7 ms·

The true nature of AGI research has always been heavy restrictions on the core aspects of the technology. This is where true safety and sensibility is achieved.

The true nature of AGI research has always been heavy restrictions on the core aspects of the technology. This is where true safety and sensibility is achieved. Those who've stated otherwise or with much verbiage eventually arrive at this obvious state. Therefore, publications up until now under the banner of 'AGI' have largely been insignificant in terms of their capability to achieve the core technological aspects of AGI. No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. This can easily be proofed by sound logic and reasoning. There was a commercial step to possibly tease others into revealing heavily valuable/powerful technological underpinnings.. It failed, no one took the bait, and no one ever likely will. This has resulted in revised and more mature statements.

dsacco 8y ago
> No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. Are you sure? I'd publish technical research details about strong AI. I'd probably even open source one with the papers. I think I'm in my right mind; I guess that depends on definition, doesn't it?
- s1dechnl 8y ago
  It also depends on your capability to discover the underpinnings of Strong AI... Certain mindsets preclude one from doing so. If you truly understood the underpinnings of StrongAI and weren't moved to heavily restrict publicized details, I'd strongly question if what you had discovered/came to understand truly were 'underpinnings' of the technology. As such, for those quick to publish or say they would publish and share details, one is able to quickly ascertain the possible strength of what they have discovered or feel they have the possibility of discovering. That being said, it's interesting that several proponents of 'everyone share what they find' have moved to more maturely state that 'restrictions may of apply'.. Sensibly signaling that they indeed wouldn't reveal certain details upon discovering their true nature and capability for obvious reasons (a danger to society to allow such power/capability to be detailed and therefore used in negative ways). Human history has myriad examples of powerful technology being misused and abused. The current age of disinformation is one of our more modern ones. The way in which social media has been weaponized is yet another. Weak AI has already been used for destructive means and in manipulative manners for profit. A good deal of unsafe end products which utilize Weak AI are already fielded. The fielding of which made possibly by deep pockets manipulating policy makers and regulation. A sensible mind capable of producing Strong AI will have observed and digested these clearly visible truths and it would move them to restrict access and publications of their works. Doing otherwise would highlight a level of ignorance, immaturity, and admission of truth when it comes to grasping the current state of humanity. It is this which would preclude one from grasping the nature and foundations of strongAI in the first place. [Nature's lockout/safety mechanism for such a stage in Human development/capability]
  - dsacco 8y ago
    This is performance art, right? Your comments in this thread strain the limits of credulity. Do you actually believe there is an intellectual barrier that will helpfully ensure only the virtuous are capable of doing artificial intelligence research?
    - s1dechnl 8y ago
      It could be many things. There is a spectrum of Human Intelligence. There is a spectrum of capability of Artificial Intelligence that can be produced by a spectrum of individual Human Intelligence. Do you believe, given many years of historical evidence and demonstration, that one's own personal limitations don't preclude them from certain discoveries? Do you think that money can solve every problem? Do you think if you throw enough PhDs in a room that you can solve any problem in the world? What is intelligence? What is its fundamental nature especially at higher orders? Does a truly and deeply intelligent individual focus on trivialities? Is money/fame their primary motivator? What would such an individual sacrifice for ultimate answers? What catches their eye? What keeps them up at night? If not virtuous, how do they not self destruct at the higher tiers of capability/intelligence? What keeps them together at the limits of comprehension/understanding? Why don't other paths appeal to them? Why don't they cut short and cash in along incremental achievements? What effect does this have on long term progress? Why/how do they think different then everyone else doing research? What is their failure rate? Why are they okay with possibly researching this problem their whole life and not getting an answer or not making money from their efforts? What then are they capable of doing that others are not? Lots of questions.. Lots of answers.. Ultimately
    - s2g 8y ago
      That's chugging your own kool-aid at a pretty high level. Impressive!
      - dsacco 8y ago
        I don't really understand what you mean.
- gone35 8y ago
  Wow; I would strongly recommend you to re-think your position! Think of it in terms of, e.g., gain-of-function research in virology (cf. [1]). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
  - dsacco 8y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying publishing novel research about strong AI is analogous to releasing a virus, or not taking antibiotics for their full cycle?
    - gone35 8y ago
      No, not quite. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the gain-of-function bioethics literature and recent debates, to get a better sense of what I'm trying to convey.
      - dsacco 8y ago
        Why don't you just summarize your actual point or at least provide further guidance? You literally posted a link without any further clarification about its relevance. As it stands, you're not giving me any incentive to "strongly reconsider" my position.
        gone35 8y ago
        Perhaps this is one of those things that can't be easily 30-second summarized, lest understood without a modicum of effort! (Besides you sound, frankly, somewhat uncharitable --so I will stop wasting your time and refrain from trying to persuade you further.)
        dsacco 8y ago
        I sound uncharitable because you posted a (from my perspectively, completely random) link to a research article in a different field and implored me to change my thinking, without any other commentary. That's not a substantive addition to the conversation, because on my end I have no idea whether to take your link seriously and how much time or effort to invest in learning about it. After reading it for two minutes, it's not obvious how to take a productive insight about artificial intelligence from what seems to be an article about mutations. I offered my sincere first thought about what you might have meant and asked for further clarification, and you shot that down without any further clarification. Now after I've twice asked you for clarification and you haven't provided it, you're telling me you're wasting your time. Do you see how this is unhelpful? It's borderline Kafkaesque.

dsacco 8y ago

> No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. Are you sure? I'd publish technical research details about strong AI. I'd probably even open source one with the papers. I think I'm in my right mind; I guess that depends on definition, doesn't it?

s1dechnl 8y ago
It also depends on your capability to discover the underpinnings of Strong AI... Certain mindsets preclude one from doing so. If you truly understood the underpinnings of StrongAI and weren't moved to heavily restrict publicized details, I'd strongly question if what you had discovered/came to understand truly were 'underpinnings' of the technology. As such, for those quick to publish or say they would publish and share details, one is able to quickly ascertain the possible strength of what they have discovered or feel they have the possibility of discovering. That being said, it's interesting that several proponents of 'everyone share what they find' have moved to more maturely state that 'restrictions may of apply'.. Sensibly signaling that they indeed wouldn't reveal certain details upon discovering their true nature and capability for obvious reasons (a danger to society to allow such power/capability to be detailed and therefore used in negative ways). Human history has myriad examples of powerful technology being misused and abused. The current age of disinformation is one of our more modern ones. The way in which social media has been weaponized is yet another. Weak AI has already been used for destructive means and in manipulative manners for profit. A good deal of unsafe end products which utilize Weak AI are already fielded. The fielding of which made possibly by deep pockets manipulating policy makers and regulation. A sensible mind capable of producing Strong AI will have observed and digested these clearly visible truths and it would move them to restrict access and publications of their works. Doing otherwise would highlight a level of ignorance, immaturity, and admission of truth when it comes to grasping the current state of humanity. It is this which would preclude one from grasping the nature and foundations of strongAI in the first place. [Nature's lockout/safety mechanism for such a stage in Human development/capability]
- dsacco 8y ago
  This is performance art, right? Your comments in this thread strain the limits of credulity. Do you actually believe there is an intellectual barrier that will helpfully ensure only the virtuous are capable of doing artificial intelligence research?
  - s1dechnl 8y ago
    It could be many things. There is a spectrum of Human Intelligence. There is a spectrum of capability of Artificial Intelligence that can be produced by a spectrum of individual Human Intelligence. Do you believe, given many years of historical evidence and demonstration, that one's own personal limitations don't preclude them from certain discoveries? Do you think that money can solve every problem? Do you think if you throw enough PhDs in a room that you can solve any problem in the world? What is intelligence? What is its fundamental nature especially at higher orders? Does a truly and deeply intelligent individual focus on trivialities? Is money/fame their primary motivator? What would such an individual sacrifice for ultimate answers? What catches their eye? What keeps them up at night? If not virtuous, how do they not self destruct at the higher tiers of capability/intelligence? What keeps them together at the limits of comprehension/understanding? Why don't other paths appeal to them? Why don't they cut short and cash in along incremental achievements? What effect does this have on long term progress? Why/how do they think different then everyone else doing research? What is their failure rate? Why are they okay with possibly researching this problem their whole life and not getting an answer or not making money from their efforts? What then are they capable of doing that others are not? Lots of questions.. Lots of answers.. Ultimately
  - s2g 8y ago
    That's chugging your own kool-aid at a pretty high level. Impressive!
    - dsacco 8y ago
      I don't really understand what you mean.
gone35 8y ago
Wow; I would strongly recommend you to re-think your position! Think of it in terms of, e.g., gain-of-function research in virology (cf. [1]). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
- dsacco 8y ago
  I'm sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying publishing novel research about strong AI is analogous to releasing a virus, or not taking antibiotics for their full cycle?
  - gone35 8y ago
    No, not quite. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the gain-of-function bioethics literature and recent debates, to get a better sense of what I'm trying to convey.
    - dsacco 8y ago
      Why don't you just summarize your actual point or at least provide further guidance? You literally posted a link without any further clarification about its relevance. As it stands, you're not giving me any incentive to "strongly reconsider" my position.
      - gone35 8y ago
        Perhaps this is one of those things that can't be easily 30-second summarized, lest understood without a modicum of effort! (Besides you sound, frankly, somewhat uncharitable --so I will stop wasting your time and refrain from trying to persuade you further.)
        dsacco 8y ago
        I sound uncharitable because you posted a (from my perspectively, completely random) link to a research article in a different field and implored me to change my thinking, without any other commentary. That's not a substantive addition to the conversation, because on my end I have no idea whether to take your link seriously and how much time or effort to invest in learning about it. After reading it for two minutes, it's not obvious how to take a productive insight about artificial intelligence from what seems to be an article about mutations. I offered my sincere first thought about what you might have meant and asked for further clarification, and you shot that down without any further clarification. Now after I've twice asked you for clarification and you haven't provided it, you're telling me you're wasting your time. Do you see how this is unhelpful? It's borderline Kafkaesque.