4 ms·

'Deep fakes' are right up there with 'AI is going to turn against us', or 'software engineers are going to be replaced by AI' on my bs list. The real problem w

'Deep fakes' are right up there with 'AI is going to turn against us', or 'software engineers are going to be replaced by AI' on my bs list. The real problem we face with elections is much less exciting to talk about. It's a few people going around making reasonable and factually correct comments, and manipulating upvote/downvote counts with bots to drive-home the belief that one view is popular, and another is extremely unpopular.

luc4sdreyer 7y ago
>AI is going to turn against us Would you mind sharing your argument about why this notion is a waste of time? Machine learning experts are concerned about it [1], but maybe you know something they don't? [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried-about-the-existential-risk-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried...
- tsbinz 7y ago
  You are misreading the article you are citing. Quoting your article, "Contrary to misrepresentations in the media, this risk need not arise from spontaneous malevolent consciousness. Rather, the risk arises from the unpredictability and potential irreversibility of deploying an optimization process more intelligent than the humans who specified its objectives." See paperclip maximizer. Even that is too narrow for the questions they asked IMO - someone who says that the development of an artificial intelligence will be "on balance bad" could be thinking that this AI would be in the hands of the 1% and so further contribute to inequality, even if it doesn't act unpredictably.
  - luc4sdreyer 7y ago
    I completely agree with what you said, except for the part that I misreading the article. GP's comment is vague, it could be anything between "artificial intelligence will be on balance bad", and "the Terminator movie will happen IRL". My question was an attempt to clarify the statement and understand why it's reasonable to dismiss the idea as BS.

luc4sdreyer 7y ago

>AI is going to turn against us Would you mind sharing your argument about why this notion is a waste of time? Machine learning experts are concerned about it [1], but maybe you know something they don't? [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried-about-the-existential-risk-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried...

tsbinz 7y ago
You are misreading the article you are citing. Quoting your article, "Contrary to misrepresentations in the media, this risk need not arise from spontaneous malevolent consciousness. Rather, the risk arises from the unpredictability and potential irreversibility of deploying an optimization process more intelligent than the humans who specified its objectives." See paperclip maximizer. Even that is too narrow for the questions they asked IMO - someone who says that the development of an artificial intelligence will be "on balance bad" could be thinking that this AI would be in the hands of the 1% and so further contribute to inequality, even if it doesn't act unpredictably.
- luc4sdreyer 7y ago
  I completely agree with what you said, except for the part that I misreading the article. GP's comment is vague, it could be anything between "artificial intelligence will be on balance bad", and "the Terminator movie will happen IRL". My question was an attempt to clarify the statement and understand why it's reasonable to dismiss the idea as BS.