3 ms·

No, I do think research on AI ethics is important and necessary. But I also think there's a time and a place, and "third most pressing issue for humanity" is no

No, I do think research on AI ethics is important and necessary. But I also think there's a time and a place, and "third most pressing issue for humanity" is not it. Biased AI algorithms are a problem for the 10% of countries where AI is part of their daily decision process. For the other 90%, "I don't have enough nutrients for my brain to develop" and "I'm severely disabled due to a preventable but unprofitable illness" are much more pressing issues. I support basic research, even in areas whose economic benefit may not be clear. But if someone asks "how can I help humanity the most?", I consider "AI research" to be a really bad answer, to the point of being almost a lie.

nearbuy 5y ago
Their concern isn't biased AI algorithms. Their concern (well, one of their main concerns) is that a super-intelligent AI could wipe out humanity sometime in the next 100 years. They have arguments that this could happen even if the AI wasn't malicious. I'm a bit skeptical too (and I haven't looked into that much), but it's not obviously stupid. They'd point out that even if there's just a 1% chance of humans being wiped out in the not-so-distant future, that's a big deal (and a large expected value for number of deaths) and we should work on reducing those odds. A lot of this rests on the assumption that super-intelligence is really powerful. Like, take-over-the-world type of powerful.
- probably_wrong 5y ago
  That's what I had in mind with my "tiny probability, infinite timescale" multiplier, and also why I said "waste of money". The comment I replied to had a more nuanced point about AI research, which I think merits a more nuanced approach. Having said that, I repeat what I said at some point: once they show that they can stop the dumbest DDOS, then and only then I'll listen to what they have to say about a super-intelligent AI. If they can't do even that, then I don't know why I would listen to anything else they have to say.
  - nearbuy 5y ago
    I'm not sure if you're referring to a DDOS attack on one of their charities. I hadn't heard of that. Cloudflare prevents DDOS attacks. Why would effective altruists work on DDOS attacks?
    - probably_wrong 5y ago
      No, what I mean is: some effective altruists invest their time and money in stopping a possible future AI from slaving humanity. So, my challenge to them is: if you think that you can stop a super-intelligent AI from taking over, show me that you can stop the dumbest possible malicious intelligence that we know of, which right now would be a DDOS. And the incentives to develop either are pretty much the same, too. If they can't, and my guess is that they can't, then I don't see why I should believe that they can stop anything bigger.
      - nearbuy 5y ago
        People stop hundreds of DDOS attacks daily. It's weird to demand AI safety researchers should stop working on AI safety and prove they can mitigate DDOS attacks. The two are nothing alike. A DDOS attack isn't an intelligence. DDOS protection services work largely by having more resources and infrastructure than the attackers. Anyone can do that with enough money. They also aren't researching how to fight malicious AIs. They'd be researching how to program safe AIs. Largely the stuff discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem
        probably_wrong 5y ago
        First, I want to state that I appreciate your comment - I'm about to use some strong words in my reply and I wanted to say that I'm using them for conciseness, and not out of disrespect towards your (valid) points. If someone were to argue "our strategy for survival is not to fight our enemies, but rather to convince them to use non-lethal weaponry", you would read their research in the rubble of their country after an enemy laid waste to them. I feel the same way towards that line of research: why would the US Army program their AI to be less aggressive when they could... not? How about the Russian army? China? Iran? You point out that anyone with money can make a DDOS attack, and I feel exactly the same way here: malicious AI could come up from anywhere. If those researchers truly believe that a malicious AI is possible (and again, the website that started my comment chain puts it as a top-3 priority), they have to assume that it will be developed by someone with no interest in playing nice, just like that factory that started spewing ridiculous amounts of CFCs in 2019. Why would anyone use anti-bias correction in their NN embeddings when the biased ones exploiting harmful stereotypes gets them higher profits? If those researchers cannot stop the most likely scenario, then I consider their research little more than wishful thinking. And we have seen how good "everyone will surely play nice" has worked - spam, pop-ups, phone scams, the list goes on. That's why I like DDOS as an application: it's the world's stupidest AI causing a lot of trouble. Can you outsmart that? Good, then now we can talk about outsmarting Skynet.

nearbuy 5y ago

Their concern isn't biased AI algorithms. Their concern (well, one of their main concerns) is that a super-intelligent AI could wipe out humanity sometime in the next 100 years. They have arguments that this could happen even if the AI wasn't malicious. I'm a bit skeptical too (and I haven't looked into that much), but it's not obviously stupid. They'd point out that even if there's just a 1% chance of humans being wiped out in the not-so-distant future, that's a big deal (and a large expected value for number of deaths) and we should work on reducing those odds. A lot of this rests on the assumption that super-intelligence is really powerful. Like, take-over-the-world type of powerful.

probably_wrong 5y ago
That's what I had in mind with my "tiny probability, infinite timescale" multiplier, and also why I said "waste of money". The comment I replied to had a more nuanced point about AI research, which I think merits a more nuanced approach. Having said that, I repeat what I said at some point: once they show that they can stop the dumbest DDOS, then and only then I'll listen to what they have to say about a super-intelligent AI. If they can't do even that, then I don't know why I would listen to anything else they have to say.
- nearbuy 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're referring to a DDOS attack on one of their charities. I hadn't heard of that. Cloudflare prevents DDOS attacks. Why would effective altruists work on DDOS attacks?
  - probably_wrong 5y ago
    No, what I mean is: some effective altruists invest their time and money in stopping a possible future AI from slaving humanity. So, my challenge to them is: if you think that you can stop a super-intelligent AI from taking over, show me that you can stop the dumbest possible malicious intelligence that we know of, which right now would be a DDOS. And the incentives to develop either are pretty much the same, too. If they can't, and my guess is that they can't, then I don't see why I should believe that they can stop anything bigger.
    - nearbuy 5y ago
      People stop hundreds of DDOS attacks daily. It's weird to demand AI safety researchers should stop working on AI safety and prove they can mitigate DDOS attacks. The two are nothing alike. A DDOS attack isn't an intelligence. DDOS protection services work largely by having more resources and infrastructure than the attackers. Anyone can do that with enough money. They also aren't researching how to fight malicious AIs. They'd be researching how to program safe AIs. Largely the stuff discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem
      - probably_wrong 5y ago
        First, I want to state that I appreciate your comment - I'm about to use some strong words in my reply and I wanted to say that I'm using them for conciseness, and not out of disrespect towards your (valid) points. If someone were to argue "our strategy for survival is not to fight our enemies, but rather to convince them to use non-lethal weaponry", you would read their research in the rubble of their country after an enemy laid waste to them. I feel the same way towards that line of research: why would the US Army program their AI to be less aggressive when they could... not? How about the Russian army? China? Iran? You point out that anyone with money can make a DDOS attack, and I feel exactly the same way here: malicious AI could come up from anywhere. If those researchers truly believe that a malicious AI is possible (and again, the website that started my comment chain puts it as a top-3 priority), they have to assume that it will be developed by someone with no interest in playing nice, just like that factory that started spewing ridiculous amounts of CFCs in 2019. Why would anyone use anti-bias correction in their NN embeddings when the biased ones exploiting harmful stereotypes gets them higher profits? If those researchers cannot stop the most likely scenario, then I consider their research little more than wishful thinking. And we have seen how good "everyone will surely play nice" has worked - spam, pop-ups, phone scams, the list goes on. That's why I like DDOS as an application: it's the world's stupidest AI causing a lot of trouble. Can you outsmart that? Good, then now we can talk about outsmarting Skynet.