3 ms·

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here? My point was that a suboptimal solution is one where there was no careful, methodical thought to the design of AI sy

by gfodor 9y ago

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here? My point was that a suboptimal solution is one where there was no careful, methodical thought to the design of AI systems. If AI designers and researchers blindly react to public outcry after 24 hours from a demo (which, in general, is something I would expect Google to do) the kind of thinking you mention above is just as unlikely to happen as if they trudged on forward without any consideration to these things at all. In both cases, this is a suboptimal outcome for society. In one, we get a fairly random, undesigned world of AI systems that don't serve anyone well and generally are underutilized because nobody is willing to push the boundaries. In the other, we get dystopian AI hell. It's important that researchers be given the space to think you describe. The right way to allow that is to foster an informed and open-minded public about the emergence of AI and the decisions we need to make about it as a society, and not have prominent voices writing about knee-jerk reactions making authoritative demands to a specific public demo after just a day. (See Max Tegmark's book Life 3.0 for the kinds of stuff we need more of being put into the world imho.)

salawat 9y ago
It is this part I"m referring to: >Emotional reactions and ad-hoc decisionmaking based on mob rule is going to result in a random, arbitrary outcome which will almost certainly be suboptimal. I may have initially misinterpreted some context when I read your comment before, though my conclusions haven't changed much. I agree with you that AI research must be methodically and transparently approached. The part where I was trying to speak toward, however, was that AI researchers/designers are going to necessarily be constrained by how much faith and goodwill a (currently) troubled society, plagued with inequality and hardship in the face of increasing job loss to automation. This is a feature, not a bug to be dismissed. AI is akin to nuclear technology in that it is perceived as a huge game changer. One that brings with it a huge potential for societal change and upheaval. The AI designer/researcher DOESN'T necessarily see it that way. It is just a tool to do a thing. The populace, however, don't grasp the limits the researcher/designer does. They are being asked to give the same degree of faith to the AI field that nuclear physics was given in the last century. Combine that with a severe distrust in the motives of the organizations doing the actual development and you have the stage set for large-scale rejection of AI research. You said it yourself before. AI is a field that is trying to replace humans (having to do stuff). That is not a viewpoint that will win you the favor of the populace. No one will get further than the first half of the sentence before the hackles go up. Nobody trusts a Utopia where people don't have to work because machines do it for them. Nor will they trust the men behind the machines. It's sad, but it is the kind of thinking that has kept humanity OUT of a complete dystopian hellholes thus far. I don't know the fix, but I do know that if we can't solve some very fundamental social problems that advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning are poised to make worse, you will find the field of study becoming more and more difficult to find public acceptance in. The only inkling of a clue I have is it may have to do with the "industrial asymmetry" of our current times. If you don't take heed of the state of society, you may end up in the same place NASA was for the latter half of the 20th Century. BEAUTIFUL theoretical groundwork laid, but hamstrung in execution by popular sentiment. (See some documentaries to learn how "thrilled" many were with the Space Race. NASA still hasn't recovered from the backlash despite some of the best science I've ever seen)

by gfodor 9y ago

salawat 9y ago

It is this part I"m referring to: >Emotional reactions and ad-hoc decisionmaking based on mob rule is going to result in a random, arbitrary outcome which will almost certainly be suboptimal. I may have initially misinterpreted some context when I read your comment before, though my conclusions haven't changed much. I agree with you that AI research must be methodically and transparently approached. The part where I was trying to speak toward, however, was that AI researchers/designers are going to necessarily be constrained by how much faith and goodwill a (currently) troubled society, plagued with inequality and hardship in the face of increasing job loss to automation. This is a feature, not a bug to be dismissed. AI is akin to nuclear technology in that it is perceived as a huge game changer. One that brings with it a huge potential for societal change and upheaval. The AI designer/researcher DOESN'T necessarily see it that way. It is just a tool to do a thing. The populace, however, don't grasp the limits the researcher/designer does. They are being asked to give the same degree of faith to the AI field that nuclear physics was given in the last century. Combine that with a severe distrust in the motives of the organizations doing the actual development and you have the stage set for large-scale rejection of AI research. You said it yourself before. AI is a field that is trying to replace humans (having to do stuff). That is not a viewpoint that will win you the favor of the populace. No one will get further than the first half of the sentence before the hackles go up. Nobody trusts a Utopia where people don't have to work because machines do it for them. Nor will they trust the men behind the machines. It's sad, but it is the kind of thinking that has kept humanity OUT of a complete dystopian hellholes thus far. I don't know the fix, but I do know that if we can't solve some very fundamental social problems that advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning are poised to make worse, you will find the field of study becoming more and more difficult to find public acceptance in. The only inkling of a clue I have is it may have to do with the "industrial asymmetry" of our current times. If you don't take heed of the state of society, you may end up in the same place NASA was for the latter half of the 20th Century. BEAUTIFUL theoretical groundwork laid, but hamstrung in execution by popular sentiment. (See some documentaries to learn how "thrilled" many were with the Space Race. NASA still hasn't recovered from the backlash despite some of the best science I've ever seen)