5 ms·

> It is hard for me to empathize with Musk’s fixation on evil super-intelligent AGI killer robots in a very distant future. I would argue this person has no bu

> It is hard for me to empathize with Musk’s fixation on evil super-intelligent AGI killer robots in a very distant future. I would argue this person has no business working with AI with this sort of myopic thinking. If you think "fake news" is a problem now, just wait until decentralized AI networks are able to tweet, publish articles and affect public discourse in a way that is indistinguishable from human influence. This AI could be trained such that it pushes targeted propaganda and is able to destroy the lives of dissidents using a variety of tactics (generation of fake audio and video material that is indistinguishable from real life targets for the purpose of slander [1][2] as well as other techniques like DDOS, hacking, etc). Now imagine a world in which all devices are connected in an "Internet of Things" and AI becomes sophisticated enough to exploit these networks and turn them against humans. This has wide ranging implications from surveillance to killing people by hijacking the computer systems in cars to even taking control of military weapon systems that can be used to control and oppress humans. Now take all of that functionality and embed it within an actual robot that can move around in the real world and is physically stronger than humans [3]. There is nothing that can be done about this because non-proliferation treaties are impossible to enforce due to the nature of software. AI is going to lead to the extinction of all human life on this planet and this is coming from someone who generally disregards conspiracy theories as paranoid fear mongering. We have every reason to be afraid. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/adobe-voco-photoshop-for-audio-speech-editing/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/adobe... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15957844/ai-fake-video-audio-speech-obama https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15957844/ai-fake-video-au... [3] http://mashable.com/2014/01/12/robotic-muscle/ http://mashable.com/2014/01/12/robotic-muscle/

RodericDay 9y ago
You're just awed by Musk and can't see how ridiculous what he's saying really is. François Chollet nailed it with the following comparison, mocking LHC alarmists: > It's not that turning on the LHC will create a black hole that will swallow the Earth. But it could! Albeit no physicist thought so. https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/891033876415397888 https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/891033876415397888
- RodericDay 9y ago
  In fact, Chollet links a whole series of essays worth reading: 1) The Myth of a Superhuman AI (https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/) 2) The Terminator Is Not Coming. (https://www.recode.net/2015/3/2/11559576/the-terminator-is-not-coming-the-future-will-thank-us https://www.recode.net/2015/3/2/11559576/the-terminator-is-n...) 3) idlewords : Superintelligence - The Idea That Eats Smart People (http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm) The frustrating thing is that people with insane amounts of resources and disposable income get swallowed up by these Basilisk-ian non-concerns, while very real pressing issues like Police Brutality, Wealth Inequality, Lack of HealthCare, etc. are deemed too boring for enthusiastic action.
  - supernintendo 9y ago
    > In fact, Chollet links a whole series of essays worth reading: Appeal to authority. You're not presenting any substantive rebuttals, just assuming it's not a concern because someone else with credentials said so. It's identical to alleging that I'm only worried because Elon Musk says so. > The frustrating thing is that people with insane amounts of resources and disposable income get swallowed up by these Basilisk-ian non-concerns, while very real pressing issues like Police Brutality, Wealth Inequality, Lack of HealthCare, etc. are deemed too boring for enthusiastic action. Nice strawman. It's also pretty disrespectful for you to assume my socioeconomic background. I live in the United States and have to deal with the issues you pointed out on a visceral basis. That has nothing to do with AI though so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      He wasn't talking about you, he was talking about Musk.
      - supernintendo 9y ago
        That's fair. Regardless of Musk's talking points, I'm still worried and I don't care how many people here think I'm paranoid. Engineers during the Industrial Revolution had no idea they were sowing the seeds of global warming [1]. We're putting a lot of money into AI under the assumption that it's all going to be a smooth ride. There's this notion that even if neural networks become more sophisticated than those of human brains, that AI will be completely subservient to us and we can just pull the plug whenever we want. If there's one thing humans are good at, it's self-destructive hubris. [1] http://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-started-global-warming-much-earlier-than-we-realised-64301 http://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-st...
jph00 9y ago
Oh please. The issue isn't what the end result could look like, but whether we'll actually get there if basic societal needs aren't met first. Prioritize things which are needed now and in the near future.
- supernintendo 9y ago
  This is not a valid argument. It's an appeal to possibility fallacy and rather dismissive. If you're not going to present an actual argument, do yourself a favor and not reply at all.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Typically if you start making crazy claims the onus is on you to present actual arguments.
    - supernintendo 9y ago
      Present an argument against what? All you have done is shot down my claims with some "life isn't science fiction" garbage. You haven't posted a single comment in this thread relevant to the future implications of AI. There's nothing thought provoking about your comments. You're just being dismissive.
      - j2kun 9y ago
        You are imagining super intelligent malicious AI (or AI piloted by malicious actors) with orders of magnitude more resources and reach than we have today is instantaneously implanted into today's society. That is also not relevant to the future implications of AI, because as AI evolves so will humanity. If you demand how exactly this will come about, then I will first require you to explain exactly how superintelligent AI will come about. The same answer is equally applicable and useless for both sides: "I don't know, but it definitely will." You're also ignoring basic ideas that can defeat the apocalyptic problems you suggest. For example, "fake news" in the sense that you propose (adversaries generating synthesized videos and audio indistinguishable from reality) can be trivially defeated by cryptographic signatures. No matter how good a deep net gets, it won't beat cryptographic hardness. No chaos will ensue when major web browsers verify videos of the president signed with an official government public key, the same way they verify websites with CA's today. In fact, "fake news" today is a completely different problem, that people accept the source is legit (CNN did indeed publish an article about so and so who said X, and they did actually say X), but rather that they disagree with the meaning assigned to those facts. You also ignore that one already has the capability to ruin a specific person's life via digital means today, without AI, just with enough dedicated time and money. Why bother with (expensive) superhuman AI targeting dissidents under an oppressive regime when instead, as most successful oppressive regimes today do, you can just lock them up or burn their house down? In my humble opinion, if you find yourself in a situation where people don't want to present you with arguments to what you feel is logically bullet-proof reasoning, and that people are "just being dismissive," the issue is probably you, not them. Rather than bite back, the most useful approach is to reconsider your ideas. Attack them as critically as you attack the ideas of others. You may surprise yourself with what you find.
jacquesm 9y ago
> I would argue this person has no business working with AI with this sort of myopic thinking. What kind of thinking would you suggest would permit someone to 'work with AI'? Should they be quaking in their boots before being allowed to work at the altar? You could argue (and with substantially more basis in fact) that Twitter and Facebook have elevated each individuals utterings to broadcast status and that even without decentralized AI networks all the effects that you are listing are already present in the modern world. It just takes a little bit more work but there are useful idiots aplenty. Your SkyNet like future need not happen at all, what we can imagine has no bearing on what is possible today and that seems to me to be a much more relevant discussion. > AI is going to lead to the extinction of all human life on this planet and this is coming from someone who generally disregards conspiracy theories as paranoid fear mongering. Well, you don't seem to be able to resist this particular one. So your 'generally' may be less general than you think it is. > We have every reason to be afraid. No, we don't. I haven't seen a computer that I couldn't power off yet, SF movies to the contrary.
- supernintendo 9y ago
  > No, we don't. I haven't seen a computer that I couldn't power off yet, SF movies to the contrary. Ok. Turn off the computer systems that control Russia's nuclear weapons delivery systems. I'm waiting.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Now you're being (even more) silly. Obviously I can't turn that one off any more than I can turn off the refrigerator downstairs from where I'm sitting. But there are people there that can turn it off, and if I was physically present there then I could turn it off.
    - supernintendo 9y ago
      You're working under the assumption that no one will attempt to use AI to assert power over others, and that the human race will come together to pull the plug when it becomes a problem. Looking at our current geopolitical situation, I'd rather be silly than naive.
dclowd9901 9y ago
I agree. The best way to subjugate a machine and prevent it from breaking out of its bounds is to create an artificial "universe" in which it "exists" with arbitrary restrictions and forces, much like the speed of light, gravity and magnetism and have it work on problems using individual workers in a "lifecycle" in which they have their own motivations and "lives" that they live out until they either solve the problem or "die" along the way. Come to think of it...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- supernintendo 9y ago
  How do you get everyone (every government, every rogue organization, every hacker in their bedroom) working on AI to abide by those rules? > solve the problem What "problem"? What if I train a neural network to learn the patterns of individuals and integrate it with military drones to assassinate them because their existence is my "problem"? What are you going to do to stop me?
carapace 9y ago
People only aren't afraid of AI because they are ignorant of Cybernetics. Put another way, consider the old "What is AI" joke: 'When the computer wakes up and asks, "What's in it for me?"' --- edit: In case it's not clear, I agree with supernintendo, if for different reasons. The only people more frightening than the happy-go-lucky AI people are the happy-go-lucky synthetic biology people. Makes me glad I don't have children. It's all one big experiment now, with no control group.
throw2016 9y ago
AI is far away if at all. Many are trying to pass off image recognition and pattern matching used to identify pornographic images as AI and this just reflects their tenuous grasp of the problem at hand. Something like the human brain is well beyond this level of thinking. Advancements if any will inevitably come from academia and those who have devoted decades studying the human brain. Not software engineers intoxicated by themselves. Nothing in the current software ecosystem gives you the tools or language to conceptualize or even imagine let alone write code that can qualify to be used in the context of ai. Code only does what it is programmed to do. If else is a decision, that doesn't make it ai, multiple it by a million times and its still not ai. This does not mean it cannot be dangerous. Autonomous weapons, anything thing to do with image recognition will find uses, but this is nothing like the what people imagine when we talk about AI. Engineers are supposed to be precise in their use of language but AI proponents are currently engaged neck deep in hype. Self driving cars will happen on extremely constrained roads, like trains. That will be the wake up call for the excitable ones to come back down to earth.

RodericDay 9y ago

You're just awed by Musk and can't see how ridiculous what he's saying really is. François Chollet nailed it with the following comparison, mocking LHC alarmists: > It's not that turning on the LHC will create a black hole that will swallow the Earth. But it could! Albeit no physicist thought so. https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/891033876415397888 https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/891033876415397888

RodericDay 9y ago
In fact, Chollet links a whole series of essays worth reading: 1) The Myth of a Superhuman AI (https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/) 2) The Terminator Is Not Coming. (https://www.recode.net/2015/3/2/11559576/the-terminator-is-not-coming-the-future-will-thank-us https://www.recode.net/2015/3/2/11559576/the-terminator-is-n...) 3) idlewords : Superintelligence - The Idea That Eats Smart People (http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm) The frustrating thing is that people with insane amounts of resources and disposable income get swallowed up by these Basilisk-ian non-concerns, while very real pressing issues like Police Brutality, Wealth Inequality, Lack of HealthCare, etc. are deemed too boring for enthusiastic action.
- supernintendo 9y ago
  > In fact, Chollet links a whole series of essays worth reading: Appeal to authority. You're not presenting any substantive rebuttals, just assuming it's not a concern because someone else with credentials said so. It's identical to alleging that I'm only worried because Elon Musk says so. > The frustrating thing is that people with insane amounts of resources and disposable income get swallowed up by these Basilisk-ian non-concerns, while very real pressing issues like Police Brutality, Wealth Inequality, Lack of HealthCare, etc. are deemed too boring for enthusiastic action. Nice strawman. It's also pretty disrespectful for you to assume my socioeconomic background. I live in the United States and have to deal with the issues you pointed out on a visceral basis. That has nothing to do with AI though so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    He wasn't talking about you, he was talking about Musk.
    - supernintendo 9y ago
      That's fair. Regardless of Musk's talking points, I'm still worried and I don't care how many people here think I'm paranoid. Engineers during the Industrial Revolution had no idea they were sowing the seeds of global warming [1]. We're putting a lot of money into AI under the assumption that it's all going to be a smooth ride. There's this notion that even if neural networks become more sophisticated than those of human brains, that AI will be completely subservient to us and we can just pull the plug whenever we want. If there's one thing humans are good at, it's self-destructive hubris. [1] http://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-started-global-warming-much-earlier-than-we-realised-64301 http://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-st...

jph00 9y ago

Oh please. The issue isn't what the end result could look like, but whether we'll actually get there if basic societal needs aren't met first. Prioritize things which are needed now and in the near future.

supernintendo 9y ago
This is not a valid argument. It's an appeal to possibility fallacy and rather dismissive. If you're not going to present an actual argument, do yourself a favor and not reply at all.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Typically if you start making crazy claims the onus is on you to present actual arguments.
  - supernintendo 9y ago
    Present an argument against what? All you have done is shot down my claims with some "life isn't science fiction" garbage. You haven't posted a single comment in this thread relevant to the future implications of AI. There's nothing thought provoking about your comments. You're just being dismissive.
    - j2kun 9y ago
      You are imagining super intelligent malicious AI (or AI piloted by malicious actors) with orders of magnitude more resources and reach than we have today is instantaneously implanted into today's society. That is also not relevant to the future implications of AI, because as AI evolves so will humanity. If you demand how exactly this will come about, then I will first require you to explain exactly how superintelligent AI will come about. The same answer is equally applicable and useless for both sides: "I don't know, but it definitely will." You're also ignoring basic ideas that can defeat the apocalyptic problems you suggest. For example, "fake news" in the sense that you propose (adversaries generating synthesized videos and audio indistinguishable from reality) can be trivially defeated by cryptographic signatures. No matter how good a deep net gets, it won't beat cryptographic hardness. No chaos will ensue when major web browsers verify videos of the president signed with an official government public key, the same way they verify websites with CA's today. In fact, "fake news" today is a completely different problem, that people accept the source is legit (CNN did indeed publish an article about so and so who said X, and they did actually say X), but rather that they disagree with the meaning assigned to those facts. You also ignore that one already has the capability to ruin a specific person's life via digital means today, without AI, just with enough dedicated time and money. Why bother with (expensive) superhuman AI targeting dissidents under an oppressive regime when instead, as most successful oppressive regimes today do, you can just lock them up or burn their house down? In my humble opinion, if you find yourself in a situation where people don't want to present you with arguments to what you feel is logically bullet-proof reasoning, and that people are "just being dismissive," the issue is probably you, not them. Rather than bite back, the most useful approach is to reconsider your ideas. Attack them as critically as you attack the ideas of others. You may surprise yourself with what you find.

jacquesm 9y ago

> I would argue this person has no business working with AI with this sort of myopic thinking. What kind of thinking would you suggest would permit someone to 'work with AI'? Should they be quaking in their boots before being allowed to work at the altar? You could argue (and with substantially more basis in fact) that Twitter and Facebook have elevated each individuals utterings to broadcast status and that even without decentralized AI networks all the effects that you are listing are already present in the modern world. It just takes a little bit more work but there are useful idiots aplenty. Your SkyNet like future need not happen at all, what we can imagine has no bearing on what is possible today and that seems to me to be a much more relevant discussion. > AI is going to lead to the extinction of all human life on this planet and this is coming from someone who generally disregards conspiracy theories as paranoid fear mongering. Well, you don't seem to be able to resist this particular one. So your 'generally' may be less general than you think it is. > We have every reason to be afraid. No, we don't. I haven't seen a computer that I couldn't power off yet, SF movies to the contrary.

supernintendo 9y ago
> No, we don't. I haven't seen a computer that I couldn't power off yet, SF movies to the contrary. Ok. Turn off the computer systems that control Russia's nuclear weapons delivery systems. I'm waiting.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Now you're being (even more) silly. Obviously I can't turn that one off any more than I can turn off the refrigerator downstairs from where I'm sitting. But there are people there that can turn it off, and if I was physically present there then I could turn it off.
  - supernintendo 9y ago
    You're working under the assumption that no one will attempt to use AI to assert power over others, and that the human race will come together to pull the plug when it becomes a problem. Looking at our current geopolitical situation, I'd rather be silly than naive.

dclowd9901 9y ago

I agree. The best way to subjugate a machine and prevent it from breaking out of its bounds is to create an artificial "universe" in which it "exists" with arbitrary restrictions and forces, much like the speed of light, gravity and magnetism and have it work on problems using individual workers in a "lifecycle" in which they have their own motivations and "lives" that they live out until they either solve the problem or "die" along the way. Come to think of it...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
supernintendo 9y ago
How do you get everyone (every government, every rogue organization, every hacker in their bedroom) working on AI to abide by those rules? > solve the problem What "problem"? What if I train a neural network to learn the patterns of individuals and integrate it with military drones to assassinate them because their existence is my "problem"? What are you going to do to stop me?

carapace 9y ago

People only aren't afraid of AI because they are ignorant of Cybernetics. Put another way, consider the old "What is AI" joke: 'When the computer wakes up and asks, "What's in it for me?"' --- edit: In case it's not clear, I agree with supernintendo, if for different reasons. The only people more frightening than the happy-go-lucky AI people are the happy-go-lucky synthetic biology people. Makes me glad I don't have children. It's all one big experiment now, with no control group.

throw2016 9y ago

AI is far away if at all. Many are trying to pass off image recognition and pattern matching used to identify pornographic images as AI and this just reflects their tenuous grasp of the problem at hand. Something like the human brain is well beyond this level of thinking. Advancements if any will inevitably come from academia and those who have devoted decades studying the human brain. Not software engineers intoxicated by themselves. Nothing in the current software ecosystem gives you the tools or language to conceptualize or even imagine let alone write code that can qualify to be used in the context of ai. Code only does what it is programmed to do. If else is a decision, that doesn't make it ai, multiple it by a million times and its still not ai. This does not mean it cannot be dangerous. Autonomous weapons, anything thing to do with image recognition will find uses, but this is nothing like the what people imagine when we talk about AI. Engineers are supposed to be precise in their use of language but AI proponents are currently engaged neck deep in hype. Self driving cars will happen on extremely constrained roads, like trains. That will be the wake up call for the excitable ones to come back down to earth.