5 ms·

I don't buy the argument that we won't construct conscious AIs because they're not useful. Many of our most celebrated achievements don't have a direct practica

I don't buy the argument that we won't construct conscious AIs because they're not useful. Many of our most celebrated achievements don't have a direct practical use, yet that doesn't stop us from climbing mountains or sending rockets to the Moon. Can you really imagine a group of scientists sitting around a large computer cluster and saying "Well, we could create the first sentient AI and ensure our names are enshrined in the history books, but why bother?"

imjustatechguy 15y ago
We got to the moon because of massively political support at the highest levels because it was viewed as a strategic necessity. Climbing mountains doesn't seem that comparable to going to the moon. Scientists need funding in order to act if it requires many man years. Thus military uses of AI are likely to be well funded to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions because they can be viewed as a strategic necessity if it seems like the Chinese could possibly develop an AI before us. But if the general feeling is that a real AI isn't feasible in both Chinese and US circles in the near or medium term future, or there are more valuable/useful near and medium term objectives, there will not be a well funded race to create one.
- ignifero 15y ago
  So did that political support come from some Divine Providence or some conspiratory group? Didn't it arise from the curiosity of humans who elected the politicians? Also, what about Art? What a useless waste of brainpower, yet we keep doing it for thousands of years.
  - zbyszek 15y ago
    The fact that humans have been expending valuable brain-power on art for millenia might suggest that it does have some use, or more broadly, that utility is not always obvious.
- weavejester 15y ago
  Who said it needed to be well-funded? Creating a sentient AI is likely to become an easier undertaking as general computing technology and AI research advances. Creating such an AI in 20 or 30 years might require a large deal of funding, but what about in 50, 60 or even 100 years?
  - imjustatechguy 15y ago
    I don't think anyone can predict more than 20-30 years into the future with any real degree of accuracy. So yeah, I agree that X might very well be possible (or in widespread usage) in 50 or 100 years, where X is basically anything that seems magical today.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
coffeeaddicted 15y ago
Yeah, especially as round the world game coders already work since decades on getting more and more realistic behavior. Including stuff like sleep and having motivations of it's own which he seems to think no one is interested in coding. And game AI is already way better sponsored than nearly any other field of AI. So he is clearly wrong on that one. Games also work as argument against his uploading argument that we are ill-equipped for living in virtual worlds. From all experience so far we _love_ living in virtual environments. There's already enough people which nearly ignore their bodies for hours and live in games like WoW instead.

imjustatechguy 15y ago

We got to the moon because of massively political support at the highest levels because it was viewed as a strategic necessity. Climbing mountains doesn't seem that comparable to going to the moon. Scientists need funding in order to act if it requires many man years. Thus military uses of AI are likely to be well funded to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions because they can be viewed as a strategic necessity if it seems like the Chinese could possibly develop an AI before us. But if the general feeling is that a real AI isn't feasible in both Chinese and US circles in the near or medium term future, or there are more valuable/useful near and medium term objectives, there will not be a well funded race to create one.

ignifero 15y ago
So did that political support come from some Divine Providence or some conspiratory group? Didn't it arise from the curiosity of humans who elected the politicians? Also, what about Art? What a useless waste of brainpower, yet we keep doing it for thousands of years.
- zbyszek 15y ago
  The fact that humans have been expending valuable brain-power on art for millenia might suggest that it does have some use, or more broadly, that utility is not always obvious.
weavejester 15y ago
Who said it needed to be well-funded? Creating a sentient AI is likely to become an easier undertaking as general computing technology and AI research advances. Creating such an AI in 20 or 30 years might require a large deal of funding, but what about in 50, 60 or even 100 years?
- imjustatechguy 15y ago
  I don't think anyone can predict more than 20-30 years into the future with any real degree of accuracy. So yeah, I agree that X might very well be possible (or in widespread usage) in 50 or 100 years, where X is basically anything that seems magical today.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

coffeeaddicted 15y ago

Yeah, especially as round the world game coders already work since decades on getting more and more realistic behavior. Including stuff like sleep and having motivations of it's own which he seems to think no one is interested in coding. And game AI is already way better sponsored than nearly any other field of AI. So he is clearly wrong on that one. Games also work as argument against his uploading argument that we are ill-equipped for living in virtual worlds. From all experience so far we _love_ living in virtual environments. There's already enough people which nearly ignore their bodies for hours and live in games like WoW instead.