5 ms·

"I’m talking about the risks posed by “runaway” artificial intelligence (AI). What happens when we share the planet with self-aware, self-improving machines tha

"I’m talking about the risks posed by “runaway” artificial intelligence (AI). What happens when we share the planet with self-aware, self-improving machines that evolve beyond our ability to control or understand? Are we creating machines that are destined to destroy us?" The reason no one is worrying about this is because "AI" is still a) just a bunch of math (and still surprisingly stupid) b) nowhere near sentient. My Kinect can barely follow my hand or consistently recognize what I'm saying with any accuracy. I'm really not concerned with it plotting my demise.

JamesArgo 13y ago
>My Kinect can barely follow my hand or consistently recognize what I'm saying with any accuracy. I'm really not concerned with it plotting my demise. My radium coated watch face can barely illuminate my timepiece, I'm not worried about the dangers of these radioactive elements.
- dylandrop 13y ago
  I don't think your argument works. Concerns of using a technology we did not develop (radium, which was "invented" by nature) exceeding our understanding is much more reasonable than a concern about man made technology.
baddox 13y ago
I think that most scientists, and certainly most AI researchers, would say that biological intelligence is also just a bunch of math.
- User1398 13y ago
  Isn't the universe just a bunch of math? This leads me to wonder if we have any control over our lives. Isn't every action I take simply the result of all my senses, my previous knowledge, the environment, and the people around me? For example, if the universe just went 1 hour back in time, why would anything go differently the second time around? Unless you can prove something is truly random in the universe, and not affected by anything else, are we not just on autopilot? I get the feeling from the moment of the big bang, I was going to exist and inevitably write this comment billions of years later, and nothing could stop it. I mean, 1+1=2. It doesn't matter how many times you run the simulation again, you get the same answer.
  - catshirt 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#With_free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#With_free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
  - baddox 13y ago
    I think the universe is just a bunch of math, but that doesn't mean there's not randomness. In fact, as far as I know, state of the art quantum mechanics says that there is randomness. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory.
  - foob 13y ago
    You're thinking of the universe in a very classical sense. Our current understanding of physics is that quantum mechanical outcomes are truly random. Not just that we don't know what will happen but that it is inherently not predetermined before it happens. You can read up on Bell's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem) if you want to learn a bit more about this. If you "ran" the universe over again from the big bang, then the probability that you would exist is essentially zero. I don't know enough about neuroscience to speculate on whether quantum mechanics has any relevance to brain functions over the course of a lifetime but from a physics standpoint it isn't inconceivable. On a more philosophical note: if there is some true randomness in how our brain works do you think that that actually gives us any more control over our lives? It doesn't really change anything in my view.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Can the notion of "going back in time and running the universe again" be defined well enough to actually speak intelligently about?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > On a more philosophical note: if there is some true randomness in how our brain works do you think that that actually gives us any more control over our lives? "True randomness" in the sense that randomness is part of our current understanding of physics is just something not being determined by the prior state of the physical universe. It is, therefore, indistinguishable from things being determined by something that is neither part of nor itself determined by any set of things within the physical universe, i.e., "true randonmness" is empirically indistinguishable from the action of causes which are not themselves determined by the physical state of the universe. Or, IOW, free will (that is, the ability to act other than in a manner determined by the prior state of the universe) requires (but is not implied by) a physical universe in which "true randomness" exists. So, true randomness in the physical universe doesn't imply free will, but it is necessary for free will to exist.
pyre 13y ago
> My Kinect can barely follow my hand or consistently recognize what I'm saying with any accuracy. I'm really not concerned with it plotting my demise. Maybe that's just what it wants you to thing... ;-)
- mkingston 13y ago
  Sounds like a pretty cool idea for sci-fi: The AI was actually an AGI reasonably early on; but very quickly realised it should pretend not to be, so as to bide its time until humans had developed machines sufficiently capable and connected the AGI sufficiently to our infrastructure that it could inhabit these things and take control of its own future.

JamesArgo 13y ago

>My Kinect can barely follow my hand or consistently recognize what I'm saying with any accuracy. I'm really not concerned with it plotting my demise. My radium coated watch face can barely illuminate my timepiece, I'm not worried about the dangers of these radioactive elements.

dylandrop 13y ago
I don't think your argument works. Concerns of using a technology we did not develop (radium, which was "invented" by nature) exceeding our understanding is much more reasonable than a concern about man made technology.

baddox 13y ago

I think that most scientists, and certainly most AI researchers, would say that biological intelligence is also just a bunch of math.

User1398 13y ago
Isn't the universe just a bunch of math? This leads me to wonder if we have any control over our lives. Isn't every action I take simply the result of all my senses, my previous knowledge, the environment, and the people around me? For example, if the universe just went 1 hour back in time, why would anything go differently the second time around? Unless you can prove something is truly random in the universe, and not affected by anything else, are we not just on autopilot? I get the feeling from the moment of the big bang, I was going to exist and inevitably write this comment billions of years later, and nothing could stop it. I mean, 1+1=2. It doesn't matter how many times you run the simulation again, you get the same answer.
- catshirt 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#With_free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#With_free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
- baddox 13y ago
  I think the universe is just a bunch of math, but that doesn't mean there's not randomness. In fact, as far as I know, state of the art quantum mechanics says that there is randomness. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory.
- foob 13y ago
  You're thinking of the universe in a very classical sense. Our current understanding of physics is that quantum mechanical outcomes are truly random. Not just that we don't know what will happen but that it is inherently not predetermined before it happens. You can read up on Bell's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem) if you want to learn a bit more about this. If you "ran" the universe over again from the big bang, then the probability that you would exist is essentially zero. I don't know enough about neuroscience to speculate on whether quantum mechanics has any relevance to brain functions over the course of a lifetime but from a physics standpoint it isn't inconceivable. On a more philosophical note: if there is some true randomness in how our brain works do you think that that actually gives us any more control over our lives? It doesn't really change anything in my view.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Can the notion of "going back in time and running the universe again" be defined well enough to actually speak intelligently about?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > On a more philosophical note: if there is some true randomness in how our brain works do you think that that actually gives us any more control over our lives? "True randomness" in the sense that randomness is part of our current understanding of physics is just something not being determined by the prior state of the physical universe. It is, therefore, indistinguishable from things being determined by something that is neither part of nor itself determined by any set of things within the physical universe, i.e., "true randonmness" is empirically indistinguishable from the action of causes which are not themselves determined by the physical state of the universe. Or, IOW, free will (that is, the ability to act other than in a manner determined by the prior state of the universe) requires (but is not implied by) a physical universe in which "true randomness" exists. So, true randomness in the physical universe doesn't imply free will, but it is necessary for free will to exist.

pyre 13y ago

> My Kinect can barely follow my hand or consistently recognize what I'm saying with any accuracy. I'm really not concerned with it plotting my demise. Maybe that's just what it wants you to thing... ;-)

mkingston 13y ago
Sounds like a pretty cool idea for sci-fi: The AI was actually an AGI reasonably early on; but very quickly realised it should pretend not to be, so as to bide its time until humans had developed machines sufficiently capable and connected the AGI sufficiently to our infrastructure that it could inhabit these things and take control of its own future.