5 ms·

Accelerated particle colliders are not exactly equivalent to AI. It's not as if I can just build one in my garage. Anyone in the world, regardless of intent, ca

Accelerated particle colliders are not exactly equivalent to AI. It's not as if I can just build one in my garage. Anyone in the world, regardless of intent, can train a neural network to do what it wants. Extrapolate this decades down the road at the point that AI and its capabilities are much more sophisticated. Do you want to put money on the likelihood that it's all just going to go down smoothly? I don't even know why people are arguing with me. The idea of replacing human life with AI isn't exactly controversial in the realm of futurism.

jacquesm 9y ago
> The idea of replacing human life with AI isn't exactly controversial in the realm of futurism. It isn't in Science Fiction. But this is reality, and in this reality we do not have AGI and we have no idea of how far we are away from it. And even if and when it happens there is absolutely no guarantee that that will lead to the extinction of the human race and/or us ending up as slaves to the machine.
- peferron 9y ago
  Yep! Just like climate change. It's chilly where I live right now, scientists don't all agree about climate change projections, and even if temperatures actually rise it won't lead to the extinction of the human race, so let's not worry about it. Edit: /s because I would make me mad if even a few people thought I was being serious.
- supernintendo 9y ago
  You don't need AGI to do a lot of harm with AI. I'm reminded of a piece of malware that used Instagram comments to encode the instructions it was using to communicate with its control server [1]. This is rudimentary software that any script kiddie could devise with a bit of social engineering. Neural nets / deep learning of today could scale this to the point where it's undetectable. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/07/russian-malware-hidden-britney-spears-instagram/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/07/russian-malware-hidden-b...
- pure21r 9y ago
  So what would be your equivalent position in the 1940s about the nuclear solution? "Don't worry about it, humanity has always prevented slow moving disasters."? Because the question is not about whether one should develop AI or not (this is going to happen in either case), but if we should be worried and work actively to minimize risk, as has been done on the nuclear case... So suppose you simulate 100 Earths from today t=0? What are the best strategies to prevent this problem? Are we doing all we can? What proportion of the 100 Earths have a good outcome? In other words, what are the risks and benefits of adopting a "worried" versus a "don't worry about it" position? For example, what's the worst that could happen if we all worry today for nothing, and in 50 years we all live happily in the cloud? What if we don't worry now and it turns out that AI somehow wiped half the population (or all of it)? If there's a possible huge meteor (say 30% chance) of hitting the Earth in about 50 years, would you be "worried"?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    You can worry as much as you want. And I'm free not to worry as much as you want.

jacquesm 9y ago

> The idea of replacing human life with AI isn't exactly controversial in the realm of futurism. It isn't in Science Fiction. But this is reality, and in this reality we do not have AGI and we have no idea of how far we are away from it. And even if and when it happens there is absolutely no guarantee that that will lead to the extinction of the human race and/or us ending up as slaves to the machine.

peferron 9y ago
Yep! Just like climate change. It's chilly where I live right now, scientists don't all agree about climate change projections, and even if temperatures actually rise it won't lead to the extinction of the human race, so let's not worry about it. Edit: /s because I would make me mad if even a few people thought I was being serious.
supernintendo 9y ago
You don't need AGI to do a lot of harm with AI. I'm reminded of a piece of malware that used Instagram comments to encode the instructions it was using to communicate with its control server [1]. This is rudimentary software that any script kiddie could devise with a bit of social engineering. Neural nets / deep learning of today could scale this to the point where it's undetectable. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/07/russian-malware-hidden-britney-spears-instagram/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/07/russian-malware-hidden-b...
pure21r 9y ago
So what would be your equivalent position in the 1940s about the nuclear solution? "Don't worry about it, humanity has always prevented slow moving disasters."? Because the question is not about whether one should develop AI or not (this is going to happen in either case), but if we should be worried and work actively to minimize risk, as has been done on the nuclear case... So suppose you simulate 100 Earths from today t=0? What are the best strategies to prevent this problem? Are we doing all we can? What proportion of the 100 Earths have a good outcome? In other words, what are the risks and benefits of adopting a "worried" versus a "don't worry about it" position? For example, what's the worst that could happen if we all worry today for nothing, and in 50 years we all live happily in the cloud? What if we don't worry now and it turns out that AI somehow wiped half the population (or all of it)? If there's a possible huge meteor (say 30% chance) of hitting the Earth in about 50 years, would you be "worried"?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  You can worry as much as you want. And I'm free not to worry as much as you want.