4 ms·

But is it impossible to study AI safety (or "safety") scientifically? What about all the papers like AI watermarking or AI racial bias and so for? Do you argue

by calf 3y ago

But is it impossible to study AI safety (or "safety") scientifically? What about all the papers like AI watermarking or AI racial bias and so for? Do you argue that academics working on those questions are doing illegitimate science?

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I don't think the science is illegitimate in the sense that it doesn't follow the scientific method or at least the principles of science or engineering in some form. Nor do I think they have bad intentions. BUT, I do think their work is useless and only serves to better integrate AI into to the system, which is better in the short term but worse in the long term. Therefore, overall, I vehemently disagree with their research and I think it is fundamentally a contribution to the worsening of the earth. I absolutely AGREE with treating all people equally and eliminating racial biases of course. However, TECH companies have a VESTED interest in this sort of thing, which is to integrate as many people as possible into the tech empire. It just so happens that building the tech empire is roughly equivalent to success in modern society, which is why their intentions seem good, but they are only ostensibly good. In reality, they do no good of any kind.
- klibertp 3y ago
  Hmm, I'm intrigued. I looked at your blog - not very close, no time right now, but I feel I would enjoy a more thorough read - and I find, for example, this[1] post to be quite sensible on its surface, even if I may not agree with everything. However, the latter part of the title - "and should be destroyed" - makes me wonder: how exactly could it be possible to put the genie back in the bottle? The only scenario that comes to my mind - happily untainted with any philosophy training - is the one from Dune. The problem with that is that, throughout the series, Dune describes at least four different dystopic world orders, all motivated and cultivated because the AI-based one didn't come to pass (narrowly). In the novel, the only feasible, long-term strategy to avoid being wiped out by the "thinking machines" was either religious fundamentalism or a God-like undying tyrant forcing its vision on everyone. Since we lack the capabilities to create the latter, it seems the former is the only way we can implement it right now. Wouldn't, however, living under the permanent anti-AI jihad also be a dystopic experience? Especially in our case, where the AI has yet to decimate humanity to the brink of extinction. I'm sure you considered this, so if you have a summary of what you think we can still do to stop AI without succumbing to any of the other undesirable outcomes, I'd appreciate a link :) [1] https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/ https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/

by calf 3y ago

vouaobrasil 3y ago

I don't think the science is illegitimate in the sense that it doesn't follow the scientific method or at least the principles of science or engineering in some form. Nor do I think they have bad intentions. BUT, I do think their work is useless and only serves to better integrate AI into to the system, which is better in the short term but worse in the long term. Therefore, overall, I vehemently disagree with their research and I think it is fundamentally a contribution to the worsening of the earth. I absolutely AGREE with treating all people equally and eliminating racial biases of course. However, TECH companies have a VESTED interest in this sort of thing, which is to integrate as many people as possible into the tech empire. It just so happens that building the tech empire is roughly equivalent to success in modern society, which is why their intentions seem good, but they are only ostensibly good. In reality, they do no good of any kind.

klibertp 3y ago
Hmm, I'm intrigued. I looked at your blog - not very close, no time right now, but I feel I would enjoy a more thorough read - and I find, for example, this[1] post to be quite sensible on its surface, even if I may not agree with everything. However, the latter part of the title - "and should be destroyed" - makes me wonder: how exactly could it be possible to put the genie back in the bottle? The only scenario that comes to my mind - happily untainted with any philosophy training - is the one from Dune. The problem with that is that, throughout the series, Dune describes at least four different dystopic world orders, all motivated and cultivated because the AI-based one didn't come to pass (narrowly). In the novel, the only feasible, long-term strategy to avoid being wiped out by the "thinking machines" was either religious fundamentalism or a God-like undying tyrant forcing its vision on everyone. Since we lack the capabilities to create the latter, it seems the former is the only way we can implement it right now. Wouldn't, however, living under the permanent anti-AI jihad also be a dystopic experience? Especially in our case, where the AI has yet to decimate humanity to the brink of extinction. I'm sure you considered this, so if you have a summary of what you think we can still do to stop AI without succumbing to any of the other undesirable outcomes, I'd appreciate a link :) [1] https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/ https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/