4 ms·

It's not fear mongering. Some of the ideas I hear from people on this forum, from academia, and the likes are just downright terrifying, and we don't even know

It's not fear mongering. Some of the ideas I hear from people on this forum, from academia, and the likes are just downright terrifying, and we don't even know what future AI will be capable of. We have to decide as a society, and decide really soon how far we are willing to take AI research. We built the nuclear bomb, but we decided when to stop. We didn't build more advanced bombs that could level entire providences, even though we very well could have. I know this sounds ridiculous, in that we aren't talking the same level of potential devastation, but it's the principle I am after.

econnors 10y ago
Curious: Do we actually know that we stopped nuclear advances? I'm guessing it's not something that would be publicized.
- throwanem 10y ago
  The end of the Cold War took a lot of the urgency out of nuclear weapons research, and with the urgency went the funding. That's why the US nuclear arsenal consists of designs from the 1960s and 70s, with little or no manufacture more recent than the 80s, and a litany of canceled programs from the 90s on. Quite aside from that, there's a point past which chasing higher yields results in a loss of strategic flexibility, which is why both we and the Soviets eventually gave that up. (You can attack one big target with multiple warheads, but you can't attack multiple targets with one big warhead.) Modern nuclear weapons research and engineering, whatever there may be of it, would concentrate on boring stuff like improving efficiency and reliability, and reducing mass.
hartator 10y ago
Aren't fusion bombs 1000x more powerful than the original Little Boy (Name of the hiroshima bomb)?
- randcraw 10y ago
  Yes, and that's why atomic weaponry is unusable and largely irrelevant. In contrast, AI is eminently usable in business and government, and in such a wide range of means and purposes that it is much more likely to change our lives, in ways that are largely still unimaginable. As more AI is adopted and shapes policy and practice throughout the world, business, gov't, and Joe Public will gradually relinquish ever more personal information to it, inviting excess oversight, micromanagement, and abuse by those who control the AI. After all, the corporations joined in this partnership are the very behemoths that gather and control almost all the world's social and personal information, which is their primary product and essential to their revenue stream and their very survival. If the public (and gov't policy makers) ever conclude that these firms and their AI are a rising threat, then like various European countries, the US too might enact 'onerous' regulation which could diminish their access to our data, AKA their life's blood. I think THAT'S what this AI partnership is really about. It's the start of a political action initiative, apparently led by unthreatening figures like CS academics rather than capitalists. It's intended to diffuse the visibility of these companies' advancing political interests and lobbying in Washington so their growing injection of AI into our lives won't suddenly show up on our radar one day soon as an inbound threat from the clear blue sky above. Once they gain a sufficient foothold in Washington and assure that we remain inured to the idea of AI, they can turn up the heat until we froggies boil, blissfully oblivious to the rising clouds of steam.
  - treehau5 10y ago
    Whether people agree with the philosophical or political aspects of your assessment aside, this was one of the more thought-invoking comments I have read on this subject in this thread and threads like it in a while. Thank you for writing it.
Taek 10y ago
AI is not a genie that can be kept in a bottle. Making a nuclear bomb is a huge engineering effort. You need to build huge facilities, acquire rare resources, and potentially test it somehow. It takes a lot of energy to get there. Software on the other hand, my computer is running tens of millions of lines of code right now, and for stuff with heavy utility there's not much the government can do to get in the way. Cryptography is a great example of this. Cryptography used to be regulated, but because it's easy to pass around code + binaries + keys there was really nothing the government could do to stop people from using it. So it was deregulated, as an admission that if you banned cryptography, you get a population without it pitted against criminals who do have it. I'm guessing that AI will end up much the same way. You do need a lot of data, certainly a lot more than you need to get strong encryption, but data is ultimately easy to move around compared to nuclear manufacturing facilities. And it's even more open when you consider how much data is available that might be useful to an AGI. If you give a human 500,000,000 hours to read + process + innovate using just Wikipedia, you are going to get something impressive. An AGI has access to any page that's reachable from a URL bar, and that data is not something that needs to be passed around with the AGI codebase. Granted, I personally believe that AGIs are 30+ years away, and I don't think that Wikipedia is enough data for something like a competitive NLP machine using modern technology, but I think that's the direction we will be moving in. We should accept today that AI will be a part of the future, and prepare for the inevitability rather than try to run from it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

econnors 10y ago

Curious: Do we actually know that we stopped nuclear advances? I'm guessing it's not something that would be publicized.

throwanem 10y ago
The end of the Cold War took a lot of the urgency out of nuclear weapons research, and with the urgency went the funding. That's why the US nuclear arsenal consists of designs from the 1960s and 70s, with little or no manufacture more recent than the 80s, and a litany of canceled programs from the 90s on. Quite aside from that, there's a point past which chasing higher yields results in a loss of strategic flexibility, which is why both we and the Soviets eventually gave that up. (You can attack one big target with multiple warheads, but you can't attack multiple targets with one big warhead.) Modern nuclear weapons research and engineering, whatever there may be of it, would concentrate on boring stuff like improving efficiency and reliability, and reducing mass.

hartator 10y ago

Aren't fusion bombs 1000x more powerful than the original Little Boy (Name of the hiroshima bomb)?

randcraw 10y ago
Yes, and that's why atomic weaponry is unusable and largely irrelevant. In contrast, AI is eminently usable in business and government, and in such a wide range of means and purposes that it is much more likely to change our lives, in ways that are largely still unimaginable. As more AI is adopted and shapes policy and practice throughout the world, business, gov't, and Joe Public will gradually relinquish ever more personal information to it, inviting excess oversight, micromanagement, and abuse by those who control the AI. After all, the corporations joined in this partnership are the very behemoths that gather and control almost all the world's social and personal information, which is their primary product and essential to their revenue stream and their very survival. If the public (and gov't policy makers) ever conclude that these firms and their AI are a rising threat, then like various European countries, the US too might enact 'onerous' regulation which could diminish their access to our data, AKA their life's blood. I think THAT'S what this AI partnership is really about. It's the start of a political action initiative, apparently led by unthreatening figures like CS academics rather than capitalists. It's intended to diffuse the visibility of these companies' advancing political interests and lobbying in Washington so their growing injection of AI into our lives won't suddenly show up on our radar one day soon as an inbound threat from the clear blue sky above. Once they gain a sufficient foothold in Washington and assure that we remain inured to the idea of AI, they can turn up the heat until we froggies boil, blissfully oblivious to the rising clouds of steam.
- treehau5 10y ago
  Whether people agree with the philosophical or political aspects of your assessment aside, this was one of the more thought-invoking comments I have read on this subject in this thread and threads like it in a while. Thank you for writing it.

Taek 10y ago

AI is not a genie that can be kept in a bottle. Making a nuclear bomb is a huge engineering effort. You need to build huge facilities, acquire rare resources, and potentially test it somehow. It takes a lot of energy to get there. Software on the other hand, my computer is running tens of millions of lines of code right now, and for stuff with heavy utility there's not much the government can do to get in the way. Cryptography is a great example of this. Cryptography used to be regulated, but because it's easy to pass around code + binaries + keys there was really nothing the government could do to stop people from using it. So it was deregulated, as an admission that if you banned cryptography, you get a population without it pitted against criminals who do have it. I'm guessing that AI will end up much the same way. You do need a lot of data, certainly a lot more than you need to get strong encryption, but data is ultimately easy to move around compared to nuclear manufacturing facilities. And it's even more open when you consider how much data is available that might be useful to an AGI. If you give a human 500,000,000 hours to read + process + innovate using just Wikipedia, you are going to get something impressive. An AGI has access to any page that's reachable from a URL bar, and that data is not something that needs to be passed around with the AGI codebase. Granted, I personally believe that AGIs are 30+ years away, and I don't think that Wikipedia is enough data for something like a competitive NLP machine using modern technology, but I think that's the direction we will be moving in. We should accept today that AI will be a part of the future, and prepare for the inevitability rather than try to run from it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]