4 ms·

There is no going back. As the article concludes, the benefits of machine learning outweigh these scary-sounding costs. I doubt we will ever have a Dune-style r

There is no going back. As the article concludes, the benefits of machine learning outweigh these scary-sounding costs. I doubt we will ever have a Dune-style rejection of AI, so we will have to learn to live with machine learning and the world it creates. My argument - same as it has been since the Snowden revelations - is that if we cannot roll back this radical shift in the ways of the world, then the only check on the power of governments, corporations, and other potentially nefarious groups, is to have all of this information available to the public at no additional cost. Anything less is an open door to abuse, corruption, and tyranny.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
3pt14159 10y ago
What about dangerous information? What about bleeding out our secrets to our enemies? We need more kludge in our information networks, not less, to stop aggressive AI. Our hydro dams should be air gapped and only semi-automated. Our self driving cars should not be exposed to the public internet. All of our major services, especially those from the government, should be over SSL. I agree that the Snowden revelations showed a scary avenue for abuse of power, but the solution is to encourage oversight and to keep elected government officials as responsible for breaches of trust. This is why Bill C-51 in Canada was so scary until they updated it to include more oversight.
- unlikelymordant 10y ago
  I think its much more important to implement the things you describe to protect us from humans, rather than ai.
yolesaber 10y ago
>I doubt we will ever have a Dune-style rejection of AI We will once the maternity machines start killing our children.
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  Isn't everybody adopting pets instead? Probably they won't notice. ("Humans extinct due to lack of interest. 3D-Go tournament and frisbee toss news at 11h.")
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    This post gave me the funny mental image of a sentient AI trying to train a dog using supervised learning techniques...
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> As the article concludes, the benefits of machine learning outweigh these scary-sounding costs. Considering that the "scary sounding" cost is a risk of extinction, the benefits of any technology must be infinite, to outweigh the risk; because the cost of extinction itself is infinite (if we go extinct we lose everything). In other words, this is not a risk anyone can afford. You don't gamble with extinction, in the same way that you don't gamble with jumping from a very high place: either you know that you won't fall all the way (you have a parachute, etc), or you don't jump. Note that I believe the whole discussion is pointless anyway because machine learning on its own cannot lead to strong AI and neither can any other technology we currently know of, but the above is just for the sake of putting the right chips on the table.
- matt4077 10y ago
  That argument proves to much. Example: Considering that there is no pricer higher than dying, the benefit of <leaving the house/taking a car instead of walking/...> must be infinite to outweigh the risk. But people leave houses all the time, and take cars and planes etc.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
    >> But people leave houses all the time, and take cars and planes etc. That just says something about the ability to calculate risk and suppress the fear of dying, not about the cost of dying.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  Our eventual extinction is a given. Asteroids, nuclear war, climate change, our sun going red giant, eventual heat death of the universe... something will eventually happen. Is the cost of making extinction come a second earlier infinite? No. Years earlier? No. A huge cost to be sure, but not infinite. Stagnation is simply a gamble of a different sort. What if strong AI is what's required to survive our next possible extinction event? I could easily see it - something as simple as spotting incoming asteroids before our current techniques and manpower can, for example. If we risk ending civilization a few years early for the chance at extending it a few more millennia, is that worth it? Depends on the chances and your priorities. > either you know that you won't fall all the way (you have a parachute, etc) Parachutes fail - this is a gamble. Some people think parachuting worth doing anyways. And if there's a wildfire right behind you, depending on the height, you might risk a high jump even without a parachute.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

3pt14159 10y ago

What about dangerous information? What about bleeding out our secrets to our enemies? We need more kludge in our information networks, not less, to stop aggressive AI. Our hydro dams should be air gapped and only semi-automated. Our self driving cars should not be exposed to the public internet. All of our major services, especially those from the government, should be over SSL. I agree that the Snowden revelations showed a scary avenue for abuse of power, but the solution is to encourage oversight and to keep elected government officials as responsible for breaches of trust. This is why Bill C-51 in Canada was so scary until they updated it to include more oversight.

unlikelymordant 10y ago
I think its much more important to implement the things you describe to protect us from humans, rather than ai.

yolesaber 10y ago

>I doubt we will ever have a Dune-style rejection of AI We will once the maternity machines start killing our children.

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
Isn't everybody adopting pets instead? Probably they won't notice. ("Humans extinct due to lack of interest. 3D-Go tournament and frisbee toss news at 11h.")
- yolesaber 10y ago
  This post gave me the funny mental image of a sentient AI trying to train a dog using supervised learning techniques...

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> As the article concludes, the benefits of machine learning outweigh these scary-sounding costs. Considering that the "scary sounding" cost is a risk of extinction, the benefits of any technology must be infinite, to outweigh the risk; because the cost of extinction itself is infinite (if we go extinct we lose everything). In other words, this is not a risk anyone can afford. You don't gamble with extinction, in the same way that you don't gamble with jumping from a very high place: either you know that you won't fall all the way (you have a parachute, etc), or you don't jump. Note that I believe the whole discussion is pointless anyway because machine learning on its own cannot lead to strong AI and neither can any other technology we currently know of, but the above is just for the sake of putting the right chips on the table.

matt4077 10y ago
That argument proves to much. Example: Considering that there is no pricer higher than dying, the benefit of <leaving the house/taking a car instead of walking/...> must be infinite to outweigh the risk. But people leave houses all the time, and take cars and planes etc.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  >> But people leave houses all the time, and take cars and planes etc. That just says something about the ability to calculate risk and suppress the fear of dying, not about the cost of dying.
MaulingMonkey 10y ago
Our eventual extinction is a given. Asteroids, nuclear war, climate change, our sun going red giant, eventual heat death of the universe... something will eventually happen. Is the cost of making extinction come a second earlier infinite? No. Years earlier? No. A huge cost to be sure, but not infinite. Stagnation is simply a gamble of a different sort. What if strong AI is what's required to survive our next possible extinction event? I could easily see it - something as simple as spotting incoming asteroids before our current techniques and manpower can, for example. If we risk ending civilization a few years early for the chance at extending it a few more millennia, is that worth it? Depends on the chances and your priorities. > either you know that you won't fall all the way (you have a parachute, etc) Parachutes fail - this is a gamble. Some people think parachuting worth doing anyways. And if there's a wildfire right behind you, depending on the height, you might risk a high jump even without a parachute.