4 ms·

> For those interested in the "AI threat" discussion, here's an excellent thread on Quora about it with answers from Andrew Ng, Yoshua Bengio, and Pedro Domingo

> For those interested in the "AI threat" discussion, here's an excellent thread on Quora about it with answers from Andrew Ng, Yoshua Bengio, and Pedro Domingos (along with other random opinions): https://www.quora.com/Is-AI-an-existential-threat-to-humanit.. https://www.quora.com/Is-AI-an-existential-threat-to-humanit.... I read Andrew Ng's answer on quora - but I'm not sure it is really addressing the stronger arguments or concerns that would suggest 'AI may be existential threat to humanity' as much as a straw-man of the 'evil super-intelligence', with all respect, it's hard to call this an interesting or involved answer.

solipsism 11y ago
Why would he address those concerns? He was pretty clear that he believes it's silly to even think about the "problem", since it's so far from being a threat. In fact, I would guess that fear of the "AI threat" roughly correlates with ignorance of the state of AI. And it might correlate with number of science fiction movies watched.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  You think that the numerous experts who signed this letter expressing concerns: http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ have these concerns from watching too many sci-fi movies about 'evil super-intelligence'?
  - solipsism 11y ago
    Have you ever actually read the letter? It's not a dooms-day letter. It doesn't talk about impending doom. It says basically, "there is potential for great power, let's wield it responsibly." This is not controversial. I would sign this letter and I don't think AI poses an existential threat.
    - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
      That was rather the point of my first post? That those whom have these concerns are mostly not worried about the fantastical version of 'evil super-intelligence' (although they are worried that AI could be an existential-threat) - of course you can address the most extreme-position presented and call it silly, but I don't think that's adding much to my understanding of the problem. For example I think a very serious concern is surrendering human decision making to machine-learning in the areas where big data-sets can be very widely applicable (crime, insurance, employment, immigration, finance) - loosing control of our own systems, to perhaps even provably better decision making is a totally not fantastic possibility. But if the response to this is a malicious super-intelligence won't send a robot with automatic weapons to your house in the next hundred years, I'm supposed to feel reassured?
      - solipsism 11y ago
        You're missing what I'm saying. There's no reason to think that most people who signed that letter have any concerns. The letter is written such that signing it is basically an affirmation that we should use AI to help society. You started by wondering why Ng didn't address the concerns. It's because experts don't tend to be concerned. The letter was your evidence to the contrary, and it is not convincing.
        forgotpwtomain 11y ago
        > You started by wondering why Ng didn't address the concerns. It's because experts don't tend to be concerned. While not everyone who signed is necessarily concerned about 'existential dangers to humanity' or is an expert specifically in AI, for some signers both are definitely true - for an example you can cross reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici...
spangry 11y ago
That link leads to a 404. That aside, it would be disappointing if it's addressing the 'evil killer robots' straw-man rather than the 'increasingly efficient optimiser that kills everyone as a by-product of its optimisation process' issue. Even if we give strong AI seemingly benign 'goals' (optimisation targets), there's a non-trivial chance it will result in the extinction of the human race. One example I've seen: imagine if we invented strong AI and gave it the goal 'eradicate cancer in humans'. The most efficient way to achieve this goal would probably be to vaporize all currently alive humans, thus eradicating cancer in humans for all time.

solipsism 11y ago

Why would he address those concerns? He was pretty clear that he believes it's silly to even think about the "problem", since it's so far from being a threat. In fact, I would guess that fear of the "AI threat" roughly correlates with ignorance of the state of AI. And it might correlate with number of science fiction movies watched.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago
You think that the numerous experts who signed this letter expressing concerns: http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ have these concerns from watching too many sci-fi movies about 'evil super-intelligence'?
- solipsism 11y ago
  Have you ever actually read the letter? It's not a dooms-day letter. It doesn't talk about impending doom. It says basically, "there is potential for great power, let's wield it responsibly." This is not controversial. I would sign this letter and I don't think AI poses an existential threat.
  - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
    That was rather the point of my first post? That those whom have these concerns are mostly not worried about the fantastical version of 'evil super-intelligence' (although they are worried that AI could be an existential-threat) - of course you can address the most extreme-position presented and call it silly, but I don't think that's adding much to my understanding of the problem. For example I think a very serious concern is surrendering human decision making to machine-learning in the areas where big data-sets can be very widely applicable (crime, insurance, employment, immigration, finance) - loosing control of our own systems, to perhaps even provably better decision making is a totally not fantastic possibility. But if the response to this is a malicious super-intelligence won't send a robot with automatic weapons to your house in the next hundred years, I'm supposed to feel reassured?
    - solipsism 11y ago
      You're missing what I'm saying. There's no reason to think that most people who signed that letter have any concerns. The letter is written such that signing it is basically an affirmation that we should use AI to help society. You started by wondering why Ng didn't address the concerns. It's because experts don't tend to be concerned. The letter was your evidence to the contrary, and it is not convincing.
      - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
        > You started by wondering why Ng didn't address the concerns. It's because experts don't tend to be concerned. While not everyone who signed is necessarily concerned about 'existential dangers to humanity' or is an expert specifically in AI, for some signers both are definitely true - for an example you can cross reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici...

spangry 11y ago

That link leads to a 404. That aside, it would be disappointing if it's addressing the 'evil killer robots' straw-man rather than the 'increasingly efficient optimiser that kills everyone as a by-product of its optimisation process' issue. Even if we give strong AI seemingly benign 'goals' (optimisation targets), there's a non-trivial chance it will result in the extinction of the human race. One example I've seen: imagine if we invented strong AI and gave it the goal 'eradicate cancer in humans'. The most efficient way to achieve this goal would probably be to vaporize all currently alive humans, thus eradicating cancer in humans for all time.