3 ms·

But maybe it think about art a lot. Or maybe we can't cut out sleep without harming our ability to reason. Or maybe the AI would be more interested in watching

But maybe it think about art a lot. Or maybe we can't cut out sleep without harming our ability to reason. Or maybe the AI would be more interested in watching youtube videos than working in the field of AI. The only human level general intelligence we have to look at is humans. Sure, it's possible that there's an easy way to build an artificial intelligence that doesn't need to sleep and isn't interested in art but that retains our ability to problem solve; but maybe their isn't. It's possible that we'll be able to easily figure out that alternative brain architecture and build in the near future; but given how little we still don't understand about our own brain (and the failure to mimic the brains of even simple creatures), it doesn't seem likely. It's possible that if we were able to overcome those major hurdles, a super John von Neumann would be able to wield enormous political power; or it's possible that, like the real von Neumann, it would focus mostly on its research. In order to get to the AI doomsday scenario, you have to assume that a lot of very unlikely things are all going to happen. And the main argument for them happening seems to be one of ignorance - "hey, we don't have any idea what this will be like, so we can't say that this improbable situation won't happen."

lmm 11y ago
I'd say your ideas are more unlikely. You can't generalize from one example. An AI that hasn't gone though evolution is extremely unlikely to have the exact set of complex wants and needs that humans have. And even if you're right, as Alexander says, in that case why the need to open-source it? If you think it's important that AI is open-source and not controlled by e.g. Facebook, that must be because you think AI is going to be powerful and effective. In which case it's as dangerous as he says.
- Chathamization 11y ago
  But it's not a generalization from one example; I'm giving a string of different possibilities, based on the fact that we only have a single point of data. People seem to readily except that particular scenario - the "AI as smart as John von Neumann on modafinil, that never thinks about food/sex/art/etc., that never sleeps, that has access to Wikipedia etc. at the speed of thought, and no morals" scenario - based on zero evidence that an AI would actually be like that. People seem more ready to accept the idea that an artificial general intelligence would act similar to it's portrayed in SciFi stories than accept that it might act similar to the other general intelligences we can observe (namely ourselves).
  - lmm 11y ago
    But all of your possibilities are ridiculously human-parochial. And they all boil down to "the AI might have diverse interests", which is very unlikely - we have them as a result of evolution, but an AI created by human programmers would very likely have only one driving interest. And whether that interest was food, sex, art, or some particular notion of morality, the result would be equally terrible.

lmm 11y ago

I'd say your ideas are more unlikely. You can't generalize from one example. An AI that hasn't gone though evolution is extremely unlikely to have the exact set of complex wants and needs that humans have. And even if you're right, as Alexander says, in that case why the need to open-source it? If you think it's important that AI is open-source and not controlled by e.g. Facebook, that must be because you think AI is going to be powerful and effective. In which case it's as dangerous as he says.

Chathamization 11y ago
But it's not a generalization from one example; I'm giving a string of different possibilities, based on the fact that we only have a single point of data. People seem to readily except that particular scenario - the "AI as smart as John von Neumann on modafinil, that never thinks about food/sex/art/etc., that never sleeps, that has access to Wikipedia etc. at the speed of thought, and no morals" scenario - based on zero evidence that an AI would actually be like that. People seem more ready to accept the idea that an artificial general intelligence would act similar to it's portrayed in SciFi stories than accept that it might act similar to the other general intelligences we can observe (namely ourselves).
- lmm 11y ago
  But all of your possibilities are ridiculously human-parochial. And they all boil down to "the AI might have diverse interests", which is very unlikely - we have them as a result of evolution, but an AI created by human programmers would very likely have only one driving interest. And whether that interest was food, sex, art, or some particular notion of morality, the result would be equally terrible.