, it would be a no-brainer to invest in thousands of these machines to perform various consulting services that are bought and sold over the internet. And here I've only touched the slice of the world economy that exclusively consists of information-in…
Yes and no. Right to a certain degree, but AI taking away jobs may mean an economic chaos in third-world nations?
It is incredibly myopic to believe that the Western would would be shielded from the impact of such a development. But this is really beside the point I wanted to bring up. My key point is that this argument shows that AI could constitute a threat to humanity in the long term, and that it is necessary to provide more funding for research on AI safety. The economic incentives will bring this stuff to the center stage once it becomes possible, and by then we better have a damn good idea how to ensure that super-human AI keeps acting in our interests.