4 ms·

From the presentation: "There's a lot of talk about how AI is going to totally replace humans... (But) I like to think that AI is going to actually make humans

From the presentation: "There's a lot of talk about how AI is going to totally replace humans... (But) I like to think that AI is going to actually make humans better at what they do ..." Then immediately he continues that "So it turns out that using deep learning techniques we've already gotten to better than human performance [....] at these highly complex tasks that used to take highly, highly trained individuals... These are perfect examples of how deep learning can get to better than human performance... 'cause they're just taking data and they're making categories.." I think that brushing off the dramatic social changes that this technology will catalyze is irresponsible. One application developed by one startup in California (or wherever) could make tens of millions of people redundant all over the world overnight. How will deep learning apps affect the healthcare systems all over the world? What about IT, design, music, financial, transportation, postal services... nearly every field will be affected by it. Who should the affected people turn to ? Their respective states ? The politicians ? Take up arms and make a revolution ? My point is that technologists should be ready to answer these questions. We can't just outsource these problems to other layers of society - after all, they're one step behind the innovation and the consequence of technology is only visible after it's already deeply rooted in our daily habits. We should become more involved in the political process all over the world (!) - at least with some practical advice to how the lawmakers should adapt the laws of their countries to avoid economic or social disturbances due to the introduction of a certain global AI system.

vonklaus 10y ago
I just listened to Altman discussing this at a recent interview and it is obviously something he thought a lot about. If you can't watch the video he says that ai is an amazing resource and YC is funding a basic income study in oakland as well as open ai. He also points out that doing a task that a machine or computer do is pointless. I find myself agreeing with what I believe his conclusion was; we (humans) want ai and will all be better off for it. we are heading into a shift on the order of the industrial revolution and the best course is unknowable. we should harness this technology, try to distribute it bu collaborative building & information dissemination and study the idea of personal fullfillment & a basic quality of life. In short, the answer is definitely not to stop working on it because it is just basic game theory that someone/entity will not. We need to leverage to fix the problem it creates & learn how to allocate our resources by studying this immeadiately. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FuijDaj8DvA http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FuijDaj8DvA
- justsaysmthng 10y ago
  > He also points out that doing a task that a machine or computer do is pointless. This is true for some tasks - but not true for others, even if AI could in theory do them better. For example, a medical doctor. It is easy to see this as just a job, but it's so much more than that - it's the culmination of 20 years of studies, a childhood dream, the feeling of being important and useful to society, the "thank you" from the patient, the social circle, the social status... There are many people who actually enjoy their jobs, because it gives them meaning and satisfaction. Another example - musicians. I see so many "AI composer" projects out there - algorithms which compose music... I think these people are kind of missing the point .. It's easy to see music as notes and tempo, but it is much more than that. It is a medium, a tool, through which the listener can connect to the artist and experience his emotional state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY Having an algorithm on the other side feels so fake.. artificial..
  - armitron 10y ago
    Only because your mental map is old, archaic and will not allow you to see things any other way. So what is the right course according to you? Do we set an artificial threshold at some point in the future, where these jobs will be swapped to AI? Do we simply never replace them with AI? Do we slow progress in order to cater to people's obsolete expectations (don't want to hurt their feelings after all). No. Problems will appear and we will solve them. It is our duty to the universe, to ride the wave and see it all the way through. EDIT: Virtual Reality will solve a lot of the "meaning of life/emotional satisfaction" issues that creep up. And VR is getting a jump .... right about now. It's quite amusing, just thinking about the timing.
    - justsaysmthng 10y ago
      > Only because your mental map is old, archaic and will not allow you to see things any other way. I've done my fair share of acid and mushroom trips, explored the DMT hyperspace dozens of times, travelled through time and space into alternate realities, met and communicated with biological and machine beings and have thoroughly explored our planet. My mind is wide open :) Since you mentioned the Universe, then it would help to remember that in "galactic" terms, we've just climbed down from the trees a couple of hundred thousand years ago and our technology is still extremely primitive and it is not at all a proven fact that we can survive it. More down to Earth, what I suggested in the parent post is that people who are bringing this technology forward should also be the people who come up with the political and social proposals for changes necessary to accommodate it. We can't just unleash these "technological atomic bombs", which fundamentally change the social game and then expect the politicians to handle the fallout. Tech people and scientists need not stay on the sidelines any more - they must be the designers not only of technology, but of the social system too, since the two are merging anyway... Of course this can't be "enforced", rather, it's an ethical thing to do on the part of tech companies, justified by the fact that deep down, our motivation is to make the world "better".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eva1984 10y ago
I resonate with this...but the progress will not stop. If US is not going to do this, China will, Japan will, and then US will need to follow then import it. There is no way back. How it will shift the society, we will need to see. I don't think technologists can control it.
choosername 10y ago
At that point it's a problem for AI to solve. When supply outweighs demand, selection will happen and that will be fueled by analytics. The incentive to catching the rest in a soft social net then is uncertain. In those terms, surely, politics aren't always benevolent. The trend of the spread between the rich and the poor growing is significant.

vonklaus 10y ago

I just listened to Altman discussing this at a recent interview and it is obviously something he thought a lot about. If you can't watch the video he says that ai is an amazing resource and YC is funding a basic income study in oakland as well as open ai. He also points out that doing a task that a machine or computer do is pointless. I find myself agreeing with what I believe his conclusion was; we (humans) want ai and will all be better off for it. we are heading into a shift on the order of the industrial revolution and the best course is unknowable. we should harness this technology, try to distribute it bu collaborative building & information dissemination and study the idea of personal fullfillment & a basic quality of life. In short, the answer is definitely not to stop working on it because it is just basic game theory that someone/entity will not. We need to leverage to fix the problem it creates & learn how to allocate our resources by studying this immeadiately. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FuijDaj8DvA http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FuijDaj8DvA

justsaysmthng 10y ago
> He also points out that doing a task that a machine or computer do is pointless. This is true for some tasks - but not true for others, even if AI could in theory do them better. For example, a medical doctor. It is easy to see this as just a job, but it's so much more than that - it's the culmination of 20 years of studies, a childhood dream, the feeling of being important and useful to society, the "thank you" from the patient, the social circle, the social status... There are many people who actually enjoy their jobs, because it gives them meaning and satisfaction. Another example - musicians. I see so many "AI composer" projects out there - algorithms which compose music... I think these people are kind of missing the point .. It's easy to see music as notes and tempo, but it is much more than that. It is a medium, a tool, through which the listener can connect to the artist and experience his emotional state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY Having an algorithm on the other side feels so fake.. artificial..
- armitron 10y ago
  Only because your mental map is old, archaic and will not allow you to see things any other way. So what is the right course according to you? Do we set an artificial threshold at some point in the future, where these jobs will be swapped to AI? Do we simply never replace them with AI? Do we slow progress in order to cater to people's obsolete expectations (don't want to hurt their feelings after all). No. Problems will appear and we will solve them. It is our duty to the universe, to ride the wave and see it all the way through. EDIT: Virtual Reality will solve a lot of the "meaning of life/emotional satisfaction" issues that creep up. And VR is getting a jump .... right about now. It's quite amusing, just thinking about the timing.
  - justsaysmthng 10y ago
    > Only because your mental map is old, archaic and will not allow you to see things any other way. I've done my fair share of acid and mushroom trips, explored the DMT hyperspace dozens of times, travelled through time and space into alternate realities, met and communicated with biological and machine beings and have thoroughly explored our planet. My mind is wide open :) Since you mentioned the Universe, then it would help to remember that in "galactic" terms, we've just climbed down from the trees a couple of hundred thousand years ago and our technology is still extremely primitive and it is not at all a proven fact that we can survive it. More down to Earth, what I suggested in the parent post is that people who are bringing this technology forward should also be the people who come up with the political and social proposals for changes necessary to accommodate it. We can't just unleash these "technological atomic bombs", which fundamentally change the social game and then expect the politicians to handle the fallout. Tech people and scientists need not stay on the sidelines any more - they must be the designers not only of technology, but of the social system too, since the two are merging anyway... Of course this can't be "enforced", rather, it's an ethical thing to do on the part of tech companies, justified by the fact that deep down, our motivation is to make the world "better".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

eva1984 10y ago

I resonate with this...but the progress will not stop. If US is not going to do this, China will, Japan will, and then US will need to follow then import it. There is no way back. How it will shift the society, we will need to see. I don't think technologists can control it.

choosername 10y ago

At that point it's a problem for AI to solve. When supply outweighs demand, selection will happen and that will be fueled by analytics. The incentive to catching the rest in a soft social net then is uncertain. In those terms, surely, politics aren't always benevolent. The trend of the spread between the rich and the poor growing is significant.