7 ms·
> partnership to bring greater focus and urgency to the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI) Why is this urgent?
by TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
> partnership to bring greater focus and urgency to the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI)
Why is this urgent?
- Skyy93 3y agoPerhaps there is some belief in this that an AGI can save us from our biggest problems? Energy Crisis, Environmental Pollution, Waging Wars. But I agree with you ... it is not really urgent since we know answers for the most of the problems but do not like the solution.
- xpe 3y agoA “solution” that isn’t viable nor palatable isn’t a true solution; it is often merely a hope that people are not people.
- Skyy93 3y agoThan there will be never be a solution to some problems.
- tharne 3y agoYou’re presupposing every problem has a nice solution. This is almost certainly false
- ang_cire 3y agoAny solution is a nice solution depending on your frame of reference. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad without defining the acceptable and unacceptable effects.
- nine_k 3y agoThere is an implied frame of reference that requires the continued existence of humans. Any solution that violates this boundary condition is "objectively bad", that is, cultures that follow this solution disappear and thus lose the evolution game.
- xpe 3y agoI take your point but... 1. There are a set of things that are nearly objectively true across nearly all cultures. For example, random killing for selfish purposes is not ok. 2. I'm not a moral relativist, in two senses. First, the "weak" sense: I would prefer to live in some moral systems more than others. Second, in "nearly-strong" sense: some moral systems are 'nearly' objectively better than others (see point above). (Note: my definitions are imprecise; still working on how to square them with existing philosophical writings.) 3. Even for people that evaluate the morality of something according to its effects (consequentialists), there is considerable room to debate the relevant time frame.
- Qwertious 3y agoLots of problems could be at least severely mitigated if you could throw literally millions of bodies at the problem - if AGI could deliver a $50 chip that could substitute for a human, then could shove each one into a roomba wired to an arm, and you basically have an infinite free workforce.
- gretch 3y agoYeah except, how do you manufacture them? And distribute them to where the work needs to be? And what type of fuel do they use - we don’t have infinite free energy for an infinite free workforce.
- xpe 3y ago> You’re presupposing every problem has a nice solution. Not at all. Where are you getting that?
- lttlrck 3y agoViability is a given. But palatability? That's like giving up and saying there are no solutions to hard problems.
- xpe 3y agoI take your point. Palatability can change. > That's like giving up and saying there are no solutions to hard problems. Not at all. I'm simply defining a solution as one that has some probability of traction.
- garblegarble 3y ago>we know answers for the most of the problems but do not like the solution. What an absolutely wonderful insight put extremely succinctly, thank you!
- sschueller 3y agoA true AGI would determine the only solution to our crisis is the elimination of the human race...
- dartos 3y agoAre you just basing that idea off of sci fi novels?
- charlie0 3y agoIt would probably be the simplest solution to a naive super intelligent agi. Just take a look at how humanity dealt with dangerous animals. They are mostly no longer around unless in a zoo.
- esrauch 3y agoHumans don't put ants in zoos because the ants overconsume their localized habitat though. A naive super intelligent agi has no reason to care if global warming makes the planet 150 degrees F on average, if it's self-interested it would surely be able to be "ok" on a planet under those conditions.
- charlie0 3y agoSure, but at some point it will be asked to solve those problems and if it's not properly built, could easily arrive at that conclusion from a problem solving perspective. Self interest doesn't have to come into play at all here.
- Auracle 3y agoIf it’s tasked with solving those problems it can also be done with constraints such as “without killing humans.”
- hskalin 3y agoNot if you add a constraint that ensures survival of humanity.
- throwaway10965 3y agoThey're not saying it's urgent; they want to bring urgency - convince people to move faster. It seemed appropriate to ask AI about the meaning of the phrase: The phrase "bring urgency to something" means to inject a sense of importance and immediate attention to a specific issue, project, or situation. The aim is to motivate people to prioritize the task at hand and to act more quickly than they might otherwise.
- falcor84 3y agoWhen someone wants to "bring urgency", this generally implies that it's already quite urgent to them, so I understood this as that question.
- xpe 3y agoWithout taking a particular position on how the probabilities shake out, I suggest critically reading “What We Owe the Future” by William MacAskill and:or other long-term writings that use statistical thinking over a wide range of future scenarios.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y agoCreator of "Centre for Effective Altruism"? Longtermism? No thanks. I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me.
- NateEag 3y ago> I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me. Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so. ...there are many ways to make utilitarianism fall apart, but that one's my current favorite.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago> If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable? > Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. A modicum of spirituality or religion will quickly quash this. So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Or at least non-spirituality or belief in materialism (I'm not a philosopher so may be using that term incorrectly).
- NateEag 3y ago> So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Yep, you're absolutely right - I forgot to specify that. Most utilitarians don't believe in transcendence, in my experience - not believing in it is usually why they're utilitarian (trying to salvage any argument for behavioral standards other than "I like it when other people do what I like").
- chasd00 3y ago> partnership to bring greater focus and urgency to the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI) >> Why is this urgent? that's an understatement. The rush to AGI reminds me of the rush to human cloning.
- layer8 3y agoIt’s not. They are saying that they want to make it (appear) urgent.