4 ms·

I think Congress needs to pass legislation banning such an insane, stupid idea. And we should stop calling it "artificial intelligence," as if some software is

by mnm1 7y ago

I think Congress needs to pass legislation banning such an insane, stupid idea. And we should stop calling it "artificial intelligence," as if some software is actually intelligent comparable to humans. This is just software and as with all software, it has bugs. Trusting it to not start a nuclear war is essentially saying, "this software, which we can't even explain how it works (cause ai), is bug free." Insane. This whole ai movement is dangerous but not because something like Hal or the terminator will be created but because stupid people like these will convince the government to put such weapons under the control of buggy software no one, including its creators, understands with horrific consequences. All so we can make sure that the whole world is destroyed in case of nuclear war. The insanity is truly mind boggling.

inimino 7y ago
Congress isn't gonna pass legislation to ban the military from suggesting stupid ideas, or the executive branch from approving them, because that itself would be a stupid idea that reduces American defence readiness and suppresses worthwhile ideas as well as bad ones. > as if some software is actually intelligent comparable to humans How's your Go game coming along over there? (Have you ever even played? Because if you had I think you'd have more respect for the intelligence required (for a human) to succeed even moderately at the game.) > not because something like Hal or the terminator will be created Actually it is pretty dangerous for those reasons too.
- mnm1 7y ago
  Playing go or chess or any other game isn't intelligence. The computer isn't intelligent. It's programmed for one task and one task only. That's great programming and use of statistics etc. but that's not intelligent. Anyway, if you're worried about terminator and Hal like beings, it's futile to discuss intelligence when you are living in a science fiction world. In our world, those things do not exist and there is no sign that they will exist anytime soon. What does exist and is scary is bug ridden software that controls weapons. That doesn't make for great science fiction though.
  - inimino 7y ago
    If your private definition of intelligence excludes everything machines have already been made to do, I suspect it is indeed pointless to discuss machine intelligence with you. Personally, I'm not hung up on whether or not submarines can swim. If you are, please give me your clear definition of intelligence and explain how Go and chess and "any other game" are excluded by it.
    - reverius42 7y ago
      Submarines can certainly swim, but no one is proposing we allow them to decide where they swim to.
    - mnm1 7y ago
      If submarines are intelligent then cars and bikes must be intelligent also since they operate on similar principles. If a bike is intelligent, then pogo sticks are intelligent too. I suppose at that point, anything can be intelligent. What kind of intelligent things will bikes and cars and pogo sticks and submarines do if all humans ceased to exist? Let me guess: none.
      - inimino 7y ago
        I was referring to the famous quote from Dijkstra: "The Fathers of the field had been pretty confusing: John von Neumann speculated about computers and the human brain in analogies sufficiently wild to be worthy of a medieval thinker and Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW... Nobody is suggesting submarines can think. The actual point that Dijkstra was making is that it matters what the machine is capable of, but it doesn't matter what we call the thing that it does. If your private definition of intelligence doesn't allow you to apply it to machines, that's irrelevant.

by mnm1 7y ago

inimino 7y ago

Congress isn't gonna pass legislation to ban the military from suggesting stupid ideas, or the executive branch from approving them, because that itself would be a stupid idea that reduces American defence readiness and suppresses worthwhile ideas as well as bad ones. > as if some software is actually intelligent comparable to humans How's your Go game coming along over there? (Have you ever even played? Because if you had I think you'd have more respect for the intelligence required (for a human) to succeed even moderately at the game.) > not because something like Hal or the terminator will be created Actually it is pretty dangerous for those reasons too.

mnm1 7y ago
Playing go or chess or any other game isn't intelligence. The computer isn't intelligent. It's programmed for one task and one task only. That's great programming and use of statistics etc. but that's not intelligent. Anyway, if you're worried about terminator and Hal like beings, it's futile to discuss intelligence when you are living in a science fiction world. In our world, those things do not exist and there is no sign that they will exist anytime soon. What does exist and is scary is bug ridden software that controls weapons. That doesn't make for great science fiction though.
- inimino 7y ago
  If your private definition of intelligence excludes everything machines have already been made to do, I suspect it is indeed pointless to discuss machine intelligence with you. Personally, I'm not hung up on whether or not submarines can swim. If you are, please give me your clear definition of intelligence and explain how Go and chess and "any other game" are excluded by it.
  - reverius42 7y ago
    Submarines can certainly swim, but no one is proposing we allow them to decide where they swim to.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    If submarines are intelligent then cars and bikes must be intelligent also since they operate on similar principles. If a bike is intelligent, then pogo sticks are intelligent too. I suppose at that point, anything can be intelligent. What kind of intelligent things will bikes and cars and pogo sticks and submarines do if all humans ceased to exist? Let me guess: none.
    - inimino 7y ago
      I was referring to the famous quote from Dijkstra: "The Fathers of the field had been pretty confusing: John von Neumann speculated about computers and the human brain in analogies sufficiently wild to be worthy of a medieval thinker and Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW... Nobody is suggesting submarines can think. The actual point that Dijkstra was making is that it matters what the machine is capable of, but it doesn't matter what we call the thing that it does. If your private definition of intelligence doesn't allow you to apply it to machines, that's irrelevant.