5 ms·

AI, AGI, and real intelligence all learn from actions and feedback. Looking at simple analogs from animal and human counterparts, setting boundaries and teachin

by dzink 9y ago

AI, AGI, and real intelligence all learn from actions and feedback. Looking at simple analogs from animal and human counterparts, setting boundaries and teaching beneficial rules, called morals, works somewhat in non-zero sum environments, but inevitably requires policing when the environment turns competitive. Safety in any case would require Intelligence-proof fencing and a really big stick even the most resource-rich non-value aligned agents would have to abide by. That means control over power grids, ability to prohibit access to shared computing resources (including less secured IOT devices), and potentially destructive viruses with all kinds of attack vectors that would act as policing force punishing bad agents with anti-human behavior. Credible enforcement should be a well funded bullet on this charter.

s1dechnl 9y ago
Weak AI is dangerous because it has no intelligence. It is fundamentally structured as a dumb/blind optimization process. The efforts necessary to proof safety/security for such a system could very well outweigh the amount of development that was needed to bring the technology to bear. AGI/Real Intelligence are far different animals than Weak AI and would require far less "safety" and policing. Real Intelligence is a phenomenon that exists on a scale of sorts that many never achieve in its higher forms. It is in lower forms that intelligence lends itself to destructive ends via ignorance. Attack vectors on a formalized Intelligence/AGI system can be severely restricted using very sensible/affordable approaches. The over complication and pinning of this as a theoretical problem centers on a number of people's desires to profit immensely from FUD. Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels. I'm pretty sure this is false.
  - s1dechnl 9y ago
    Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. As for the security, you'd have no ability to penetrate internal aspects of it without physical and detectable access patterns. This is achieved using common sense design methodologies that are already proofed industry standards. Behaving as though securitization is theoretically smacks as a cash grab to me. If you have something valuable that you want to secure, magically you come up with ways to safely secure it.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      > Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Now that I have your assurance I can obviously agree with you that strong AI is a thing that currently exists. I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration!
      - s1dechnl 9y ago
        > I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration! There's a reason why this technology ultimately 'comes out of nowhere'. It is not that it will come out of nowhere... It will be that those having the capability of developing it who have detailed it to a degree which should yield interesting/questions were largely ignored for the many years of development leading up until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I relied not on luck but diligence and persistence to seek the answer necessary no matter where they resided. In many people's minds, only millions of dollars of funding, prominent names, and companies can produce the technology. Such people ignore the history of technology that proofs the contrary. I rely not on name but on sound commentary. AGI could exist and could be functional at this very moment. It could be very safely secured. There's nothing to suggest otherwise beyond the limits of one's own understanding. All of the hand waving, safety propaganda, and doomsday FUD disappears in such a scenario as blink were all still here.
        9y ago

by dzink 9y ago

s1dechnl 9y ago

Weak AI is dangerous because it has no intelligence. It is fundamentally structured as a dumb/blind optimization process. The efforts necessary to proof safety/security for such a system could very well outweigh the amount of development that was needed to bring the technology to bear. AGI/Real Intelligence are far different animals than Weak AI and would require far less "safety" and policing. Real Intelligence is a phenomenon that exists on a scale of sorts that many never achieve in its higher forms. It is in lower forms that intelligence lends itself to destructive ends via ignorance. Attack vectors on a formalized Intelligence/AGI system can be severely restricted using very sensible/affordable approaches. The over complication and pinning of this as a theoretical problem centers on a number of people's desires to profit immensely from FUD. Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels.

dsacco 9y ago
> Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels. I'm pretty sure this is false.
- s1dechnl 9y ago
  Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. As for the security, you'd have no ability to penetrate internal aspects of it without physical and detectable access patterns. This is achieved using common sense design methodologies that are already proofed industry standards. Behaving as though securitization is theoretically smacks as a cash grab to me. If you have something valuable that you want to secure, magically you come up with ways to safely secure it.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    > Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Now that I have your assurance I can obviously agree with you that strong AI is a thing that currently exists. I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration!
    - s1dechnl 9y ago
      > I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration! There's a reason why this technology ultimately 'comes out of nowhere'. It is not that it will come out of nowhere... It will be that those having the capability of developing it who have detailed it to a degree which should yield interesting/questions were largely ignored for the many years of development leading up until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I relied not on luck but diligence and persistence to seek the answer necessary no matter where they resided. In many people's minds, only millions of dollars of funding, prominent names, and companies can produce the technology. Such people ignore the history of technology that proofs the contrary. I rely not on name but on sound commentary. AGI could exist and could be functional at this very moment. It could be very safely secured. There's nothing to suggest otherwise beyond the limits of one's own understanding. All of the hand waving, safety propaganda, and doomsday FUD disappears in such a scenario as blink were all still here.
      - 9y ago