3 ms·

Nicely done Buzzfeed. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Elon Musk assume that a superintelligent AI will stop at nothing to achieves its goals because that’s th

Nicely done Buzzfeed. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Elon Musk assume that a superintelligent AI will stop at nothing to achieves its goals because that’s the attitude they adopted. Kind of reminds one of Ex Machina. If amoral profit maximizers design AI, it's very possibly gonna be an amoral profit maximizer. It still irrationally bothers me after 30 years of shitty MS products and Gates literally preventing technological progress so he could make money, he's one of the good guys. It's like if you donate enough to the church you can earn penance. The new versions of Gates don't seem much different.

civilian 9y ago
But he's not donating to the church for "penance". He's helping save lives from malaria, and working on other projects to help the developing world! You can't dismiss that, and he's giving away so much of his money that it can't be considered a "fee". He's gonna 90% of it away by the time he's done.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Of course and you can't knock him for doing that. It's good, good for him. We could at least acknowledge that others didn't accumulate that wealth because their standards for business were higher than his.
  - VonGuard 9y ago
    Gates is doing this because in a few short years he went from America's darling super rich success story, to the monopolistic Satan most of us tech people remember. He was not prepared for being vilified so quickly and completely during the anti-trust years. Same thing as Andrew Carnegie: After the violent putting down of steel worker strikes, Carnegie was seen as the devil himself. He was so upset that this would be his legacy, Carnegie went about doing charitable work to change his image. You probably have a library he built within 50 miles of you, no matter where you live in the US. Gates is doing the same thing. He does not want his legacy to be that of a businessman, but rather, that of a philanthropist.
    - ForRealsies 9y ago
      What about all the other enormously rich families that don't have the spotlight shined on them to hold them to a higher standard?
      - jhpankow 9y ago
        They won't need to give 90% of their wealth away to make sure they don't get villainized.
    - arcbyte 9y ago
      The Carnegie library I grew up near is the reason I am where I am today in life. If I hadn't had access to all the books I spent my childhood and teenage years reading from that library, I'd be a lesser person.
      - rusk 9y ago
        There’s a few Carnegie libraries around Ireland too [0] and as a child I fully benefitted from my local one. In fact I obtained my first Linux distro from there all the way back in 1997 when I was supposed to be studying for my high school finals .. it was a pivotal moment in my career [0] http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/carnegie-libraries-in-ireland/ http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-hist...
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  >and he's giving away Gates was born too early for immortality to be achievable. Could it be that he has come face to face with his mortality, and having enough money to get anything he wants in the word that is for sale, he is effectively buying a positive legacy to be remembered by, as that is the closest thing to immortality that is currently on the market?
jerf 9y ago
"If amoral profit maximizers design AI, it's very possibly gonna be an amoral profit maximizer." The argument from those concerned about AI is richer than that. Any AI, and indeed, any Intelligence in general can be viewed as maximizing its results along a certain gradiant, no matter how complicated that gradient may be. If an AI determines that improving itself would help it achieve its goals, and there isn't some sort of natural limit to intelligence that would stop it, the first one to develop will improve itself until it is exceedingly good at maximizing that metric, whatever it may be. Even if someone quite altruistic comes along and programs this first AI to "maximize the happiness of humans", and gets even a slight bit sloppy with their gradient, they may create an AI that optimizes the universe for human happiness by converting the entire universe into human pleasure centers being stimulated at the maximum possible rate, and nothing else that you might be concerned about, such as your forebrain or visual center or anything else that you may think makes you human, but the highly altruistic and very well-meaning AI programmer neglected to specify in their definition of human. Here's another way of looking at the AI concerns: Let us stipulate a magical force in the universe that constrains AIs to be "fairly benevolent". Can you, right now, mathematically specify what a human is, and mathematically specify the best thing for humanity, in such a way that you are willing to 100% commit yourself and all humans to those definitions, rigidly, and for all time? And are you comfortable with the fact that it probably won't be you deciding? For context, I'm not necessarily a big believer in this argument, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth at least thinking about, and characterizing correctly.
dagss 9y ago
I think if you were on the receiving end of one of the Gates Foundation projects you would feel very different. "Preventing technological progress" -- so because of M$ shenanigangs perhaps rich kids got their toys a year or two later? (Big perhaps.) Still think the world as a whole was better off with Bill Gates in it. You have to be rich to give the same moral weight to providing tech toys and providing medicines.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  >"Preventing technological progress" -- so because of M$ shenanigangs perhaps rich kids got their toys a year or two later? (Big perhaps.) Still think the world as a whole was better off with Bill Gates in it. TIL protocols and operating system technologies that could make life better for millions is just some rich kid's toy.
  - dagss 9y ago
    I am glad you understood my statement... If you can display how "better operating systems" and "make life better for millions" fits together I may change my mind. Basically anything that is not providing for basic human needs are "rich peoples toys" in my book (in the context of evaluating Gates' moral standards). Operating systems are just not in the same playing field as peace, food, health. There are some hundred million people living in utter despair. If you mildly inconvenience others in order to help these, you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
    - PrimHelios 9y ago
      >If you can display how "better operating systems" and "make life better for millions" fits together I may change my mind. The entire world runs on computers. Better and faster operating systems means a better computer. >There are some hundred million people living in utter despair. If you mildly inconvenience others in order to help these, you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Is... Is this supposed to be you not understand communism, or Robin Hood? There's a good chance you're better off than I am, should I send you my Paypal?
gaius 9y ago
If amoral profit maximizers Such as websites run on ad clicks? Buzzfeed itself is the problem, and things like it. Not tech, not capitalism.
chuckgreenman 9y ago
I disagree with the idea that microsoft is somehow blocking progress. Personally I'm an Arch Linux guy, but that's what works best for my job. Many people who critisize microsoft are doing it from a chair that was designed on a Windows machine, and likely assembled in a factory with machines running windows embeded. It's a good product for what it's good at.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  The US government ruled that MS was a monopoly, and for the US government to do that, you're really pushing things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[15] Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.[16]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
re shitty MS products: There still isn't a spreadsheet either commercial or open source that is as good as Microsoft Excel. Second, you can accuse him of preventing technological progress, but he was responsible more than probably any other person for bringing personal computing to the masses. I think he said his goal was a personal computer on every desktop and he pretty much achieved his goal. Finally, the Gates foundation's work on malaria and maternal mortality has and will do more good for more people than many thousands of the "disrupt the world for good" startups ever will.
ASalazarMX 9y ago
Imagine a Ferengi/HAL9000 hybrid: "I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in this quarter's projections."

civilian 9y ago

But he's not donating to the church for "penance". He's helping save lives from malaria, and working on other projects to help the developing world! You can't dismiss that, and he's giving away so much of his money that it can't be considered a "fee". He's gonna 90% of it away by the time he's done.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Of course and you can't knock him for doing that. It's good, good for him. We could at least acknowledge that others didn't accumulate that wealth because their standards for business were higher than his.
- VonGuard 9y ago
  Gates is doing this because in a few short years he went from America's darling super rich success story, to the monopolistic Satan most of us tech people remember. He was not prepared for being vilified so quickly and completely during the anti-trust years. Same thing as Andrew Carnegie: After the violent putting down of steel worker strikes, Carnegie was seen as the devil himself. He was so upset that this would be his legacy, Carnegie went about doing charitable work to change his image. You probably have a library he built within 50 miles of you, no matter where you live in the US. Gates is doing the same thing. He does not want his legacy to be that of a businessman, but rather, that of a philanthropist.
  - ForRealsies 9y ago
    What about all the other enormously rich families that don't have the spotlight shined on them to hold them to a higher standard?
    - jhpankow 9y ago
      They won't need to give 90% of their wealth away to make sure they don't get villainized.
  - arcbyte 9y ago
    The Carnegie library I grew up near is the reason I am where I am today in life. If I hadn't had access to all the books I spent my childhood and teenage years reading from that library, I'd be a lesser person.
    - rusk 9y ago
      There’s a few Carnegie libraries around Ireland too [0] and as a child I fully benefitted from my local one. In fact I obtained my first Linux distro from there all the way back in 1997 when I was supposed to be studying for my high school finals .. it was a pivotal moment in my career [0] http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/carnegie-libraries-in-ireland/ http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-hist...
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>and he's giving away Gates was born too early for immortality to be achievable. Could it be that he has come face to face with his mortality, and having enough money to get anything he wants in the word that is for sale, he is effectively buying a positive legacy to be remembered by, as that is the closest thing to immortality that is currently on the market?

jerf 9y ago

"If amoral profit maximizers design AI, it's very possibly gonna be an amoral profit maximizer." The argument from those concerned about AI is richer than that. Any AI, and indeed, any Intelligence in general can be viewed as maximizing its results along a certain gradiant, no matter how complicated that gradient may be. If an AI determines that improving itself would help it achieve its goals, and there isn't some sort of natural limit to intelligence that would stop it, the first one to develop will improve itself until it is exceedingly good at maximizing that metric, whatever it may be. Even if someone quite altruistic comes along and programs this first AI to "maximize the happiness of humans", and gets even a slight bit sloppy with their gradient, they may create an AI that optimizes the universe for human happiness by converting the entire universe into human pleasure centers being stimulated at the maximum possible rate, and nothing else that you might be concerned about, such as your forebrain or visual center or anything else that you may think makes you human, but the highly altruistic and very well-meaning AI programmer neglected to specify in their definition of human. Here's another way of looking at the AI concerns: Let us stipulate a magical force in the universe that constrains AIs to be "fairly benevolent". Can you, right now, mathematically specify what a human is, and mathematically specify the best thing for humanity, in such a way that you are willing to 100% commit yourself and all humans to those definitions, rigidly, and for all time? And are you comfortable with the fact that it probably won't be you deciding? For context, I'm not necessarily a big believer in this argument, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth at least thinking about, and characterizing correctly.

dagss 9y ago

I think if you were on the receiving end of one of the Gates Foundation projects you would feel very different. "Preventing technological progress" -- so because of M$ shenanigangs perhaps rich kids got their toys a year or two later? (Big perhaps.) Still think the world as a whole was better off with Bill Gates in it. You have to be rich to give the same moral weight to providing tech toys and providing medicines.

PrimHelios 9y ago
>"Preventing technological progress" -- so because of M$ shenanigangs perhaps rich kids got their toys a year or two later? (Big perhaps.) Still think the world as a whole was better off with Bill Gates in it. TIL protocols and operating system technologies that could make life better for millions is just some rich kid's toy.
- dagss 9y ago
  I am glad you understood my statement... If you can display how "better operating systems" and "make life better for millions" fits together I may change my mind. Basically anything that is not providing for basic human needs are "rich peoples toys" in my book (in the context of evaluating Gates' moral standards). Operating systems are just not in the same playing field as peace, food, health. There are some hundred million people living in utter despair. If you mildly inconvenience others in order to help these, you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
  - PrimHelios 9y ago
    >If you can display how "better operating systems" and "make life better for millions" fits together I may change my mind. The entire world runs on computers. Better and faster operating systems means a better computer. >There are some hundred million people living in utter despair. If you mildly inconvenience others in order to help these, you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Is... Is this supposed to be you not understand communism, or Robin Hood? There's a good chance you're better off than I am, should I send you my Paypal?

gaius 9y ago

If amoral profit maximizers Such as websites run on ad clicks? Buzzfeed itself is the problem, and things like it. Not tech, not capitalism.

chuckgreenman 9y ago

I disagree with the idea that microsoft is somehow blocking progress. Personally I'm an Arch Linux guy, but that's what works best for my job. Many people who critisize microsoft are doing it from a chair that was designed on a Windows machine, and likely assembled in a factory with machines running windows embeded. It's a good product for what it's good at.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
The US government ruled that MS was a monopoly, and for the US government to do that, you're really pushing things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[15] Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.[16]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

re shitty MS products: There still isn't a spreadsheet either commercial or open source that is as good as Microsoft Excel. Second, you can accuse him of preventing technological progress, but he was responsible more than probably any other person for bringing personal computing to the masses. I think he said his goal was a personal computer on every desktop and he pretty much achieved his goal. Finally, the Gates foundation's work on malaria and maternal mortality has and will do more good for more people than many thousands of the "disrupt the world for good" startups ever will.

ASalazarMX 9y ago

Imagine a Ferengi/HAL9000 hybrid: "I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in this quarter's projections."