8 ms·
"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind"
by skurilyak 10y ago
"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind"
-- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe machines have clearly made a deal with the reptilians and infiltrated Stanford. :)
- threepipeproblm 10y agoWhat immediately follows is rather sobering, too: "No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future."
- ThomPete 10y agoThis is the major problem with the line of reasoning. A tiger doesn't need to be self aware or have intent to be dangerous.
- soperj 10y agoPretty sure the tiger has intent on eating something...
- ThomPete 10y agoSure but it doesn't need to be as smart as humans to hurt us and neither do AI it just needs to be everywhere. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
- the8472 10y agoAre you thinking about grey goo? The paperclip maximizer generally refers to a AGI with a value system that is not aligned with humans. An AGI smart enough to achieve its goals (making paperclips) so efficiently that it becomes a threat to humans through sheer resource consumption. So it's not a good example of dumb-tiger-AIs occasionally becoming a threat to humans, which still on average are able to outcompete a tiger with ease.
- ThomPete 10y agoI am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us because in order for them to be helpful they get so much power over us that their continued improvements become fundamental to our survival beyond the scope of our ability to understand it. The "system" does not need to have intent or be even closely aware to be dangerous to humans. And so the article sets up a false premise if the quoted conclusion is to be the base of judging whether it's going to be a threat to us or not.
- paavokoya 10y agoI am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us Reminds me of post 9/11 "homeland security" measures
- zardo 10y agoWhat about corporations? They are self-sustaining non-human information processing systems with long term goals, and they are subject to selection pressure. They are rudimentary humans-in-the-loop artificial life.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoI think the most likely route to destructive AI is a corporation with an AI CEO - possibly one that takes over from a human CEO in a boardroom coup. Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics. This may sound like science fiction, but as competence increases shareholders - who typically are only passingly interested in moral issues - are likely to demand the increased returns an AI CEO can bring.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. But AIs don't, and corporate officers must be persons (natural persons, even -- a corporation can't be a corporate officer.)
- cLeEOGPw 10y agoA person could be made a mediator of AI to overcome it.
- zardo 10y agoMany CEOs are already just trying to operate as a share price optimization algorithm. They don't choose to inject human values into their organizations.
- oldmanjay 10y agoThat you don't share their values does not make them non-human
- js8 10y agoI was thinking about a scenario where some crazy billionaire would build an autonomous AI that would operate a fleet of secretive hedge funds and financial trading companies. The AI wouldn't have any need to know what these companies - staffed by real people - are actually doing. It would just try to maximize profit and it would just kill the companies that would deviate too far from the norm, and build another companies in their place. No CEO of any of the companies would ever see this "investor" in person, everything would be sent over email, and done to the billionaire's name. The billionaire would eventually die and those companies would continue to operate completely autonomously.
- ThomPete 10y agoUnderstanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Final3.gif http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the long.
- riboflava 10y agoAGI progress is unlikely to be limited by some exponential curve that we're just not far enough along though. Rather it seems more limited by some key insight no one has found yet. Sure we'll be able to retrofit some exponential curve onto it after the fact, since when it appears it will change everything drastically. But this is in contrast to e.g. the human genome project which started out with the expectation of a specific exponential curve to give an estimate for project completion. Your more general point I agree with, however, it's not enough to dismiss the report.
- maxerickson 10y agoSelf driving cars were serious research more than 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge Several vehicles finished the 2005 course. The one that finished first won a $2 million prize.
- vhold 10y agoI think it's implied throughout all their predictions only apply up to 2030, so I think that is a fairly safe bet. Giving this the headline of "One Hundred Year Study.." was confusing. That's the name of the ongoing effort to do this kind of analysis, but the paper is named "Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030"
- skurilyak 10y agoMy original headline was: "Stanford Releases 28,000-Word Report on Artificial Intelligence (AI)", but one of the admin changed it to: "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report"
- Houshalter 10y agoKey word "imminent". They are talking about the near term future. AI risk people are talking about risks in 30+ years or so. That said, it's typical for even experts to underestimate progress in rapidly advancing fields. No one predicted AI would be so good by now, say 5-10 years ago. Now computers are beating Go and rivaling human vision.