5 ms·

This article seems very confused. Most importantly, it doesn't distinguish between what AI can do right now, and what the theoretical limit of AI is, in 50 or 1

This article seems very confused. Most importantly, it doesn't distinguish between what AI can do right now, and what the theoretical limit of AI is, in 50 or 100 or 500 years. Everyone agrees that AI today, and in the near future, doesn't even vaguely resemble a "person". That doesn't imply that much more powerful, "person-like" AI will forever be impossible. Airplanes weren't a practical means of travel in 1910, but by 1960 it was a different story, and some people in 1910 had already realized that plane travel was coming. Secondly, it does a lot of handwaving about "religion". I am an atheist, and think most religious beliefs are irrational. However, that doesn't mean that every belief that "looks like" religion (in some vague, poorly-defined way) is irrational. The Aztec religion was false, but Hernan Cortes and his army of men with guns was very real. It would have been stupid for Aztec atheists to ignore Cortes because "that sounded like religion". The right question to ask is "is this claim supported by the evidence?", not "how much like religion does this claim sound?".

stepvhen 11y ago
Religion itself does a lot of hand waving, and people tend to talk about the "existential threat" of AI with a lot of hand waving. Its an easy comparison to make. Also, a claim, by itself, can't be a religion. It would need people to attach to it with a certain fervor. >it doesn't distinguish between what AI can do right now, and what the theoretical limit of AI is, in 50 or 100 or 500 years. AI, by itself, cannot interact with the physical world, past bit-flipping registers on a cpu (a negligible action). For AI to be a threat, in my opinion, it would need to be coupled with some form of physical manifestation that could, in some fashion, not be under the control of a human. Until that happens, we can just unplug the machine. And we are already seeing the intense difficulty of robotics, making good robots, and interfacing with the real world. Historically, everything with AI is much, much harder than originally thought.
- drakenot 11y ago
  I wouldn't underestimate the effects that just bit-flipping registers on a cpu can have, even today. In the future, with increased automation, the effects of controlling those bits will be even more severe.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  There's a pretty cool story about underestimating bit-flipping :). http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ Besides, just look at us, humans. Who would ever build an AI and then keep it away from any means of communication? That wouldn't be a very useful AI. If one wants that, one can pick a rock and imagine it has a mind. Or talk to a cat.
  - stepvhen 11y ago
    That was a fun read.
- pixl97 11y ago
  >AI, by itself, cannot interact with the physical world, past bit-flipping registers on a cpu (a negligible action). For AI to be a threat, in my opinion, it would need to be coupled with some form of physical manifestation that could, in some fashion, not be under the control of a human. Now that's just silly. An AI does not need a body for any reason. What it needs is a voice, software is pretty good at simulating that, and we can simulate images and video pretty well too. If an AI can become a master in the art of persuasion (say coupled with a great hacking ability) it could easily convince people to act in its name (much like old books do now) and pay off others do to its bidding.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Indeed. On the Internet, nobody knows that the person ordering and paying for your services is in fact a superintelligent AI :).
- pjc50 11y ago
  we can just unplug the machine A look at the history of managing downsides of industrial technology tells us that we can't or won't "unplug" it if it's still profitable or an integral part of a vital system. Carbon dioxide changing the climate and acidifying the oceans? Unplug the coal-fired power stations! Overuse of antibiotics, especially in animals, leading to deaths in humans? How about we don't do that! The first "hostile" AI will only be selectively hostile. Perhaps something like automated "redlining" racial discrimination. Some sort of system where the benefits accrue to investors while the disadvantages are spread around. AI "pollution".
pron 11y ago
> Airplanes weren't a practical means of travel in 1910, but by 1960 it was a different story, and some people in 1910 had already realized that plane travel was coming. Indeed, arguing about the potential threats of air-travel in 1910 (let alone in 1810) would have been silly. The point isn't whether or not AI is possible (or could pose a serious threat), but whether or not discussing it as a threat given our current, near-zero, understanding of it is productive. Jaron Lanier argues that not only is it not productive, it distracts from more pressing challenges related to machine learning. > I am an atheist, and think most religious beliefs are irrational. However, that doesn't mean that every belief that "looks like" religion (in some vague, poorly-defined way) is irrational. You think now that religion is irrational, but when most religions were established there was little reason to believe they were. As to the "vague, poorly-defined way" all I can say is that religion has many definitions[1]. The famous anthropologist, Clifford Geertz defined it as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." Another famous anthropologist said (again, quoting from Wikipedia) that narrowing the definition to mean the belief in a supreme deity or judgment after death or idolatry and so on, would exclude many peoples from the category of religious, and thus "has the fault of identifying religion rather with particular developments than with the deeper motive which underlies them". It is therefore common practice among social researchers to define religion based more on its motivation rather than specific content. If you believe in a super-human being and an afterlife and not for scientific reasons (and currently AI is not science, let alone dangerous AI), that may certainly be a good candidate for a religious or quasi-religious belief. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
- Houshalter 11y ago
  >The point isn't whether or not AI is possible (or could pose a serious threat), but whether or not discussing it as a threat given our current, near-zero, understanding of it is productive. It definitely is productive. We can either slow research on AI, or we can research AI safety now. Or both. There's no reason we have to just accept our fate and do nothing, or just hope everything works out when the time comes.
Avshalom 11y ago
On the other hand look where airplanes are now. It turns out that even though it's theoretically possible to have supersonic human/cargo transport we gave up on it because it turned out not be economical. Hell we were supposed to have suborbital launches, anywhere in the world 20 minutes.

stepvhen 11y ago

Religion itself does a lot of hand waving, and people tend to talk about the "existential threat" of AI with a lot of hand waving. Its an easy comparison to make. Also, a claim, by itself, can't be a religion. It would need people to attach to it with a certain fervor. >it doesn't distinguish between what AI can do right now, and what the theoretical limit of AI is, in 50 or 100 or 500 years. AI, by itself, cannot interact with the physical world, past bit-flipping registers on a cpu (a negligible action). For AI to be a threat, in my opinion, it would need to be coupled with some form of physical manifestation that could, in some fashion, not be under the control of a human. Until that happens, we can just unplug the machine. And we are already seeing the intense difficulty of robotics, making good robots, and interfacing with the real world. Historically, everything with AI is much, much harder than originally thought.

drakenot 11y ago
I wouldn't underestimate the effects that just bit-flipping registers on a cpu can have, even today. In the future, with increased automation, the effects of controlling those bits will be even more severe.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
There's a pretty cool story about underestimating bit-flipping :). http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ Besides, just look at us, humans. Who would ever build an AI and then keep it away from any means of communication? That wouldn't be a very useful AI. If one wants that, one can pick a rock and imagine it has a mind. Or talk to a cat.
- stepvhen 11y ago
  That was a fun read.
pixl97 11y ago
>AI, by itself, cannot interact with the physical world, past bit-flipping registers on a cpu (a negligible action). For AI to be a threat, in my opinion, it would need to be coupled with some form of physical manifestation that could, in some fashion, not be under the control of a human. Now that's just silly. An AI does not need a body for any reason. What it needs is a voice, software is pretty good at simulating that, and we can simulate images and video pretty well too. If an AI can become a master in the art of persuasion (say coupled with a great hacking ability) it could easily convince people to act in its name (much like old books do now) and pay off others do to its bidding.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Indeed. On the Internet, nobody knows that the person ordering and paying for your services is in fact a superintelligent AI :).
pjc50 11y ago
we can just unplug the machine A look at the history of managing downsides of industrial technology tells us that we can't or won't "unplug" it if it's still profitable or an integral part of a vital system. Carbon dioxide changing the climate and acidifying the oceans? Unplug the coal-fired power stations! Overuse of antibiotics, especially in animals, leading to deaths in humans? How about we don't do that! The first "hostile" AI will only be selectively hostile. Perhaps something like automated "redlining" racial discrimination. Some sort of system where the benefits accrue to investors while the disadvantages are spread around. AI "pollution".

pron 11y ago

> Airplanes weren't a practical means of travel in 1910, but by 1960 it was a different story, and some people in 1910 had already realized that plane travel was coming. Indeed, arguing about the potential threats of air-travel in 1910 (let alone in 1810) would have been silly. The point isn't whether or not AI is possible (or could pose a serious threat), but whether or not discussing it as a threat given our current, near-zero, understanding of it is productive. Jaron Lanier argues that not only is it not productive, it distracts from more pressing challenges related to machine learning. > I am an atheist, and think most religious beliefs are irrational. However, that doesn't mean that every belief that "looks like" religion (in some vague, poorly-defined way) is irrational. You think now that religion is irrational, but when most religions were established there was little reason to believe they were. As to the "vague, poorly-defined way" all I can say is that religion has many definitions[1]. The famous anthropologist, Clifford Geertz defined it as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." Another famous anthropologist said (again, quoting from Wikipedia) that narrowing the definition to mean the belief in a supreme deity or judgment after death or idolatry and so on, would exclude many peoples from the category of religious, and thus "has the fault of identifying religion rather with particular developments than with the deeper motive which underlies them". It is therefore common practice among social researchers to define religion based more on its motivation rather than specific content. If you believe in a super-human being and an afterlife and not for scientific reasons (and currently AI is not science, let alone dangerous AI), that may certainly be a good candidate for a religious or quasi-religious belief. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Houshalter 11y ago
>The point isn't whether or not AI is possible (or could pose a serious threat), but whether or not discussing it as a threat given our current, near-zero, understanding of it is productive. It definitely is productive. We can either slow research on AI, or we can research AI safety now. Or both. There's no reason we have to just accept our fate and do nothing, or just hope everything works out when the time comes.

Avshalom 11y ago

On the other hand look where airplanes are now. It turns out that even though it's theoretically possible to have supersonic human/cargo transport we gave up on it because it turned out not be economical. Hell we were supposed to have suborbital launches, anywhere in the world 20 minutes.