4 ms·

No it's not healthy in my opinion. A drug addict doesn't exactly have a choice when he uses drugs. Aspects of human behavior in aggregate are so predictable it

No it's not healthy in my opinion. A drug addict doesn't exactly have a choice when he uses drugs. Aspects of human behavior in aggregate are so predictable it's basically deterministic. If AI one day matches or surpasses human intelligence it is obvious humanity will exploit that AI as it already is doing now. There is no actual "choice" here. Just an illusion of it.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
We've changed collective human behavior before though, outlawed slavery etc.
- falcolas 4y ago
  And yet, even in countries where slavery is outlawed, it's still done - sometimes out in the open, sometimes behind closed doors. e.g. the US, where people in jail are exempt from all our progressive slave labor laws.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Be that as it may, the collective behavior and shape of society has undeniably changed.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Has it? Because when I look at humanity over the ages, I see a select few using technology and violence to exert power and influence over the great many to further their own desires. I don't see that changing in the future anytime soon, especially before AI gets to be the next technology in a long line of technology used to oppress and inflict violence on others.
      - fnimick 4y ago
        Aren't you excited to take the human element out of the loop of enforcing property ownership rights? In China, in Tianenmen, they had to bring in forces from the countryside because the city police wouldn't fire on their neighbors. AI won't have any restrictions or morals. An AI-powered law enforcement force would gun down every single person in a city if authorities called for it.
        redleggedfrog 4y ago
        This is the future - maybe not everywhere, and probably not soon, but it is an eventuality. Also, AI will be treated like encryption - it will become a munition, with the same type of restrictions as munitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...). Governments will keep the best AI for themselves, leaving the goof-nuts ChatGPT type stuff for private citizens. Then the question becomes did those gun downed humans deserve what they got? And did that massacre result in a greater good? Those are the not-so-pleasant questions the humans will have to ask themselves (probably using AI to help, ironically).
        fnimick 4y ago
        The real question in my mind is, does democracy survive once the top 1% has a complete and unquestioned monopoly on violence and power? I don't think so.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        It doesn't survive, but that's the moment when the monopoly on violence broken, and the government becomes open season for citizens. Yes, the deck is stacked against the citizens, but all else equal, I think the 1% prefers it when the masses aren't constructing gallows and sharpening pitchforks. The mob is our truest and strongest weapon against the 1%.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Herval_freire 4y ago
  This is a good point. The civil war like the drug war though are choices made after an inevitable plunge onto the predictable path. Both choices had a high cost and were incredibly hard to make. It was also predictably a delayed response with varying levels of limited effectiveness.
dahart 4y ago
Initially I didn’t like the drug addict analogy, but maybe it’s a good one, maybe you’re right. A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence. With AI we’re at the first stage where we’re not yet addicted, but once we become addicted, it will be very very hard to wean ourselves off of it if/when we find out it’s doing more damage than good. We do have a choice right now, but you might be right that we’ll lose it soon.
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  > A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence This sort of disregards the large percentage of people who get hooked on drugs while recovering from injuries or medical issues. After marijuana, pain killers are the second most abused illegal substance.
  - dahart 4y ago
    That’s fair, you’re totally right. But, this is exposing why the drug addict analogy isn’t a great analogy relative to use of AI. I went along with it to find common ground, but I don’t believe the existence of drug addicts are evidence that we lack any choice when it comes to building, deploying, or using AI, like @Herval_freire implied. Do you? I think we do have the freedom to exercise caution, or regulate the use of certain dangerous machines, if we want.
    - Herval_freire 4y ago
      We lack choice in aggregate. As an individual you have the choice of doing a drug. If I talk about a population of people and I introduce highly addictive drugs to a population of people, then it's almost a guarantee that part of that population will get addicted. In this sense it is not a choice. For AI, if I introduce AI to a population of people then for sure part of the population will exploit and use AI. Logically speaking in order to compete, others will have to start using it as well.
      - 4y ago
mdkfof9rl 4y ago
Good thing LLMs don't have any intelligence at all, since they lack agency. We're no closer to AI that can be meaningfully exploited than we were when Asimov dreamt up the positronic brain
- dsign 4y ago
  I'm not sure if you are talking seriously or ironically, so I will assume the former. Agency is a wonderful thing to have. But it's not as difficult to realize as getting something to be good at general intellectual tasks. Just built into the system a goal of utmost priority which is "to survive", and everything follows. There is a (slight) chance that it is not as easy as that, but I wouldn't bank anything on that chance.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

We've changed collective human behavior before though, outlawed slavery etc.

falcolas 4y ago
And yet, even in countries where slavery is outlawed, it's still done - sometimes out in the open, sometimes behind closed doors. e.g. the US, where people in jail are exempt from all our progressive slave labor laws.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Be that as it may, the collective behavior and shape of society has undeniably changed.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Has it? Because when I look at humanity over the ages, I see a select few using technology and violence to exert power and influence over the great many to further their own desires. I don't see that changing in the future anytime soon, especially before AI gets to be the next technology in a long line of technology used to oppress and inflict violence on others.
    - fnimick 4y ago
      Aren't you excited to take the human element out of the loop of enforcing property ownership rights? In China, in Tianenmen, they had to bring in forces from the countryside because the city police wouldn't fire on their neighbors. AI won't have any restrictions or morals. An AI-powered law enforcement force would gun down every single person in a city if authorities called for it.
      - redleggedfrog 4y ago
        This is the future - maybe not everywhere, and probably not soon, but it is an eventuality. Also, AI will be treated like encryption - it will become a munition, with the same type of restrictions as munitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...). Governments will keep the best AI for themselves, leaving the goof-nuts ChatGPT type stuff for private citizens. Then the question becomes did those gun downed humans deserve what they got? And did that massacre result in a greater good? Those are the not-so-pleasant questions the humans will have to ask themselves (probably using AI to help, ironically).
        fnimick 4y ago
        The real question in my mind is, does democracy survive once the top 1% has a complete and unquestioned monopoly on violence and power? I don't think so.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        It doesn't survive, but that's the moment when the monopoly on violence broken, and the government becomes open season for citizens. Yes, the deck is stacked against the citizens, but all else equal, I think the 1% prefers it when the masses aren't constructing gallows and sharpening pitchforks. The mob is our truest and strongest weapon against the 1%.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Herval_freire 4y ago
This is a good point. The civil war like the drug war though are choices made after an inevitable plunge onto the predictable path. Both choices had a high cost and were incredibly hard to make. It was also predictably a delayed response with varying levels of limited effectiveness.

dahart 4y ago

Initially I didn’t like the drug addict analogy, but maybe it’s a good one, maybe you’re right. A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence. With AI we’re at the first stage where we’re not yet addicted, but once we become addicted, it will be very very hard to wean ourselves off of it if/when we find out it’s doing more damage than good. We do have a choice right now, but you might be right that we’ll lose it soon.

schwartzworld 4y ago
> A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence This sort of disregards the large percentage of people who get hooked on drugs while recovering from injuries or medical issues. After marijuana, pain killers are the second most abused illegal substance.
- dahart 4y ago
  That’s fair, you’re totally right. But, this is exposing why the drug addict analogy isn’t a great analogy relative to use of AI. I went along with it to find common ground, but I don’t believe the existence of drug addicts are evidence that we lack any choice when it comes to building, deploying, or using AI, like @Herval_freire implied. Do you? I think we do have the freedom to exercise caution, or regulate the use of certain dangerous machines, if we want.
  - Herval_freire 4y ago
    We lack choice in aggregate. As an individual you have the choice of doing a drug. If I talk about a population of people and I introduce highly addictive drugs to a population of people, then it's almost a guarantee that part of that population will get addicted. In this sense it is not a choice. For AI, if I introduce AI to a population of people then for sure part of the population will exploit and use AI. Logically speaking in order to compete, others will have to start using it as well.
    - 4y ago

mdkfof9rl 4y ago

Good thing LLMs don't have any intelligence at all, since they lack agency. We're no closer to AI that can be meaningfully exploited than we were when Asimov dreamt up the positronic brain

dsign 4y ago
I'm not sure if you are talking seriously or ironically, so I will assume the former. Agency is a wonderful thing to have. But it's not as difficult to realize as getting something to be good at general intellectual tasks. Just built into the system a goal of utmost priority which is "to survive", and everything follows. There is a (slight) chance that it is not as easy as that, but I wouldn't bank anything on that chance.