5 ms·

I think there's no stage at which you trust such an entity with something like driving until it wants a robot to drive it's car so it can do other things than f

I think there's no stage at which you trust such an entity with something like driving until it wants a robot to drive it's car so it can do other things than focus on driving. In the same way you don't trust a 5 year old with a loaded gun, you don't trust real synthetic intelligence with something like driving you safely. Not until it reaches the level where it wants equal rights, suffrage, and generally to be treated as alive. That's way off into science fiction land.

concordDance 4y ago
I don't get why people think intelligence requires things like a desire for suffrage... There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Heck, even counting votes would be quite impossible (how much divergence does a copy need before it gets its own vote? What it not all modules/nodes are copied?). Also, the anti-suffrage women seem to have been erased from history as far as popular discourse goes... guess the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League isn't taught in schools (support amongst women for extending the vote was very lukewarm, becoming a majority only after the law changed).
- chongli 4y ago
  There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Because driving requires the ability to understand what other drivers are doing. It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals.
  - barelyauser 4y ago
    Moving from point A to point B is the goal of humans while they drive. You don't need "human like" understanding of human goals. You do need to account for the stupidity of people though.
    - chongli 4y ago
      Human drivers communicate with each other through subtle cues, body language, etc. Moreover, pedestrians, children playing in the street, pets running onto the road chasing a ball, construction sites, parades, protests, are all things involving intelligence and theory of mind that you can't reduce to "the goal is to point A to point B."
      - barelyauser 4y ago
        We can try to reduce these things. Most things can be reduced to "obstacles". If obstacles are behaving the way we predict, then they are logical, otherwise they are flagged as illogical. When i engage in "subtle cues" or "body language" while on traffic i never trust it. If someone starts to drive illogically i never try to predict what they will do next, i just flag them as illogical and prepare for the worst.
        chongli 4y ago
        There is a way to solve all these issues: keep humans (and other animals) away. This is how it's done with railroads. Unfortunately, there's not a whole of advantage in eliminating the engineer of a train since the ratio of engineers to passengers is so small to begin with. I think instead of flirting with this absurd fantasy of self-driving cars we should be doing more to invest in railroads and other forms of mass transit so that people don't need to drive at all. Europe and Asia are far ahead of North America in this regard.
        jwestbury 4y ago
        Mass transit doesn't get you exactly where you need to go. In areas with lower population density, it's especially unprofitable and difficult to implement -- and even if communities can afford it, it will deliver people even FARTHER from where they need to go. I'm a transit advocate, but there are some fundamental issues that need to be resolved first, especially in North America.
        4y ago
  - Tv9m 4y ago
    > It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals. Like chess?
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Chess doesn't require understanding human goals if you're an AI, just running through the space of winning moves that your training encountered. An AI doesn't think "ah, rook to E4, knowing Kasparov, he will then castle and I can do X". It'll just go "lol I encountered 3 486 864 games with this particular board pattern and 49 652 lead to a victory lemme pick one for the lulz". Chess is really just about searching through as much of the space as possible, and you can take a few seconds. And believe me, there's a whole lot more stupid behaviours you can encounter on the road while you have to react in less than a second.
      - Tv9m 4y ago
        > It'll just go "lol I encountered 3 486 864 games with this particular board pattern and 49 652 lead to a victory lemme pick one for the lulz". That isn't really an accurate description of how the modern DL bots work. They don't need to reference any database of past games while they play.
    - chongli 4y ago
      Chess AIs don't need to develop an understanding of the goal, they're hard-wired with the rules of the game and its goal-states. As an experiment, try making a chess AI without explicitly giving it the rules of the game and see how it performs.
      - Tv9m 4y ago
        I think that's already been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuZero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuZero
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      Almost, but not quite, exactly unlike chess.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    You can understand something/someone without agreeing with them and having the same goals.
needle0 4y ago
Well, "never" is a strong enough word to extend even into science fiction land (or 100, 1000, 10000, 100000 years into the future and beyond). Hence the reaction you got.
tshaddox 4y ago
Or until we are able to change the nature of driving to make it require less creativity. As a simple examples, I suspect a road network where all cars were self-driving would probably be an easier software problem.
- toss1 4y ago
  If Only. Single-track railroad like in airport terminal-to-terminal transport? Fine. Out on the open rail network? Not even close. And that is a LOT more constrained & predictable than an open road network. Getting to all cars being software-driven seems as much in the near-mid future as was the idea of having full vehicle-to-vehicle telemetry &communications - i.e., sounded like a great idea until it crashed on the rocks of practicality (and inter-corporate politics?); not likely happening in a relevant time frame.

concordDance 4y ago

I don't get why people think intelligence requires things like a desire for suffrage... There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Heck, even counting votes would be quite impossible (how much divergence does a copy need before it gets its own vote? What it not all modules/nodes are copied?). Also, the anti-suffrage women seem to have been erased from history as far as popular discourse goes... guess the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League isn't taught in schools (support amongst women for extending the vote was very lukewarm, becoming a majority only after the law changed).

chongli 4y ago
There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Because driving requires the ability to understand what other drivers are doing. It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals.
- barelyauser 4y ago
  Moving from point A to point B is the goal of humans while they drive. You don't need "human like" understanding of human goals. You do need to account for the stupidity of people though.
  - chongli 4y ago
    Human drivers communicate with each other through subtle cues, body language, etc. Moreover, pedestrians, children playing in the street, pets running onto the road chasing a ball, construction sites, parades, protests, are all things involving intelligence and theory of mind that you can't reduce to "the goal is to point A to point B."
    - barelyauser 4y ago
      We can try to reduce these things. Most things can be reduced to "obstacles". If obstacles are behaving the way we predict, then they are logical, otherwise they are flagged as illogical. When i engage in "subtle cues" or "body language" while on traffic i never trust it. If someone starts to drive illogically i never try to predict what they will do next, i just flag them as illogical and prepare for the worst.
      - chongli 4y ago
        There is a way to solve all these issues: keep humans (and other animals) away. This is how it's done with railroads. Unfortunately, there's not a whole of advantage in eliminating the engineer of a train since the ratio of engineers to passengers is so small to begin with. I think instead of flirting with this absurd fantasy of self-driving cars we should be doing more to invest in railroads and other forms of mass transit so that people don't need to drive at all. Europe and Asia are far ahead of North America in this regard.
        jwestbury 4y ago
        Mass transit doesn't get you exactly where you need to go. In areas with lower population density, it's especially unprofitable and difficult to implement -- and even if communities can afford it, it will deliver people even FARTHER from where they need to go. I'm a transit advocate, but there are some fundamental issues that need to be resolved first, especially in North America.
        4y ago
- Tv9m 4y ago
  > It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals. Like chess?
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Chess doesn't require understanding human goals if you're an AI, just running through the space of winning moves that your training encountered. An AI doesn't think "ah, rook to E4, knowing Kasparov, he will then castle and I can do X". It'll just go "lol I encountered 3 486 864 games with this particular board pattern and 49 652 lead to a victory lemme pick one for the lulz". Chess is really just about searching through as much of the space as possible, and you can take a few seconds. And believe me, there's a whole lot more stupid behaviours you can encounter on the road while you have to react in less than a second.
    - Tv9m 4y ago
      > It'll just go "lol I encountered 3 486 864 games with this particular board pattern and 49 652 lead to a victory lemme pick one for the lulz". That isn't really an accurate description of how the modern DL bots work. They don't need to reference any database of past games while they play.
  - chongli 4y ago
    Chess AIs don't need to develop an understanding of the goal, they're hard-wired with the rules of the game and its goal-states. As an experiment, try making a chess AI without explicitly giving it the rules of the game and see how it performs.
    - Tv9m 4y ago
      I think that's already been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuZero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuZero
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Almost, but not quite, exactly unlike chess.
- concordDance 4y ago
  You can understand something/someone without agreeing with them and having the same goals.

needle0 4y ago

Well, "never" is a strong enough word to extend even into science fiction land (or 100, 1000, 10000, 100000 years into the future and beyond). Hence the reaction you got.

tshaddox 4y ago

Or until we are able to change the nature of driving to make it require less creativity. As a simple examples, I suspect a road network where all cars were self-driving would probably be an easier software problem.

toss1 4y ago
If Only. Single-track railroad like in airport terminal-to-terminal transport? Fine. Out on the open rail network? Not even close. And that is a LOT more constrained & predictable than an open road network. Getting to all cars being software-driven seems as much in the near-mid future as was the idea of having full vehicle-to-vehicle telemetry &communications - i.e., sounded like a great idea until it crashed on the rocks of practicality (and inter-corporate politics?); not likely happening in a relevant time frame.