4 ms·
> The second point is that they would have no reason to keep us around. They would do whatever we programmed them to do, to the point of absurdity. This is whe
by maldusiecle 11y ago
> The second point is that they would have no reason to keep us around. They would do whatever we programmed them to do, to the point of absurdity.
This is where this line of reasoning completely falls apart for me. Any complex system is going to do unexpected things that weren't deliberately designed for. My laptop computed doesn't do "whatever it was programmed to, to the point of absurdity." Why would you expect a program complex enough to simulate the human mind to act in such a predictable way, when none of the much simpler programs we already have act that way?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoNah, that's the key. Your laptop is not doing what it was designed to, it is doing things exactly the way it was built. That's the 101 of programming - programs follow what you wrote, not what you meant. > Why would you expect a program complex enough to simulate the human mind to act in such a predictable way, when none of the much simpler programs we already have act that way? Exactly. We suck at making complex programs do what we want them to. This is the source of worry.
- Houshalter 11y agoYour laptop computer does do what it was programmed to do, to the point of absurdity. It will keep executing a computer bug over and ever. Despite the fact that isn't what you intended, it still executes the code anyway. An AI will continue to execute, even when it stops doing what we intended it to do. Computers don't care about our original intentions, they just execute code. A program "complex enough to simulate the human mind" would probably have even more bugs that result in unintentional behavior. Not fewer.