3 ms·

An AI is essentially a program, and it does what it was programmed for. If we created a program with the intention of it mimicing a human mind, sure, we could g

An AI is essentially a program, and it does what it was programmed for. If we created a program with the intention of it mimicing a human mind, sure, we could get into a pretty sticky wicket pretty fast. But so far all the AIs are designed to do specific tasks, and a human has to actually use them, much like any other tool we have. We have lots of dangerous tools, but it's only with things that have the possibility of intelligence attributed to them that we get really scared of the unknown possibilities (which, btw, is what we fear most - the unknown). The biggest danger with AI is what humans do with them, not what they're going to do on their own,

grondilu 10y ago
> If we created a program with the intention of it mimicing a human mind It seems to me that people underestimate the desire we have of creating a machine that would be just like us. Once it's done, and I believe it will, "normal" humans will be relegated to the same status as other great apes, and the concerns I was talking about will apply. And even if we don't create such machines, the knowledge we'll gain from artificial scientists will allow us to fully understand biology so we'll modify our bodies first to do obvious things like curing diseases and ageing, but then to improve ourselves in various ways. And the same concerns about self-modifying intelligent agents will again apply.
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  First off, why do you think you could predict what this supposedly superior brain would think, or conclude? And second, assuming it did think we were just another great ape, why wouldn't it do what we do - when we're not controlled by superstition, and the imagination that causes us to poach them for arbitrary, illogical uses. Often, our imagination far succeeds our actual reach. The fear of us creating something that will eventually control us is purely an irrational fear, and is actually a good indicator that an actual artificial intelligence would not seek to do harm - because it would not be irrational. There is absolutely no evidence that anything other than our own nature will be a threat to us. The possibility of us eventually building an AI that is both as stupid, irrationally fearful, self-serving, and potentially harmful as Donald Trump, is, at least currently, much less of a threat than Donald Trump himself. The biggest fear I have is that half of our country is insane enough to let him get this far. That's way scarier than a super-intelligent piece of software. At least the software won't intentionally upgrade its software in a way that would implode it. We should also be worried about global hunger, rising sea levels, depleted ozone layer, toxic air & water, overfishing of oceans, clearing of forests, diminishing biodiversity, overpopulation, global economic crises, cyber war, and eventually, the sun blowing up. All of those I think are more realistic things to warn the populus about than a freaking AI mind gone cray.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    > why do you think you could predict what this supposedly superior brain would think, or conclude? I don't know if I can, but I can try. Also, I was merely questioning whether it would chose to keep functioning as we do (that is whether it would chose to keep animal features like emotions, pain, desire and stuff). > We should also be worried about global hunger, rising sea levels, depleted ozone layer, toxic air & water, overfishing of oceans, clearing of forests, diminishing biodiversity, overpopulation, global economic crises, cyber war Nobody prevents you from worrying about those things. I suspect Hawkins doesn't because he does not consider them as much fundamental threats as AI.
vidarh 10y ago
> An AI is essentially a program, and it does what it was programmed for. Any basis for assuming that we are not "essentially a program" that "does what it was programmed for"? Being "a program" does not mean something does not have capacity for doing something unexpected. Without being programmed to mimic a human mind. Case in point: I have some tools that use even just basic bayesian models, and they produce all kinds of unexpected behaviour all the time, because the very nature of it is that they are used to create rules from unstructured data that cause all kinds of unintended effects. With a sufficiently advanced set of tools, there is every potential that just one small mistake will "set it lose" in an unintended way because more and more of our tools will include learning behaviours and little gleams of intelligence and adaptability. Consider that it doesn't take intelligence to cause destruction and disruption. Look at the Morris Worm for example. There was not a hint of learning behaviour or intelligence there - imagine if there had been. In some ways, a "dumb AI" is even more terrifying, because a lot of really nasty things can be achieved with sheer persistance and speed, and requires very little intelligence, and more intelligence might get the entity to realise it's not a good thing to do. A program mimicing a human mind - or better - might be capable of more destruction, but is also potentially possible to argue, negotiate and plead with.

grondilu 10y ago

> If we created a program with the intention of it mimicing a human mind It seems to me that people underestimate the desire we have of creating a machine that would be just like us. Once it's done, and I believe it will, "normal" humans will be relegated to the same status as other great apes, and the concerns I was talking about will apply. And even if we don't create such machines, the knowledge we'll gain from artificial scientists will allow us to fully understand biology so we'll modify our bodies first to do obvious things like curing diseases and ageing, but then to improve ourselves in various ways. And the same concerns about self-modifying intelligent agents will again apply.

peterwwillis 10y ago
First off, why do you think you could predict what this supposedly superior brain would think, or conclude? And second, assuming it did think we were just another great ape, why wouldn't it do what we do - when we're not controlled by superstition, and the imagination that causes us to poach them for arbitrary, illogical uses. Often, our imagination far succeeds our actual reach. The fear of us creating something that will eventually control us is purely an irrational fear, and is actually a good indicator that an actual artificial intelligence would not seek to do harm - because it would not be irrational. There is absolutely no evidence that anything other than our own nature will be a threat to us. The possibility of us eventually building an AI that is both as stupid, irrationally fearful, self-serving, and potentially harmful as Donald Trump, is, at least currently, much less of a threat than Donald Trump himself. The biggest fear I have is that half of our country is insane enough to let him get this far. That's way scarier than a super-intelligent piece of software. At least the software won't intentionally upgrade its software in a way that would implode it. We should also be worried about global hunger, rising sea levels, depleted ozone layer, toxic air & water, overfishing of oceans, clearing of forests, diminishing biodiversity, overpopulation, global economic crises, cyber war, and eventually, the sun blowing up. All of those I think are more realistic things to warn the populus about than a freaking AI mind gone cray.
- grondilu 10y ago
  > why do you think you could predict what this supposedly superior brain would think, or conclude? I don't know if I can, but I can try. Also, I was merely questioning whether it would chose to keep functioning as we do (that is whether it would chose to keep animal features like emotions, pain, desire and stuff). > We should also be worried about global hunger, rising sea levels, depleted ozone layer, toxic air & water, overfishing of oceans, clearing of forests, diminishing biodiversity, overpopulation, global economic crises, cyber war Nobody prevents you from worrying about those things. I suspect Hawkins doesn't because he does not consider them as much fundamental threats as AI.

vidarh 10y ago

> An AI is essentially a program, and it does what it was programmed for. Any basis for assuming that we are not "essentially a program" that "does what it was programmed for"? Being "a program" does not mean something does not have capacity for doing something unexpected. Without being programmed to mimic a human mind. Case in point: I have some tools that use even just basic bayesian models, and they produce all kinds of unexpected behaviour all the time, because the very nature of it is that they are used to create rules from unstructured data that cause all kinds of unintended effects. With a sufficiently advanced set of tools, there is every potential that just one small mistake will "set it lose" in an unintended way because more and more of our tools will include learning behaviours and little gleams of intelligence and adaptability. Consider that it doesn't take intelligence to cause destruction and disruption. Look at the Morris Worm for example. There was not a hint of learning behaviour or intelligence there - imagine if there had been. In some ways, a "dumb AI" is even more terrifying, because a lot of really nasty things can be achieved with sheer persistance and speed, and requires very little intelligence, and more intelligence might get the entity to realise it's not a good thing to do. A program mimicing a human mind - or better - might be capable of more destruction, but is also potentially possible to argue, negotiate and plead with.