4 ms·
Because it does not and cannot act on it's own. It's a neat tool and nothing more at this point. Context to that statement is important, because the OP is impl
by bhhaskin 4y ago
Because it does not and cannot act on it's own. It's a neat tool and nothing more at this point.
Context to that statement is important, because the OP is implying that it is dangerous because it could act in a way that dose not align with human interests. But it can't because it does not act on it's own.
- groestl 4y ago"if we grant these systems too much power"
- bhhaskin 4y agoYou can say that about anything. "If we grant these calculators too much power"
- jjkaczor 4y agoOr the people that rely on the tools to make decisions... https://sheetcast.com/articles/ten-memorable-excel-disasters https://sheetcast.com/articles/ten-memorable-excel-disasters
- Dylan16807 4y agoHow is a calculator going to cause harm? Assuming you get an industrially rated circuit board when appropriate, it should work just fine as a PLC. If you try to make it drive a car, I wouldn't call that a problem of giving it too much power.
- lxgr 4y agoYes, and it's not as absurd as it might seem: Imagine hooking up all ICBMs to launch whenever this week's Powerball draw consists exclusively of prime numbers: Absurd, and nobody would do it. Now imagine hooking them up to the output of a "complex AI trained on various scenarios and linked to intelligence sources including public news and social media sentiment" instead – in order to create a credible second-strike/dead hand capability or whatnot. I'm pretty sure the latter doesn't sound as absurd as the former to quite a few people... A system doesn't need to be "true AI" to be existentially dangerous to humanity.
- wizofaus 4y agoI'd say by far our biggest problem for the foreseeable future is granting other humans too much power.
- lstodd 4y agoOne way to grant those systems an ability to act is to rely excessively or at all on them while making decisions. It's obvious, no?