3 ms·

As I understand it, saying the vacuum cleaner won't kill you because we haven't given it a means to do so is akin to saying, "putting this banking server online

As I understand it, saying the vacuum cleaner won't kill you because we haven't given it a means to do so is akin to saying, "putting this banking server online is safe and no one will mess with it because we haven't given out the password." Just because we can't see a means doesn't mean there isn't one. Or am I missing your point?

icthysilia 9y ago
What I mean is, you can think of an AI system as a tool, like a hammer or a chainsaw or a screwdriver or a featherduster. It's created with certain goals in mind, to solve a problem. There may be side effects that are dangerous, but I don't see those dangers as being any different from any other tool. The assumption seems to be that an AI system will somehow transcend the purposes for which it was built, or that we will seek to build a replicant, in the sense of literally reproduce a human in silico. That goal seems kind of unrealistic to me, because it doesn't accomplish anything, because we already have humans. However, people do all kinds of things that don't make sense--but then that is a problem with the humans designing the AI, not the AI per se. I'm probably not explaining myself well, but basically I think whenever you create something (as opposed to it randomly evolving), it has a purpose. That purpose constrains the design and/or affords constraints. To the extent the maldesign comes about, though, that is a problem with the designer and not the design. I guess I just don't see super AIs coming about and deciding humans are worthless, unless humans design them that way, in which case that's a human problem, not a design problem. Humans are self-interested because that's how we evolved. AIs would come about because we created them to do something. If we choose to design them to do something malicious, it has to be a reflection of our malice, not the AI. More directly to your question, the vulnerable server isn't the danger, it's the hackers who hack it. That's not to say that there shouldn't be security concerns, but to me it is a different use of the term "safety," closer in meaning to "vulnerability." People aren't talking about vulnerabilities or errors in AI, because that's just a computer bug-vulnerability problem. They're talking about AIs being a threat themselves.

icthysilia 9y ago

What I mean is, you can think of an AI system as a tool, like a hammer or a chainsaw or a screwdriver or a featherduster. It's created with certain goals in mind, to solve a problem. There may be side effects that are dangerous, but I don't see those dangers as being any different from any other tool. The assumption seems to be that an AI system will somehow transcend the purposes for which it was built, or that we will seek to build a replicant, in the sense of literally reproduce a human in silico. That goal seems kind of unrealistic to me, because it doesn't accomplish anything, because we already have humans. However, people do all kinds of things that don't make sense--but then that is a problem with the humans designing the AI, not the AI per se. I'm probably not explaining myself well, but basically I think whenever you create something (as opposed to it randomly evolving), it has a purpose. That purpose constrains the design and/or affords constraints. To the extent the maldesign comes about, though, that is a problem with the designer and not the design. I guess I just don't see super AIs coming about and deciding humans are worthless, unless humans design them that way, in which case that's a human problem, not a design problem. Humans are self-interested because that's how we evolved. AIs would come about because we created them to do something. If we choose to design them to do something malicious, it has to be a reflection of our malice, not the AI. More directly to your question, the vulnerable server isn't the danger, it's the hackers who hack it. That's not to say that there shouldn't be security concerns, but to me it is a different use of the term "safety," closer in meaning to "vulnerability." People aren't talking about vulnerabilities or errors in AI, because that's just a computer bug-vulnerability problem. They're talking about AIs being a threat themselves.