5 ms·

A higher intelligent AGI with specific goals can destroy humanity and that is precisly what Bengio (highest h-indez software scientist currently) describes in t

A higher intelligent AGI with specific goals can destroy humanity and that is precisly what Bengio (highest h-indez software scientist currently) describes in this blog post: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/05/22/how-rogue-ais-may-arise https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844...

gumballindie 3y ago
I think some of these scientists need to retire with dignity. Claiming that software is somehow capable of action on its own is simply delusional. At first it was fun, but now it's becoming a nuisance.
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  Fact: it's the current scientific consensus of the AI field. If you would like do some research otherwise keep your "expert" opinion,your life.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    > Fact: it's the current scientific consensus of the AI field. You mean that ai can just go on its own and kill people? Certainly that can happen, if people are silly enough to give it such "power". Which goes back to what I said about using tools in bad ways. But some folks take it literarily, as ai is sentient and not a piece of software, and it will somehow make itself escape. Take computer viruses. They replicate, yet they are not treated like biological viruses. When they first appeared, the less sofisticated folks, did take ad literam. And that's where the issue arises. People take the "intelligence" in ai ad literam, along with the personification of this type of software. And the pushers of this notion need to take a break and retire early while they have some dignity left. But this doesn't contradict the consensus that yes, it can be used for negative outcomes, as can a kitchen towel or a flower.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Come on, an AI is different from all those things (towel, flower, tool) in that it can work with ideas and change it's behavior. Given any kind of power (and what's the point of using it if not to give it control over something) it can be a threat, or at least concerning. Is it conscious? Is it life? Dunno, don't care. Is it a concern? Absitively Posilutely.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        > in that it can work with ideas and change it's behavior. Dogs also work on ideas and change their behaviour, and their behaviour is much down to their training. But unlike ai they posses intelligence and can indeed, occasionally, go rogue. But AI is an object, it doesn't think, it doesn't create stuff, it is just a piece of software that does what it's told - well with plenty of errors, since it's not deterministic - therefore it's up to whoever controls it to determine how it behaves. Shifting the blame away with all sorts of looney stories meant to impress non technical people is amusing to a point, but after that point is dangerous.
        mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        Part of the reason control theory exists is because it turns out that we can't take it as given that just because we built something, we can remain in control of it. The consequences can be quite severe. For example a nuclear reactor can melt down and make a good portion of a country uninhabitable, even though nobody in the control room, nor anywhere up the chain of command, desired that outcome. No terrorism necessary. It can even reach a state in its state-space where a meltdown does not seem imminent and yet no further action can prevent such an outcome. Such systems deserve to be treated with a great deal more respect than just assuming that they aren't capable of unbounded harm as long as nobody commands it of them. Guaranteeing their safety takes a great deal of work. This lesson is paid for in blood, and learned time and again by each discipline, but it's one that the software field has yet to really grapple with.
        3y ago

gumballindie 3y ago

I think some of these scientists need to retire with dignity. Claiming that software is somehow capable of action on its own is simply delusional. At first it was fun, but now it's becoming a nuisance.

arisAlexis 3y ago
Fact: it's the current scientific consensus of the AI field. If you would like do some research otherwise keep your "expert" opinion,your life.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  > Fact: it's the current scientific consensus of the AI field. You mean that ai can just go on its own and kill people? Certainly that can happen, if people are silly enough to give it such "power". Which goes back to what I said about using tools in bad ways. But some folks take it literarily, as ai is sentient and not a piece of software, and it will somehow make itself escape. Take computer viruses. They replicate, yet they are not treated like biological viruses. When they first appeared, the less sofisticated folks, did take ad literam. And that's where the issue arises. People take the "intelligence" in ai ad literam, along with the personification of this type of software. And the pushers of this notion need to take a break and retire early while they have some dignity left. But this doesn't contradict the consensus that yes, it can be used for negative outcomes, as can a kitchen towel or a flower.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Come on, an AI is different from all those things (towel, flower, tool) in that it can work with ideas and change it's behavior. Given any kind of power (and what's the point of using it if not to give it control over something) it can be a threat, or at least concerning. Is it conscious? Is it life? Dunno, don't care. Is it a concern? Absitively Posilutely.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      > in that it can work with ideas and change it's behavior. Dogs also work on ideas and change their behaviour, and their behaviour is much down to their training. But unlike ai they posses intelligence and can indeed, occasionally, go rogue. But AI is an object, it doesn't think, it doesn't create stuff, it is just a piece of software that does what it's told - well with plenty of errors, since it's not deterministic - therefore it's up to whoever controls it to determine how it behaves. Shifting the blame away with all sorts of looney stories meant to impress non technical people is amusing to a point, but after that point is dangerous.
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        Part of the reason control theory exists is because it turns out that we can't take it as given that just because we built something, we can remain in control of it. The consequences can be quite severe. For example a nuclear reactor can melt down and make a good portion of a country uninhabitable, even though nobody in the control room, nor anywhere up the chain of command, desired that outcome. No terrorism necessary. It can even reach a state in its state-space where a meltdown does not seem imminent and yet no further action can prevent such an outcome. Such systems deserve to be treated with a great deal more respect than just assuming that they aren't capable of unbounded harm as long as nobody commands it of them. Guaranteeing their safety takes a great deal of work. This lesson is paid for in blood, and learned time and again by each discipline, but it's one that the software field has yet to really grapple with.
        3y ago