4 ms·

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 mak

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".

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".