2 ms·

> That is also not relevant to the future implications of AI, because as AI evolves so will humanity. So why do black hat hackers exist? Why do you have so muc

> That is also not relevant to the future implications of AI, because as AI evolves so will humanity. So why do black hat hackers exist? Why do you have so much faith in humanity's ability and/or willingness to "evolve" alongside AI? My prediction is that AI will evolve and humans will still be the same murderous creatures they are today, only with more tools at their disposal. > 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. How trivial is it for a political figure who is already untrusted by the public to assert that "cryptographic signatures" are a proof of fowl play? Again, we are talking about propaganda which plays off of human perception, not truth (the "post-truth world" meme comes to mind). DKIM signatures were often cited during the 2016 election by the alt-right as "proof" that the Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks were legitimate. The assertion that the content of the emails could have still been modified without invalidating the signatures wasn't enough to convince voters who continue to push conspiracy theories surrounding them. Humans are pretty easy to manipulate. What makes you think AI is incapable of doing this? > 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. I acknowledge that. My fear is that with greater capabilities, AI could be used to deceive humans easier and on a greater scale. A murderer can kill someone with a baseball bat. They can kill hundreds of people with an AR-15. There's a reason why we have regulations on the latter. The axiom I am starting from is not to demonize AI. I am not a luddite and recognize that AI has just as much potential to be used for good. AI is just another technology. My fear speaks more to how humans will use that technology as it becomes more sophisticated.

j2kun 9y ago
Why do you have so much faith that autonomous superhuman AI will be such a Dalek-eqsue threat? If it's faith against faith, and you have no evidence to back up your side (while humanity adapting has millennia of evidence), there's no point in discussing it. > Humans are pretty easy to manipulate...My fear is that with greater capabilities,... Nobody is disagreeing with you. But this is hardly an observation of the apocalyptic proportions warned by AI risk proponents. If you're just suggesting governments regulate AI use, then you've changed your position from "stop the impending doom" to "limit the use of a dangerous tool." I have no doubt that when AI becomes good enough to be a dangerous tool, it will cause some major event and be regulated thereafter. You should start with that instead of "robots killing humans." But if your argument is actually "stop the impending doom," then I disagree. Humans have figured out how to adapt in a world with nuclear weapons, which has shown far more risk to humanity than all but the most outlandish predictions of AI risk. You haven't presented one piece of evidence that says humans won't figure out how to adapt, or are incapable, unlikely, or unwilling to do so, whereafter humanity ceases to exist.
- 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, 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"?

j2kun 9y ago

Why do you have so much faith that autonomous superhuman AI will be such a Dalek-eqsue threat? If it's faith against faith, and you have no evidence to back up your side (while humanity adapting has millennia of evidence), there's no point in discussing it. > Humans are pretty easy to manipulate...My fear is that with greater capabilities,... Nobody is disagreeing with you. But this is hardly an observation of the apocalyptic proportions warned by AI risk proponents. If you're just suggesting governments regulate AI use, then you've changed your position from "stop the impending doom" to "limit the use of a dangerous tool." I have no doubt that when AI becomes good enough to be a dangerous tool, it will cause some major event and be regulated thereafter. You should start with that instead of "robots killing humans." But if your argument is actually "stop the impending doom," then I disagree. Humans have figured out how to adapt in a world with nuclear weapons, which has shown far more risk to humanity than all but the most outlandish predictions of AI risk. You haven't presented one piece of evidence that says humans won't figure out how to adapt, or are incapable, unlikely, or unwilling to do so, whereafter humanity ceases to exist.

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, 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"?