4 ms·

You take the analogy too literally. The contingency is not on whether or not making AI is easy, it's about whether or not it is harmful. And yes, it is debata

You take the analogy too literally. The contingency is not on whether or not making AI is easy, it's about whether or not it is harmful. And yes, it is debatable, but as Tegmark puts it: relying on luck is probably not a good strategy.

robotresearcher 11y ago
What is the point of the sand-microwave analogy? I really don't get it. It can't be about microprocessors, since we've had those for decades and don't have murderous AI yet.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > What is the point of the sand-microwave analogy? I really don't get it. The point is to suggest something that nobody would do by accident, but almost anyone can do intentionally, and nobody can stop others from doing. It's a thought experiment: suppose that taking some common everyday substance, and using it with a common appliance many people have access to, would destroy the world. Right now, a very small handful of people have the ability to existentially threaten humanity. Fortunately, those people seem moderately unlikely to do so, and the process for becoming one of those people selects at least somewhat against the type of craziness that would hit the button just to see what happens, or because they genuinely want the world to end. Out of seven billion people, based on existing examples of human behavior, it seems exceedingly likely that there exist people who would intentionally choose to to destroy the world.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    Thanks. I am enlightened.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    Strong AI is not something that almost anyone can do intentionally, given that it's currently impossible. And any predictions on it becoming possible within a definite timeframe are total bullshit [1]. I think it's rather telling that the only people who make those kinds of optimistic predictions about neural networks do not have extensive research experience in / are experts in artificial neural networks. [1] I certainly think it will become possible, but the timeframe is indefinite. If we get really lucky and breakthrough after breakthrough is achieved, it could be within 10 years. But it could be 20 years, it could be 100 years.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      I absolutely agree. However, I also agree with the more general only-half-tongue-in-cheek line that "Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point."

robotresearcher 11y ago

What is the point of the sand-microwave analogy? I really don't get it. It can't be about microprocessors, since we've had those for decades and don't have murderous AI yet.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> What is the point of the sand-microwave analogy? I really don't get it. The point is to suggest something that nobody would do by accident, but almost anyone can do intentionally, and nobody can stop others from doing. It's a thought experiment: suppose that taking some common everyday substance, and using it with a common appliance many people have access to, would destroy the world. Right now, a very small handful of people have the ability to existentially threaten humanity. Fortunately, those people seem moderately unlikely to do so, and the process for becoming one of those people selects at least somewhat against the type of craziness that would hit the button just to see what happens, or because they genuinely want the world to end. Out of seven billion people, based on existing examples of human behavior, it seems exceedingly likely that there exist people who would intentionally choose to to destroy the world.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  Thanks. I am enlightened.
- argonaut 11y ago
  Strong AI is not something that almost anyone can do intentionally, given that it's currently impossible. And any predictions on it becoming possible within a definite timeframe are total bullshit [1]. I think it's rather telling that the only people who make those kinds of optimistic predictions about neural networks do not have extensive research experience in / are experts in artificial neural networks. [1] I certainly think it will become possible, but the timeframe is indefinite. If we get really lucky and breakthrough after breakthrough is achieved, it could be within 10 years. But it could be 20 years, it could be 100 years.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    I absolutely agree. However, I also agree with the more general only-half-tongue-in-cheek line that "Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point."