3 ms·

Do some of you work in data science or machine learning occupations? You will realize how unreal those predictions sound. It's mainly cleaning data up, getting

Do some of you work in data science or machine learning occupations? You will realize how unreal those predictions sound. It's mainly cleaning data up, getting some random correlations from plugging variables into deep learning algorithms and hoping that it doesn't break with the most silly outputs you can think of. Many scientists warn that AI is the biggest threat to humanity. I think this is wishful thinking for now. Let's talk about this in 20 years. I think we will have 2 GAI hypes until it can finally happen (in my eyes it's mainly two problems: computational power and trying to rebuild a biological brain i.e. its structure and pre-trained functional components). I think wetware [1] is very promising in the near future and more efficient methods like IBM's neurosynaptic processors in the middle term. Machines will do what we tell them to do for a long time. Maybe they will use unconventional methods, but they won't destroy humanity because "they're tasked to minimize suffering and decides that this is the best option". They will search through all laws, assist doctors and even detect depression, but they won't do anything besides their task. Even Boston Dynamics is mainly using control theory. Making things work with deep learning requires heavy computational power. As long as there is no real-world Umbrella Corp., it's mainly sci-fi. There are a lot more and cheaper ways to do harm. Infiltrating and poisoning groundwater, hacking critical infrastructure, building biological weapons etc. It's hard enough to build bug-free software, it's even harder to build an AI that is unbelievably intelligent (reminder: we don't have such a thing. Most autonomous cars use rule-based systems, most ML is basically gluing models together which can be easily fooled and most of those things are very shaky and by no means intelligent) and contains a bug which leads to its world domination by accident or something similar. I would start to play lottery if this is even remotely possible because that would be a miracle (probability-wise). [1]: https://koniku.com https://koniku.com

abakker 8y ago
I've raised this a few times in the past, but, why would we want to build an AGI modeled after the thought patterns and processes of a human brain? We have plenty of human brains. it seems that we should want to avoid the same traps fallacies, biases, etc that humans have, and, if we accurately do so we won't have an AGI that is much like a human at all. I suspect we'll have something very powerful and capable long before we have something that approximates human personality and "intelligence", and even if we get to that latter state it will almost certainly be because the machine is faking it. OTOH, if we try to directly replicate a human as we currently are, then I expect we should start with all the various mental shortcuts and cognitive biases we have. I'm no neuroscientist, but, one thing that is apparent in the comparison of machine learning models to humans is just how sparse the data that humans learn from is. I strongly suspect that our collection of mental shortcuts and biases, as well as our superior sensory input are what makes that difference. of course, if we succeed at making an AGI just like this, it will be just as good as humans at making very human mistakes.
titzer 8y ago
> It's mainly cleaning data up, getting some random correlations from plugging variables into deep learning algorithms and hoping that it doesn't break with the most silly outputs you can think of. Said one neuron to the other. The problem is even if it--all of it, the whole internet and all the desktops and datacenters and databases and webpages and webservers and knowledge bases and ad networks and search engines and speech interfaces and image recognition and traffic cameras and phone system and surveillance systems together in one giant hairball of wires--were a superintelligent AI, could we even tell? If an entity 1000x smarter than you doesn't want you to know it's 1000x smarter than you--or that it even exists!--do you think you stand a chance of figuring it out? It is, by definition, a mathematical certainty you will lose that battle of the wits. Ok, fine. It's an unfalsifiable theory. But we're not positing that rocks speak in really quiet whispers or unicorns exist everywhere we don't look, just that a giant information processing system can...process information--think. The problem is that the whole thing is insanely massive and so insanely complicated that not a single human alive, nor any group of humans alive, has any real perspective on just what the hell it all is. It's so massive that it doesn't fit in any of our minds. So how you can say anything definitive about what it is not? It clearly is already complex enough and capable enough of totally outclassing us all. So why shouldn't it? So we are now faced with the reality that our massive interconnected computer system consisting of literally billions of CPUs with trillions of terabytes of RAM run by billions of lines of code, loaded with essentially the entirety of humanity's knowledge, also hooked up to all of the phone lines, cameras, PCs, phones, power plants, traffic systems, ad networks, video streams, everything...is....unknowably motivated, impossible to shutdown, and somehow not a threat? Because it is just "mainly cleaning data up"? Yep.
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  I was talking about AI. I agree that our interconnected world is nearly impossible to thoroughly understand. But that is true for human societies, too. Anthropomorphizing the internet ("If an entity 1000x smarter than you doesn't want you to know it's 1000x smarter than you--or that it even exists!--do you think you stand a chance of figuring it out?") is good to write some sci-fi novels, but in reality most systems are pretty boring. The traffic light system and a bunch of routers won't work together to destroy humanity. It's more like a mesh network than an entity that is 1000x smarter - it's more like 1000x devices with 0.01 intelligence and you would need a team of talented people who harness this computational power to build a distributed intelligent system. It's more likely that a hacker who has specific motivations will hack the traffic light system (or use AI helpers to do so) and use it for evil purposes and car accidents. If you believe that there might be an entity which exists outside of our perception and has enormous intelligence, it's like a human-made god - a homunculus. It's basically the same as believing in a god. I have nothing against it, but this is entirely hypothetical.

abakker 8y ago

I've raised this a few times in the past, but, why would we want to build an AGI modeled after the thought patterns and processes of a human brain? We have plenty of human brains. it seems that we should want to avoid the same traps fallacies, biases, etc that humans have, and, if we accurately do so we won't have an AGI that is much like a human at all. I suspect we'll have something very powerful and capable long before we have something that approximates human personality and "intelligence", and even if we get to that latter state it will almost certainly be because the machine is faking it. OTOH, if we try to directly replicate a human as we currently are, then I expect we should start with all the various mental shortcuts and cognitive biases we have. I'm no neuroscientist, but, one thing that is apparent in the comparison of machine learning models to humans is just how sparse the data that humans learn from is. I strongly suspect that our collection of mental shortcuts and biases, as well as our superior sensory input are what makes that difference. of course, if we succeed at making an AGI just like this, it will be just as good as humans at making very human mistakes.

titzer 8y ago

> It's mainly cleaning data up, getting some random correlations from plugging variables into deep learning algorithms and hoping that it doesn't break with the most silly outputs you can think of. Said one neuron to the other. The problem is even if it--all of it, the whole internet and all the desktops and datacenters and databases and webpages and webservers and knowledge bases and ad networks and search engines and speech interfaces and image recognition and traffic cameras and phone system and surveillance systems together in one giant hairball of wires--were a superintelligent AI, could we even tell? If an entity 1000x smarter than you doesn't want you to know it's 1000x smarter than you--or that it even exists!--do you think you stand a chance of figuring it out? It is, by definition, a mathematical certainty you will lose that battle of the wits. Ok, fine. It's an unfalsifiable theory. But we're not positing that rocks speak in really quiet whispers or unicorns exist everywhere we don't look, just that a giant information processing system can...process information--think. The problem is that the whole thing is insanely massive and so insanely complicated that not a single human alive, nor any group of humans alive, has any real perspective on just what the hell it all is. It's so massive that it doesn't fit in any of our minds. So how you can say anything definitive about what it is not? It clearly is already complex enough and capable enough of totally outclassing us all. So why shouldn't it? So we are now faced with the reality that our massive interconnected computer system consisting of literally billions of CPUs with trillions of terabytes of RAM run by billions of lines of code, loaded with essentially the entirety of humanity's knowledge, also hooked up to all of the phone lines, cameras, PCs, phones, power plants, traffic systems, ad networks, video streams, everything...is....unknowably motivated, impossible to shutdown, and somehow not a threat? Because it is just "mainly cleaning data up"? Yep.

mockingbirdy 8y ago
I was talking about AI. I agree that our interconnected world is nearly impossible to thoroughly understand. But that is true for human societies, too. Anthropomorphizing the internet ("If an entity 1000x smarter than you doesn't want you to know it's 1000x smarter than you--or that it even exists!--do you think you stand a chance of figuring it out?") is good to write some sci-fi novels, but in reality most systems are pretty boring. The traffic light system and a bunch of routers won't work together to destroy humanity. It's more like a mesh network than an entity that is 1000x smarter - it's more like 1000x devices with 0.01 intelligence and you would need a team of talented people who harness this computational power to build a distributed intelligent system. It's more likely that a hacker who has specific motivations will hack the traffic light system (or use AI helpers to do so) and use it for evil purposes and car accidents. If you believe that there might be an entity which exists outside of our perception and has enormous intelligence, it's like a human-made god - a homunculus. It's basically the same as believing in a god. I have nothing against it, but this is entirely hypothetical.