6 ms·

> Sure, but humans are a relatively known entity. We don’t know how brain works, why sleep exist, most of humans cultures and languages are not documented, hun

> Sure, but humans are a relatively known entity. We don’t know how brain works, why sleep exist, most of humans cultures and languages are not documented, hundreds if not thousands of psychological and medical things are unknown, etc. Machines and their applications are a few more magnitudes more understood than any human matter, by the sheer fact we created them. Their complexity is ridiculously low in comparison to human, their biology, psychology, etc.

epidemian 6y ago
on one hand i agree with what you're saying. we humans have done terrible stuff like wars, genocides, famines, destruction of ecosystems, extinction of entire species, etc. and that's only the things we did more or less deliberately. we might cause our own extermination or a mass extinction event "by mistake", and we don't even understand how basic parts of our minds work. but all of that being said, i think it's also worth considering what a non-human entity with more power than us might be able to do. after all, even the worst examples of humanity are confined to at most "only" causing millions of deaths, but not the eradication of all life on Earth for example. it's not difficult to imagine that a non-human entity, with non-human goals, and with super-human powers, might act in a way that is contrary to our interests, or even to our existence.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  This already applies to corporations. AI is just the fruiting body of something that has already happened.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Corporate intelligence are still people, abiding laws and regulations for people.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Yes, I wouldn't want an army of self supervised learning military mini drones
suifbwish 6y ago
That was not the original point. Humans are relatively predictable whether we understand how the brain works exactly. An AI model isn’t an actual intelligence in the normal use of the word. It’s a functional fragment that is able to emulate the ability to absorb a pattern of information for repetitive conditional recall in future processes. Until a researcher has had ALOT of time spent on observing the limits db particulars of a model, there are unforeseen behaviors it can have that can have incredibly real and serious consequences depending on the application. A more fair comparison would be training a new intelligent species to do something before learning about the characteristic behavior quirks of said species
- candiodari 6y ago
  Luckily we never have unforeseen behaviors with people that we then have to react strongly to after the fact ... We like to pretend that's true, but really, it isn't. Governments are built around the principle that single individuals and even small to medium groups can't be trusted to react reasonably, something that played out in human history again and again. How many people have been in US prisons again? Oh right, about 3%. Clearly a high percentage of these people did something both unexpected that seriously damaged others. So this is not a real difference between AIs and humans. One might even say, not a single AI has been convicted yet, so it might not be true for them. For humans, serious, bad, violent, illegal, even when totally irrational, ... behaviors are very common indeed. (and frankly, if there ever is a true Human <> AI conflict, not allowing any kind of errors for AIs seems to me a strong contender for the casus belli)
  - suifbwish 6y ago
    Humans being unpredictable at the individual level although true does not invalidate the original point that employing a poorly understood neural net training methodology in critical systems of any kind is incredibly rash and presumptive

epidemian 6y ago

on one hand i agree with what you're saying. we humans have done terrible stuff like wars, genocides, famines, destruction of ecosystems, extinction of entire species, etc. and that's only the things we did more or less deliberately. we might cause our own extermination or a mass extinction event "by mistake", and we don't even understand how basic parts of our minds work. but all of that being said, i think it's also worth considering what a non-human entity with more power than us might be able to do. after all, even the worst examples of humanity are confined to at most "only" causing millions of deaths, but not the eradication of all life on Earth for example. it's not difficult to imagine that a non-human entity, with non-human goals, and with super-human powers, might act in a way that is contrary to our interests, or even to our existence.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
This already applies to corporations. AI is just the fruiting body of something that has already happened.
- loopz 6y ago
  Corporate intelligence are still people, abiding laws and regulations for people.
cutemonster 6y ago
Yes, I wouldn't want an army of self supervised learning military mini drones

suifbwish 6y ago

That was not the original point. Humans are relatively predictable whether we understand how the brain works exactly. An AI model isn’t an actual intelligence in the normal use of the word. It’s a functional fragment that is able to emulate the ability to absorb a pattern of information for repetitive conditional recall in future processes. Until a researcher has had ALOT of time spent on observing the limits db particulars of a model, there are unforeseen behaviors it can have that can have incredibly real and serious consequences depending on the application. A more fair comparison would be training a new intelligent species to do something before learning about the characteristic behavior quirks of said species

candiodari 6y ago
Luckily we never have unforeseen behaviors with people that we then have to react strongly to after the fact ... We like to pretend that's true, but really, it isn't. Governments are built around the principle that single individuals and even small to medium groups can't be trusted to react reasonably, something that played out in human history again and again. How many people have been in US prisons again? Oh right, about 3%. Clearly a high percentage of these people did something both unexpected that seriously damaged others. So this is not a real difference between AIs and humans. One might even say, not a single AI has been convicted yet, so it might not be true for them. For humans, serious, bad, violent, illegal, even when totally irrational, ... behaviors are very common indeed. (and frankly, if there ever is a true Human <> AI conflict, not allowing any kind of errors for AIs seems to me a strong contender for the casus belli)
- suifbwish 6y ago
  Humans being unpredictable at the individual level although true does not invalidate the original point that employing a poorly understood neural net training methodology in critical systems of any kind is incredibly rash and presumptive