3 ms·
You're continuing to attribute claims to me that I don't believe I'm making. If you think a freestanding statement about "applicability" in a general sense need
by glenstein 7y ago
You're continuing to attribute claims to me that I don't believe I'm making. If you think a freestanding statement about "applicability" in a general sense needs to be construed as an AI actively stepping outside it's domain, and as AI having it's own "realization", you should support that contention, so I can understand why you think that that's what I'm saying and we can go from there.
- solipsism 7y agoWe're talking about the risk of an AI going rogue and doing/thinking things we didn't want it to. That's why we're here. If all you're saying is, "an AI may learn things that might be applicable to other domains", that's fine but it doesn't support your point that you don't think AI will be easily confined to a single domain of knowledge. It's entirely possible a chess AI would be potentially incredibly good at some other domain like murdering humans (say), but you're going to have to explain why it would acquire a taste for murdering humans if you're saying we should be worried. I think any domain-specific intelligence, as it approximates "perfect", would independently discover and solve similar high level questions Solving a question requires intent. What would prompt it to consider those questions? If you're not saying those questions are in other domains, how is it relevant?