4 ms·

A majority of the experts in AI would side with Zuckerberg on this one. See for example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/07/18/artificial-intelli

A majority of the experts in AI would side with Zuckerberg on this one. See for example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/07/18/artificial-intelligence-elon-musk/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/07/18/artific.... It's not that we shouldn't worry about AI, it's that the issue Musk is raising - AI as an existential threat -, is distracting from the real issues.

caio1982 9y ago
Was Isaac Asimov being distracted from the real issues as well just a few decades ago? Food for thought :-)
- pesenti 9y ago
  This is not about science fiction. It's about science today and in a near future and its consequence on policies and regulations.
  - caio1982 9y ago
    I honestly believe some of Asimov's concerns regarding AIs are not science fiction but rather forward thinking and will eventually happen.
    - pesenti 9y ago
      "eventually" is the key word here. Most experts in the field admit to have no clue how and when these predictions will ever come true. It makes discussing them an overly speculative exercise.
convexfunction 9y ago
You may be interested in http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri..., or more directly addressing your claim, http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/08/ssc-journal-club-ai-timelines/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/08/ssc-journal-club-ai-tim...: > 50% of experts think there’s at least a ten percent chance of above-human-level AI coming within the next ten years. (ten years!? sheesh) > And 40% of experts think that there’s a better-than-even chance that, once we get above-human level AI, it will “explode” to suddenly become vastly more intelligent than humans. > And 70% of experts think that Stuart Russell makes a pretty good point when he says that without a lot of research into AI goal alignment, AIs will probably have their goals so misaligned with humans that they could become dangerous and hostile. > ... 5% think this is “among the most important problems in the field”. Only a tenth – 1.4% – think it’s “much more valuable” than other things they could be working on. Not totally clear which of those Zuckerburg wouldn't agree with, but this isn't exactly a fringe concern anymore, even if most people think it's not worth thinking about yet.

caio1982 9y ago

Was Isaac Asimov being distracted from the real issues as well just a few decades ago? Food for thought :-)

pesenti 9y ago
This is not about science fiction. It's about science today and in a near future and its consequence on policies and regulations.
- caio1982 9y ago
  I honestly believe some of Asimov's concerns regarding AIs are not science fiction but rather forward thinking and will eventually happen.
  - pesenti 9y ago
    "eventually" is the key word here. Most experts in the field admit to have no clue how and when these predictions will ever come true. It makes discussing them an overly speculative exercise.

convexfunction 9y ago

You may be interested in http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri..., or more directly addressing your claim, http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/08/ssc-journal-club-ai-timelines/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/08/ssc-journal-club-ai-tim...: > 50% of experts think there’s at least a ten percent chance of above-human-level AI coming within the next ten years. (ten years!? sheesh) > And 40% of experts think that there’s a better-than-even chance that, once we get above-human level AI, it will “explode” to suddenly become vastly more intelligent than humans. > And 70% of experts think that Stuart Russell makes a pretty good point when he says that without a lot of research into AI goal alignment, AIs will probably have their goals so misaligned with humans that they could become dangerous and hostile. > ... 5% think this is “among the most important problems in the field”. Only a tenth – 1.4% – think it’s “much more valuable” than other things they could be working on. Not totally clear which of those Zuckerburg wouldn't agree with, but this isn't exactly a fringe concern anymore, even if most people think it's not worth thinking about yet.