3 ms·

Exactly the fallacy with people's expectations of AI is that it has to have a perfect track record of decision making. We humans actually fail that test and qui

Exactly the fallacy with people's expectations of AI is that it has to have a perfect track record of decision making. We humans actually fail that test and quite miserably so. Take self driving cars as an example. Self driving cars: barely any fatal accidents but some erratic behavior. People go "oh we can't have that because something extremely unlikely might kill somebody. Never mind it hasn't happened yet and might never happen. But it just might. Therefore I will never trust AIs!!!!" Self driving humans: lots of fatal accidents and most of them because of human error. People go: "that's just the way things are; price of being on the road is playing Russian roulette" It's irrational. Trick question: Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? I'd feel safer with AIs probably. I risk my life regularly taking part in the traffic. It's not great. So, yes less of that would be great. IMHO that will become the norm not so long from now because of insurance fees. So, yes, chat gpt makes mistakes and sometimes talks out of its ass. Read the average HN comment section for some human equivalent of that. Lots of supposedly intelligent people asserting things that are patently false, people applying broken logic, speaking with confidence about a brain fart they had, etc. We're applying double standards here. The key thing for AGI is the ability to learn and improve. Chat gpt3 is not there yet. You train it once and then you deploy it with static capabilities. It never gets better. It doesn't experiment and learn from the mistakes it makes. It lacks the capability to learn. You can't even educate it about the mistakes it makes. Using chat gpt-3 does not evolve the AI model. Using your brain does evolve it. Out of the box, it's actually quite useless. Forget self driving. Just learning to walk takes years. It takes many years more to get some sensible thought out of a human being. And frankly, only very few people get very good at that. An AGI would need the ability to absorb new information and adapt how it behaves based on that. It doesn't have to get it perfectly in one go. It just needs to be able to adapt at a similar or better pace than we do to rapidly get to the point where it is going to be better than us at just about anything it bothers to learn.

dmitriid 4y ago
> Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? Thing is, if the roads are made so that only "AI" cars can drive on them, you don't need AGI, or an advanced AI. You basically need the cars at the level they are now (or even from five years ago). Because the number of weird shit you need to deal with is reduced significantly.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  That's just right now. Changing the roads will take longer and be way more expensive than building enough AI that cars can self drive on existing roads safely. Arguably, we're nearly there already. Several companies have self driving cars on some of the roads (not even counting Tesla here) and the scope of situations where these can operate safely is expanding. They aren't fixing any roads for this. This is all done in software. Five years is nothing for road construction. There's only so much that happens in such a short time span. However, it's a lot of time for making some software improvements.
- notahacker 4y ago
  > Thing is, if the roads are made so that only "AI" cars can drive on them, you don't need AGI, or an advanced AI. If you are also able to prevent people and animals from accessing the roads and fix the weather... (At the other end of the scale, if you put the cars on rails in tunnels, "AI" from the 1960s will likely suffice for safe driving)
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > If you are also able to prevent people and animals from accessing the roads and fix the weather. If all cars are "AI", and move in uniform fashion, and know each others' location, then this might be an easier issue to solve than it is today. "May" is dangerously close to "just", I know :)
cactusplant7374 4y ago
> Self driving cars: barely any fatal accidents but some erratic behavior. People go "oh we can't have that because something extremely unlikely might kill somebody. Never mind it hasn't happened yet and might never happen. But it just might. Therefore I will never trust AIs!!!!" Fatal accidents have been rare because of human intervention. The cars aren’t self driving and no one in their right mind will stop paying attention when in one of these cars. So the “extremely unlikely” argument is very, very weak.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
All the stats I've seen are that self-driving cars have had vastly more deaths per mile driven than human-driven cars average. The US has about 1.3 deaths per 100 million miles driven. None of the self-driving car models have driven even close to 100 million miles. Waymo is supposedly the closest with about 20 million. If they were as safe as humans, we should have seen 0-1 deaths, but there have been multiple.

dmitriid 4y ago

> Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? Thing is, if the roads are made so that only "AI" cars can drive on them, you don't need AGI, or an advanced AI. You basically need the cars at the level they are now (or even from five years ago). Because the number of weird shit you need to deal with is reduced significantly.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
That's just right now. Changing the roads will take longer and be way more expensive than building enough AI that cars can self drive on existing roads safely. Arguably, we're nearly there already. Several companies have self driving cars on some of the roads (not even counting Tesla here) and the scope of situations where these can operate safely is expanding. They aren't fixing any roads for this. This is all done in software. Five years is nothing for road construction. There's only so much that happens in such a short time span. However, it's a lot of time for making some software improvements.
notahacker 4y ago
> Thing is, if the roads are made so that only "AI" cars can drive on them, you don't need AGI, or an advanced AI. If you are also able to prevent people and animals from accessing the roads and fix the weather... (At the other end of the scale, if you put the cars on rails in tunnels, "AI" from the 1960s will likely suffice for safe driving)
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > If you are also able to prevent people and animals from accessing the roads and fix the weather. If all cars are "AI", and move in uniform fashion, and know each others' location, then this might be an easier issue to solve than it is today. "May" is dangerously close to "just", I know :)

cactusplant7374 4y ago

> Self driving cars: barely any fatal accidents but some erratic behavior. People go "oh we can't have that because something extremely unlikely might kill somebody. Never mind it hasn't happened yet and might never happen. But it just might. Therefore I will never trust AIs!!!!" Fatal accidents have been rare because of human intervention. The cars aren’t self driving and no one in their right mind will stop paying attention when in one of these cars. So the “extremely unlikely” argument is very, very weak.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

All the stats I've seen are that self-driving cars have had vastly more deaths per mile driven than human-driven cars average. The US has about 1.3 deaths per 100 million miles driven. None of the self-driving car models have driven even close to 100 million miles. Waymo is supposedly the closest with about 20 million. If they were as safe as humans, we should have seen 0-1 deaths, but there have been multiple.