3 ms·

> But why would one expect any of that to transfer to AI? What do the internal dynamics of a Board of Directors have to do with, say, the Code Red worm? What le

> But why would one expect any of that to transfer to AI? What do the internal dynamics of a Board of Directors have to do with, say, the Code Red worm? What lessons can we extract from 501(c)3 nonprofits which will tell us anything about deep-learning-based architectures? Do CEO salaries really inform our understanding of Moore's Law? Or can study of Congressional lobbying seriously help us better understand progress on brain scanning and connectomes? Do Marxian dialectics truly help us improve forecasts for when feasible investments in neuromorphic chips will match human brains? Studying human systems is one of the best ways of studying complex systems and systems engineering, which are already crucial for complex engineering projects, like developing a complex AI. Before we can even talk about our future binary overlords being hostile or friendly, we will have to study how basic, but constantly developing, AI integrates and plays off of human social systems. We have to gather quantified data about how two distinct forms of intelligence interact and what, if any, conclusions can be generalized to a future where humans are no longer the species with the highest intelligence. You have no data about how real AI's would behave in our society except for fiction, which contains no more guidance now than the Bible did for 16th century astrophysics. We have no consistent models that explain our own intelligence, let alone an artificial one that has yet to exist. You can pontificate about Plato's ideal Terminator but it won't make a bit of difference until we get our telescope.

gwern 13y ago
> Studying human systems is one of the best ways of studying complex systems and systems engineering, which are already crucial for complex engineering projects, like developing a complex AI. What does it mean to study a generic 'complex system' and 'systems engineering' and what does this have to do with estimating the potential risks and dangers? > we will have to study how basic, but constantly developing, AI integrates and plays off of human social systems. This presumes you already know all about what the AI will be and is putting the cart before the horse. > We have to gather quantified data about how two distinct forms of intelligence interact and what, if any, conclusions can be generalized to a future where humans are no longer the species with the highest intelligence. Consider an aborigine making this argument: 'we have observed their firearms and firewater, and know there are many unknowns about these white men in their large canoes; if we look at their capabilities, our best analyses and research and extrapolations certainly suggest they could be a serious threat to us, but we must reserve judgement and quantify data about how our forms of intelligence will interact with theirs'. > You have no data about how real AI's would behave in our society except for fiction, which contains no more guidance now than the Bible did for 16th century astrophysics Really? We know nothing about AI and our best guesses are literally as good as random tribal superstitions? > We have no consistent models that explain our own intelligence, let alone an artificial one that has yet to exist. Someone tell the psychologists and the field of AI they have learned nothing at all which could possibly inform our attempts to understand these issues.

gwern 13y ago

> Studying human systems is one of the best ways of studying complex systems and systems engineering, which are already crucial for complex engineering projects, like developing a complex AI. What does it mean to study a generic 'complex system' and 'systems engineering' and what does this have to do with estimating the potential risks and dangers? > we will have to study how basic, but constantly developing, AI integrates and plays off of human social systems. This presumes you already know all about what the AI will be and is putting the cart before the horse. > We have to gather quantified data about how two distinct forms of intelligence interact and what, if any, conclusions can be generalized to a future where humans are no longer the species with the highest intelligence. Consider an aborigine making this argument: 'we have observed their firearms and firewater, and know there are many unknowns about these white men in their large canoes; if we look at their capabilities, our best analyses and research and extrapolations certainly suggest they could be a serious threat to us, but we must reserve judgement and quantify data about how our forms of intelligence will interact with theirs'. > You have no data about how real AI's would behave in our society except for fiction, which contains no more guidance now than the Bible did for 16th century astrophysics Really? We know nothing about AI and our best guesses are literally as good as random tribal superstitions? > We have no consistent models that explain our own intelligence, let alone an artificial one that has yet to exist. Someone tell the psychologists and the field of AI they have learned nothing at all which could possibly inform our attempts to understand these issues.