3 ms·

It always seems like FUD to me when I read these articles. What is the specific concern? Can we get some examples? Sometimes people are like oh no AI is gonna t

It always seems like FUD to me when I read these articles. What is the specific concern? Can we get some examples? Sometimes people are like oh no AI is gonna take over! And I just think about how hard it is for humans to integrate two software systems and laugh. What are we afraid of it doing? If it gets out of control can’t we just you know... cut the power?

superhuzza 8y ago
Did you even open the article? "Killer drones are a big concern....dangers of abuse, especially by authoritarian governments...AI can amplify discrimination and biases". Bengio is specifically talking about malicious actors using AI. So saying "just unplug it" isn't really applicable, especially when it comes to governments.
- luxuryballs 8y ago
  you don’t need AI to make killer drones
  - jhayward 8y ago
    This is an example of 'whataboutism', and is used to derail a discussion without actually responding to the point.
    - luxuryballs 8y ago
      my original point was already a response to your quote from the article, what is there to expound on? the problem isn’t an AI problem it’s a malicious actor problem
auber 8y ago
FUD is a really stupid term. If there is any fear or uncertainty or doubt present in someone’s remark, then they are “FUD?” You could say that about almost anything. “I don’t think it would be a good idea to ride our bikes into that forest pathway because there seem to be lots of trees to run into and it probably isn’t kept up so there may be potholes and generally the whole thing doesn’t sit well with me.” “That’s just FUD, I’m going in.” This is the classic childhood story where one kid was smart enough to not go in and the other kid ends up with a broken arm and a concussion. My point is that not everything can be mathematically proven to be bad. Sometimes you have to reason about it and you have to deal with uncertainty. You can’t solve every problem by trying it out. Some things are better to not try. And AGI is the best example of that maybe ever. With AGI the burden is on the proponents to prove beyond any doubt that AGI is completely safe. The burden is not on its detractors to prove that it will be bad for humanity. It’s only logical. If I am wrong and we abstain then we lose nothing. If you are wrong then we lose everything.

superhuzza 8y ago

Did you even open the article? "Killer drones are a big concern....dangers of abuse, especially by authoritarian governments...AI can amplify discrimination and biases". Bengio is specifically talking about malicious actors using AI. So saying "just unplug it" isn't really applicable, especially when it comes to governments.

luxuryballs 8y ago
you don’t need AI to make killer drones
- jhayward 8y ago
  This is an example of 'whataboutism', and is used to derail a discussion without actually responding to the point.
  - luxuryballs 8y ago
    my original point was already a response to your quote from the article, what is there to expound on? the problem isn’t an AI problem it’s a malicious actor problem

auber 8y ago

FUD is a really stupid term. If there is any fear or uncertainty or doubt present in someone’s remark, then they are “FUD?” You could say that about almost anything. “I don’t think it would be a good idea to ride our bikes into that forest pathway because there seem to be lots of trees to run into and it probably isn’t kept up so there may be potholes and generally the whole thing doesn’t sit well with me.” “That’s just FUD, I’m going in.” This is the classic childhood story where one kid was smart enough to not go in and the other kid ends up with a broken arm and a concussion. My point is that not everything can be mathematically proven to be bad. Sometimes you have to reason about it and you have to deal with uncertainty. You can’t solve every problem by trying it out. Some things are better to not try. And AGI is the best example of that maybe ever. With AGI the burden is on the proponents to prove beyond any doubt that AGI is completely safe. The burden is not on its detractors to prove that it will be bad for humanity. It’s only logical. If I am wrong and we abstain then we lose nothing. If you are wrong then we lose everything.