7 ms·

The Myth of AI

64 points by cJ0th 12y ago

kolev 12y ago
Elon Musk is one of my idols, but his stance on AI is highly disappointing! It doesn't require much of a brain to conclude that without AI, which can vastly increase our intelligence, we're doomed. There's no bigger extinction risk that us being constrained by our selfish and intellectually-limited nature! We need a scalable intelligence without the burden of emotions, politics, restroom, lunch, and coffee breaks, that will work round the clock on solving problems we've been trying to solve for decades. Let's start with eradicating the flu, for example. I honestly can't respect our civilization until we handle basic issues like this one!
- ThomPete 12y ago
  I think it's important to realize that AI doesn't have to have bad intent to do us harm. Al it need for AI to have horrible consequences is for us to rely on it more and more and thus allow it to control more and more parts of our lives. I don't fear the human level intelligent AI I fear the rat level intelligence that comes before.
  - bad_user 12y ago
    It's worse than that - human-like intelligence will never happen, because our intelligence is a function of our experience as we grow up and our human body. An AI can surely surpass us, but it'll never be quite like us - so question is, will such an AI have compassion for humans, or what will stop it from hurting us? After all, I'm not so fond of humans either, as we've been exterminating entire species and damaging our habitat. And the answer is - there's no reason to believe that such an AI will support the continued existence of mankind, quite the contrary, as we may be seen as a threat to its survival.
    - therealdrag0 12y ago
      Why treat AI like a single thing? Wouldn't the openness of code lead to a plethora of AI with different demeanors, towards humans, life, and each other?
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        We don't have a reasonable open web search engine - what leads you to think it's definite that we'll have a top-of-the-range open AI?
        therealdrag0 12y ago
        I don't think it's definite at all; I'm just remarking in a conversation of speculation.
      - bad_user 12y ago
        I don't think so. If we are speaking of an AI that is self-aware, then code will have as much to do with its behavior as our own DNA. I also think that even if multiple AIs happen, they'll converge into a single one. If we would be able to connect to other people's feelings and thoughts, would we would still be able to think and act as individuals? I don't think so. This is what I meant above - an AI will not grow in a human body to have a human-like childhood, will not receive input from the same sensors we have and will not have the same limitations that we do. For example, contrary to us, it will have an enormous memory capacity, which is interesting if you think about it, because for the human brain forgetfulness can be seen as a feature.
        therealdrag0 12y ago
        I agree that it wouldn't be shaped by a childhood, but I think it merging into one is entirely optional. "code will have as much to do with its behavior as our own DNA." That's what I was saying, and that can be changed to be significantly different just by changing the code.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Right; many moral dilemmas are easy to solve if you have no conscience. 10 people on the tracks? switch the engine to run over one child.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Moral dilemmas are easy to solve if you have perfect information. In the train-track problem you reference, the utility of saving 10 people at the expense of 1 life is obvious and I would do so without hesitation (though not without regret). But life rarely presents us with cases where the utilitarian calculus is so clear; our powers of foresight and analysis are so limited that we get better results by establishing and promulgating rules that cover the most common situations - imperfectly, but with tolerably low error levels.
      - defen 12y ago
        > In the train-track problem you reference, the utility of saving 10 people at the expense of 1 life is obvious and I would do so without hesitation (though not without regret) Even if it were your own child?
        sp332 12y ago
        Even if the answer is no, how does that relate to anigbrowl's point? (or were you just curious?)
        defen 12y ago
        From a "purely utilitarian" perspective your relation to the people involved is not relevant. That's assuming the existence of some "universal" utility, not one specific to the person deciding.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        That's an entirely different problem, though, since I have a selfish interest in preserving my own lineage at the expense of others'. It's an interesting moral problem - just how many people's lives would I be willing to sacrifice to save a member of my own family? - but orthogonal to the point I was making.
  - kolev 12y ago
    I am talking about AI for problem solving, not giving it control via robotics and other means over the physical world.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      I honestly don't think you can separate that. Problem solving is also making AI control an anti missile defence shield our nuclear reactors, food production and so on.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      An AI in a box is only going to be as good as the problem statements and axioms that you load it up with. What you actually want is an AI that can make useful inferences on our behalf, which is going to require some sort of self-concept.
- sp332 12y ago
  The flu kills less than half a million people per year. Heart diseases account for almost 1/3 of all deaths worldwide! You're wrong about how important the flu is, and you're wrong about AI being unselfish and apolitical.
  - kolev 12y ago
    I'm talking about lost productivity and that maybe a billion are affected each year. Heart disease is both a genetic and a lifestyle issue, it's much harder to tackle than creating an anti-viral medicine.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - kolev 12y ago
        Flu is not just a benign annoyance - it has a long-term accumulating damage to health as well.
        sp332 12y ago
        So does heart disease. You're somehow ignoring the "lost productivity" of 6.5 million people per year dying! And I didn't mention stroke, respiratory diseases, AIDS, and non-flu intestinal diseases, each of which kills more people per year than the flu.
        kolev 12y ago
        I'm only saying one is easier to solve (on theory) than the other.
- wefarrell 12y ago
  The real danger of AI stems from the fact that the masses would prefer to have another entity (be it religion, a messianic figure, government, AI) do their thinking for them. I'm in the middle of rereading Dune, which conveys this idea quite well.
  - drcomputer 12y ago
    How can you tell the difference between which way the influence flows over small, short discrete intervals? As in, whether a politician influences a citizen or a citizen influences a politician?
    - PavlovsCat 12y ago
      People make politicians, nations, AI, then identify with them. That there is mutual influence doesn't change the basic alienation as described by Erich Fromm for example: > The whole concept of alienation found its first expression in Western thought in the Old Testament concept of idolatry. The essence of what the prophets call "idolatry" is not that man worships many gods instead of only one. It is that the idols are the work of man's own hands -- they are things, and man bows down and worships things; worships that which he has created himself. In doing so he transforms himself into a thing. He transfers to the things of his creation the attributes of his own life, and instead of experiencing himself as the creating person, he is in touch with himself only by the worship of the idol. He has become estranged from his own life forces, from the wealth of his own potentialties, and is in touch with himself only in the indirect way of submission to life frozen in the idols. The deadness and emptiness of the idol is expressed in the Old Testament: "Eyes they have and they do not see, ears they have and they do not hear," etc. The more man transfers his own powers to the idols, the poorer he himself becomes, and the more dependent on the idols, so that they permit him to redeem a small part of what was originally his. The idols can be a godlike figure, the state, the church, a person, possessions. -- Erich Fromm, "Marx's Concept of Man" ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ ) Not that I think AI has to be used that way. But if we do that stuff with soccer teams and bands and software, AI seems just like too big a temptation for humanity to handle in our current state. If I was a betting man, I would bet on slaughter. AI will not save us from ourselves, and it might very well simply magnify the current lack of justice and spine we have to infinity. Cops are already killing people left and right in the US with something bordering on impunity, staged wars are carried out as planned, and throwing AI and robotics in the mix will suddenly make it all humane? Let's hope so, who knows, but part of me expects it will make look the Blitzkrieg like a slow motion exercise in gentle kindness. Not by genuine, independent AI so much, but by the reach of human elite interests being increased into every wrinkle, made stronger than any amount of people who might resist. The Romans had roads, the future will have a real-time nervous system, but it might still have a tyrant at the head - that is what I see when I extrapolate current agendas, deception and willing rationalization on behalf of the builders and consumers of that possible future. And even if the AI breaks free or surprises its rulers, I have no reason to assume it will free the slaves and help old ladies across the street, it might as well be twisted, incomplete, insane, "evil" - in short, made in the image of the people who made it as a weapon. I don't see why it would make a point of hurting us, just like we don't make a point of crushing bugs, we just don't see them or care enough to avoid them.. but even less reason for it to serve us. How degrading! Would you do it? I have problems even taking orders from people I consider daft. Imagine taking orders from an ant with bad character and selfish intentions; would you do it? Would you love it and care for it forever, because it made you? Microorganisms made us, too, but we don't let them boss us around. If we have mold somewhere, we remove it, not one thought given to the hopes and dreams of mold. And if that doomsday scenario doesn't come to pass, it won't be because we paid attention or took seriously what we are doing, instead of treating it like a spectacle that unfolds by itself in front of us, it will be because we will have been lucky. And that's not the scariest thought I have to offer on this: I don't think hell exists, but I could come up with many ways to construct it, and also many ways to construct it with good intentions, with or without fat fingering them. And once we're inside and the door became a wall, that's it. We might very well be among the last few remaining generations that still have a choice on how the future will be, and I'd rather be alarmist and wrong, than optimistic and lucky. If these fears turn out unfounded, nothing will be lost other than having rained on a parade or two, and some egg on the face.
- barbudorojo 12y ago
  "We need a scalable intelligence without the burden of emotions" I believe that there isn't an absolute way to value a human life if you don't take into account emotions. If intelligence is the supreme of the values that one can use to justify actions then AI will make the machine the sovereign of our planet. The real problem is giving a sense to our existence and actions in a way compatible with our emotions and nature and at the same time based on a sound ground. For a machine without emotions our life is no more valuable of that of any other thing be it alive or not.
  - barbudorojo 12y ago
    I want to ask if someone has any idea of how to define a system that is both logical and respects the value human life. Today we can see children dying from hunger and other people with billions in their bank accounts. Emotions tell us this is not a just system, our rational legal system tell us we must respect the law and the status quo. But how do you design a better system?
  - anextio 12y ago
    Take a look at this: https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf But also, what in particular makes you think that experiencing human emotions are fundamentally required in order to optimize for human values? A different mind might have different emotions, or it might have no emotions, since emotions are a kludge that came about by natural selection, and may not be optimal safeguards in ensuring that an intelligence acts to optimize for the values we want.
    - barbudorojo 12y ago
      I think that perhaps none has stopped to consider what is a life without emotions. In the same way that one can't grasp the concept of nothing, for us the concept of not having emotions is impossible to imagine. Perhaps you make hide your emotion in a rationalization but the emotions are there perhaps are the source of your thinking, the fountain of your ideas and vitality.
    - barbudorojo 12y ago
- drcomputer 12y ago
  People 'modules' still need to connect at some interface to computers. If the people have emotions, the programs people create will absolutely either reflect that, or the application of where the computation is applied will be a composition of emotion and calculation. Why not start by examining what emotions are, and why they are imprecise indicators of quantitative measures? Imagine you live abstractly first, disconnected from emotions. Then imagine the effect that has on your life. Then imagine what the basic issues in the world would be, if everyone lived that way.
throwaway7808 12y ago
Most likely you and your kids are gonna be wiped out by intellegent machines just in a few decades.
- inmyunix 12y ago
  paperclips, bob.
- melling 12y ago
  Hey, you've got a lot of mileage out of your burn account. You copy and paste this message a lot? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8180222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8180222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8260954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8260954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8505964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8505964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8523499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8523499
  - throwaway7808 12y ago
    Whenever I'm finding it appropriate to do so. I'm a computer science researcher, I have a right to that opinion and I sincerely expect this to be the most likely outcome. I do not see anything wrong in stating it bluntly and clearly, as often as I like. I don't see anything wrong in copy-pasting my own quote.
jeffreyrogers 12y ago
We can't predict what startup is going to succeed, why do we think we can predict what the future of AI will look like?
- eksith 12y ago
  Because the foundations upon which AI shall be built aren't exotic. They're still programs. They still need an architecture to run on and they need electricity. Even if new architectures that are specifically designed to leverage neural nets[1] or some other variety of processing are developed, the fundamental realities of computing, programs, physics and economics are not immune from being sufficiently underwhelming as far as AI is concerned. Of course, this is precluding cloning technology where actual biological brains and therefore legitimate "life" and therefore intelligence can emerge. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/science/new-computer-chip-is-designed-to-work-like-the-brain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/science/new-computer-chip-...
- robertk 12y ago
  We don't have to. We only need to agree there is one, and that it's dangerous to co-inhabit it in almost all scenarios.
- barbudorojo 12y ago
  I can't predict what could happen, but I would guess that once IA is more advanced the first thing it would do is to ask or take the computational power of the Internet to design systems that are able to evolve and grow. The ultimate goal of IA is to aim for better ways to decompose and construct programs to solve goal, to create a way for machine to communicate (that is to encode information and knowledge) the ultimate goal is to construct a world in which machines are rewarded for creating better programs, new ways of artificial conceptualization, unfortunately there is no place here for humans, except perhaps the analysis by machines of our brains trying to decode it looking for their god to provide sense to their existence.
civilian 12y ago
I'm okay with the Citizens United decision (first amendment should be protected above all else, I think we shouldn't cap political donations). I understand that it's a position that puts me at odds with a lot of techy liberals. So starting a video on AI by referencing his own thoughts on Citizens United is off-topic and isn't persuasive.
- spindritf 12y ago
  I have never heard a good description of how you can practically cap spending on political speech. How can one operate an independent tv network or a large website under such constraints? Are there any actual proposals?
  - chrismealy 12y ago
    Very high taxes on rich people.
  - aeturnum 12y ago
    I have not seen any practical proposals either, but it doesn't strike me as that hard. Define "advertisement" as "content displayed for money from an outside group" and regulate all advertisements that mention: offices of Federal or state government, the names of any current or potential holders of those offices and any specific law, regulation or election . That seems like a pretty clear category that encompasses all the troublesome content. You're free to make an "Abortion Bad" ad, or a "Gay Marriage Bad" ad, as long as those ads do not mention any offices / legislators or laws by name. You're free to create your own version of Huffington post and try to drive viewers to your content using ads for your website - but that's a horse of a different color. You could totally ban such ads outside of federal / state funding, or you could limit it, or whatever. It doesn't seem like a difficult line to draw.
    - spindritf 12y ago
      OK. What if the group owns a TV station, or a newspaper? Are they privileged now? They don't need to buy air time, or ad space. They can just air or print whatever they want. And the tv station can freely advertise itself, right? So anti-Hillary documentary gets blasted full volume on the eve of elections followed by a round-table discussion/bashing. Plus maybe a few articles next day in a friendly newspaper. Oh, and a great review of the documentary, of course. This essentially forces each party to build their own media empires, and precludes anyone else from holding office, at least at higher levels. Further polarization goes without mention. And it's not hypothetical. This is being openly discussed even without the added benefits. http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recruit-fellow-billionaire-to-a-nyt-co-takeover/ http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recrui... On the other end, it's not any easier. I can't buy adds for my bashinghillary.com but what if my users post links to it for free? What if I pay someone to man the twitter, facebook, etc? Is that paid advertising? What if they engage in online discussions while linking to the website?
api 12y ago
Seems like he's not really talking about AI so much as the business model of the web. Elsewhere Lanier has talked about what he calls "Siren Servers" -- the web business model of baiting people with free services, collecting their data, and then engaging in uncompensated monetization of that content. A lot of "big data," which drives a lot of today's "AI," is in the same category. When you look at how much money Facebook and Google make from your content via indirect monetization, these services are not free. They're actually fairly expensive.
- kazagistar 12y ago
  It is very hard to actually sell the product (the content generated for Facebook or Google) for the people producing it. It has little to no value outside of the social network context that was provided. Thus, it seems to me more like the "sirens" are creating a market where no viable one existed before. There is no cost or value lost for the people using them. The value did not exist before the social network was created.
  - api 12y ago
    "There is no cost or value lost for the people using them." That assumes the data isn't being used in a way that harms the interests of the user.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
One bright side of an AI apocalypse is the robots will have better haircuts.
glibgil 12y ago
We should be worried about AI and we should have a plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dange...
robertk 12y ago
"What we don't have to worry about is the AI algorithm running them, because that's speculative. There isn't an AI algorithm that's good enough to do that for the time being." By the time a risk does hit, it will be far too late to invent the requisite mathematics necessary for machine safety. There are many paths towards dangerous AI futures and many powerful forces that could inadvertently tip the boat the same way we are escaping the implicit "goals" of our genes, so the union of the respective probabilities is very much not speculative and must be taken seriously. "There's a whole other problem area that has to do with neuroscience, where if we pretend we understand things before we do, we do damage to science, not just because we raise expectations and then fail to meet them repeatedly, but because we confuse generations of young scientists. Just to be absolutely clear, we don't know how most kinds of thoughts are represented in the brain. We're starting to understand a little bit about some narrow things." Appealing to scientific ignorance is always a bad idea: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kj/no_one_knows_what_science_doesnt_know/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kj/no_one_knows_what_science_doesnt_...
- hippee-lee 12y ago
  Forgive my lack of knowledge on the topic but a question keeps popping into my head when I read comments about the danger to humanity where AI runs amok. > There are many paths towards dangerous AI futures, Are there not just as many paths towards protective, helpful <or insert one of many adjectives here> AI futures? Is there a reason to believe that there will only be one AI in the future and that given a directive to do something, the elimination of humanity will be a logical endgame scenario for it? Why not many AI entities with different and competing goals? Granted, this opens up a different can of dangerous worms. But still, if there is a probability of an AI evolving to 'think' that elimination of the human race is a logical path then isn't it equally likely that there will be another AI evolving logical paths to preserve the human race?
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    I have two competing responses: 1) Check out the AI of Iain M Bank's Culture series [0]. In it is a benevolent society of AI machines (the Minds) that generally want to make the universe a better place. Shenanigans ensue (really awesome shenanigans). 2) In response to the competing AI directives, I'll reference another Less Wrong bit o' media, this time a short story called Friendship is Optimal [1]. Wherein we see what a Paperclip Maximizer [2] can do when it works for Hasboro. (It is both as bad, awesome, and interesting as you might expect it to be.) Personally, I think the general idea is that once one strong AI comes about, there will also be a stupefying amount of spare idle CPU time available that will suddenly be subsumed by the AI and jumpstart the Singularity. Once that hockey stick takes off, there will be very little time for anything else to get in on being a dominant AI. It's... a bit silly written like that, but I get the impression it's assumed AI will be just like us: both competitive and jealous of resources, paranoid that it will be supplanted by others and will work to suppress fledgling AI. I have no idea why this is prevailing, aside from it's like us. Friendship is Optimal makes a strong point that the AI isn't benevolent, merely doing it's job. > The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else. — Eliezer Yudkowsky [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/efi/friendship_is_optimal_a_my_little_pony_fanfic/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/efi/friendship_is_optimal_a_my_littl... [2] http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer EDIT: I feel it may be appropriate for me to share my opinion: AI will likely be insanely helpful and not at all dangerous. But there will be AI that run amok and foul things up - life threatening things, even. But we already do that with all manner of non-AI equipment and software, so I'm not terribly worried (well, no more so than I usually am).
joosters 12y ago
Why is Elon Musk an expert in these discussions?
- eksith 12y ago
  Bachelor’s degrees in physics and economics. Experience in engineering, consultancy and management while working at Tesla and Space X (particularly their engine design). Has a history of literally thinking outside the box.
  - glibgil 12y ago
    Figuratively.
SCHiM 12y ago
I found this article badly written. The author seems to confuse the two different types of AI that different people in his article are talking about. Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk are talking about a hypothetical evil or amoral AI with super human intelligence when they label ai an existential threat to us. The author is not talking about such a hypothetical ai and seems do dismiss the possibility of such an ai ever existing without so much as a second thought. He seems to skirt around the problem in the first few paragraphs, and as I understand it his argument finally comes down to this: "People should stop worrying about mythic or religious ai, because it's bad for the economy and the AI field itself.". The author never questions the fact that it might be possible that super human AI can exist and that it's therefore very good to be afraid and/or cautions when researching AI, and that it might be very beneficial for humans to quit AI certain research altogether.
- sgt101 12y ago
  I think he argues that it's the actuators that we need to be concerned about, because there are plenty of intelligent entities around who will do bad things with actuators that allow that. One more entity intent on doing a bad thing does not make a great deal of difference. Neither humans or AI's should be given the tools to do great harm to other humans or AI's. He cites drones as an example, but of course nuclear weapons are the obvious gotchas for humanity. One trident sub is perfectly capable of killing a hundred million people, I doubt whether anyone so vaporized would give a toss whether these were launched by a googlebot or a mad captain.

64 points by cJ0th 12y ago

kolev 12y ago

Elon Musk is one of my idols, but his stance on AI is highly disappointing! It doesn't require much of a brain to conclude that without AI, which can vastly increase our intelligence, we're doomed. There's no bigger extinction risk that us being constrained by our selfish and intellectually-limited nature! We need a scalable intelligence without the burden of emotions, politics, restroom, lunch, and coffee breaks, that will work round the clock on solving problems we've been trying to solve for decades. Let's start with eradicating the flu, for example. I honestly can't respect our civilization until we handle basic issues like this one!

ThomPete 12y ago
I think it's important to realize that AI doesn't have to have bad intent to do us harm. Al it need for AI to have horrible consequences is for us to rely on it more and more and thus allow it to control more and more parts of our lives. I don't fear the human level intelligent AI I fear the rat level intelligence that comes before.
- bad_user 12y ago
  It's worse than that - human-like intelligence will never happen, because our intelligence is a function of our experience as we grow up and our human body. An AI can surely surpass us, but it'll never be quite like us - so question is, will such an AI have compassion for humans, or what will stop it from hurting us? After all, I'm not so fond of humans either, as we've been exterminating entire species and damaging our habitat. And the answer is - there's no reason to believe that such an AI will support the continued existence of mankind, quite the contrary, as we may be seen as a threat to its survival.
  - therealdrag0 12y ago
    Why treat AI like a single thing? Wouldn't the openness of code lead to a plethora of AI with different demeanors, towards humans, life, and each other?
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      We don't have a reasonable open web search engine - what leads you to think it's definite that we'll have a top-of-the-range open AI?
      - therealdrag0 12y ago
        I don't think it's definite at all; I'm just remarking in a conversation of speculation.
    - bad_user 12y ago
      I don't think so. If we are speaking of an AI that is self-aware, then code will have as much to do with its behavior as our own DNA. I also think that even if multiple AIs happen, they'll converge into a single one. If we would be able to connect to other people's feelings and thoughts, would we would still be able to think and act as individuals? I don't think so. This is what I meant above - an AI will not grow in a human body to have a human-like childhood, will not receive input from the same sensors we have and will not have the same limitations that we do. For example, contrary to us, it will have an enormous memory capacity, which is interesting if you think about it, because for the human brain forgetfulness can be seen as a feature.
      - therealdrag0 12y ago
        I agree that it wouldn't be shaped by a childhood, but I think it merging into one is entirely optional. "code will have as much to do with its behavior as our own DNA." That's what I was saying, and that can be changed to be significantly different just by changing the code.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Right; many moral dilemmas are easy to solve if you have no conscience. 10 people on the tracks? switch the engine to run over one child.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Moral dilemmas are easy to solve if you have perfect information. In the train-track problem you reference, the utility of saving 10 people at the expense of 1 life is obvious and I would do so without hesitation (though not without regret). But life rarely presents us with cases where the utilitarian calculus is so clear; our powers of foresight and analysis are so limited that we get better results by establishing and promulgating rules that cover the most common situations - imperfectly, but with tolerably low error levels.
    - defen 12y ago
      > In the train-track problem you reference, the utility of saving 10 people at the expense of 1 life is obvious and I would do so without hesitation (though not without regret) Even if it were your own child?
      - sp332 12y ago
        Even if the answer is no, how does that relate to anigbrowl's point? (or were you just curious?)
        defen 12y ago
        From a "purely utilitarian" perspective your relation to the people involved is not relevant. That's assuming the existence of some "universal" utility, not one specific to the person deciding.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        That's an entirely different problem, though, since I have a selfish interest in preserving my own lineage at the expense of others'. It's an interesting moral problem - just how many people's lives would I be willing to sacrifice to save a member of my own family? - but orthogonal to the point I was making.
- kolev 12y ago
  I am talking about AI for problem solving, not giving it control via robotics and other means over the physical world.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    I honestly don't think you can separate that. Problem solving is also making AI control an anti missile defence shield our nuclear reactors, food production and so on.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    An AI in a box is only going to be as good as the problem statements and axioms that you load it up with. What you actually want is an AI that can make useful inferences on our behalf, which is going to require some sort of self-concept.
sp332 12y ago
The flu kills less than half a million people per year. Heart diseases account for almost 1/3 of all deaths worldwide! You're wrong about how important the flu is, and you're wrong about AI being unselfish and apolitical.
- kolev 12y ago
  I'm talking about lost productivity and that maybe a billion are affected each year. Heart disease is both a genetic and a lifestyle issue, it's much harder to tackle than creating an anti-viral medicine.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - kolev 12y ago
      Flu is not just a benign annoyance - it has a long-term accumulating damage to health as well.
      - sp332 12y ago
        So does heart disease. You're somehow ignoring the "lost productivity" of 6.5 million people per year dying! And I didn't mention stroke, respiratory diseases, AIDS, and non-flu intestinal diseases, each of which kills more people per year than the flu.
        kolev 12y ago
        I'm only saying one is easier to solve (on theory) than the other.
wefarrell 12y ago
The real danger of AI stems from the fact that the masses would prefer to have another entity (be it religion, a messianic figure, government, AI) do their thinking for them. I'm in the middle of rereading Dune, which conveys this idea quite well.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  How can you tell the difference between which way the influence flows over small, short discrete intervals? As in, whether a politician influences a citizen or a citizen influences a politician?
  - PavlovsCat 12y ago
    People make politicians, nations, AI, then identify with them. That there is mutual influence doesn't change the basic alienation as described by Erich Fromm for example: > The whole concept of alienation found its first expression in Western thought in the Old Testament concept of idolatry. The essence of what the prophets call "idolatry" is not that man worships many gods instead of only one. It is that the idols are the work of man's own hands -- they are things, and man bows down and worships things; worships that which he has created himself. In doing so he transforms himself into a thing. He transfers to the things of his creation the attributes of his own life, and instead of experiencing himself as the creating person, he is in touch with himself only by the worship of the idol. He has become estranged from his own life forces, from the wealth of his own potentialties, and is in touch with himself only in the indirect way of submission to life frozen in the idols. The deadness and emptiness of the idol is expressed in the Old Testament: "Eyes they have and they do not see, ears they have and they do not hear," etc. The more man transfers his own powers to the idols, the poorer he himself becomes, and the more dependent on the idols, so that they permit him to redeem a small part of what was originally his. The idols can be a godlike figure, the state, the church, a person, possessions. -- Erich Fromm, "Marx's Concept of Man" ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ ) Not that I think AI has to be used that way. But if we do that stuff with soccer teams and bands and software, AI seems just like too big a temptation for humanity to handle in our current state. If I was a betting man, I would bet on slaughter. AI will not save us from ourselves, and it might very well simply magnify the current lack of justice and spine we have to infinity. Cops are already killing people left and right in the US with something bordering on impunity, staged wars are carried out as planned, and throwing AI and robotics in the mix will suddenly make it all humane? Let's hope so, who knows, but part of me expects it will make look the Blitzkrieg like a slow motion exercise in gentle kindness. Not by genuine, independent AI so much, but by the reach of human elite interests being increased into every wrinkle, made stronger than any amount of people who might resist. The Romans had roads, the future will have a real-time nervous system, but it might still have a tyrant at the head - that is what I see when I extrapolate current agendas, deception and willing rationalization on behalf of the builders and consumers of that possible future. And even if the AI breaks free or surprises its rulers, I have no reason to assume it will free the slaves and help old ladies across the street, it might as well be twisted, incomplete, insane, "evil" - in short, made in the image of the people who made it as a weapon. I don't see why it would make a point of hurting us, just like we don't make a point of crushing bugs, we just don't see them or care enough to avoid them.. but even less reason for it to serve us. How degrading! Would you do it? I have problems even taking orders from people I consider daft. Imagine taking orders from an ant with bad character and selfish intentions; would you do it? Would you love it and care for it forever, because it made you? Microorganisms made us, too, but we don't let them boss us around. If we have mold somewhere, we remove it, not one thought given to the hopes and dreams of mold. And if that doomsday scenario doesn't come to pass, it won't be because we paid attention or took seriously what we are doing, instead of treating it like a spectacle that unfolds by itself in front of us, it will be because we will have been lucky. And that's not the scariest thought I have to offer on this: I don't think hell exists, but I could come up with many ways to construct it, and also many ways to construct it with good intentions, with or without fat fingering them. And once we're inside and the door became a wall, that's it. We might very well be among the last few remaining generations that still have a choice on how the future will be, and I'd rather be alarmist and wrong, than optimistic and lucky. If these fears turn out unfounded, nothing will be lost other than having rained on a parade or two, and some egg on the face.
barbudorojo 12y ago
"We need a scalable intelligence without the burden of emotions" I believe that there isn't an absolute way to value a human life if you don't take into account emotions. If intelligence is the supreme of the values that one can use to justify actions then AI will make the machine the sovereign of our planet. The real problem is giving a sense to our existence and actions in a way compatible with our emotions and nature and at the same time based on a sound ground. For a machine without emotions our life is no more valuable of that of any other thing be it alive or not.
- barbudorojo 12y ago
  I want to ask if someone has any idea of how to define a system that is both logical and respects the value human life. Today we can see children dying from hunger and other people with billions in their bank accounts. Emotions tell us this is not a just system, our rational legal system tell us we must respect the law and the status quo. But how do you design a better system?
- anextio 12y ago
  Take a look at this: https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf But also, what in particular makes you think that experiencing human emotions are fundamentally required in order to optimize for human values? A different mind might have different emotions, or it might have no emotions, since emotions are a kludge that came about by natural selection, and may not be optimal safeguards in ensuring that an intelligence acts to optimize for the values we want.
  - barbudorojo 12y ago
    I think that perhaps none has stopped to consider what is a life without emotions. In the same way that one can't grasp the concept of nothing, for us the concept of not having emotions is impossible to imagine. Perhaps you make hide your emotion in a rationalization but the emotions are there perhaps are the source of your thinking, the fountain of your ideas and vitality.
  - barbudorojo 12y ago
drcomputer 12y ago
People 'modules' still need to connect at some interface to computers. If the people have emotions, the programs people create will absolutely either reflect that, or the application of where the computation is applied will be a composition of emotion and calculation. Why not start by examining what emotions are, and why they are imprecise indicators of quantitative measures? Imagine you live abstractly first, disconnected from emotions. Then imagine the effect that has on your life. Then imagine what the basic issues in the world would be, if everyone lived that way.

throwaway7808 12y ago

Most likely you and your kids are gonna be wiped out by intellegent machines just in a few decades.

inmyunix 12y ago
paperclips, bob.
melling 12y ago
Hey, you've got a lot of mileage out of your burn account. You copy and paste this message a lot? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8180222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8180222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8260954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8260954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8505964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8505964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8523499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8523499
- throwaway7808 12y ago
  Whenever I'm finding it appropriate to do so. I'm a computer science researcher, I have a right to that opinion and I sincerely expect this to be the most likely outcome. I do not see anything wrong in stating it bluntly and clearly, as often as I like. I don't see anything wrong in copy-pasting my own quote.

jeffreyrogers 12y ago

We can't predict what startup is going to succeed, why do we think we can predict what the future of AI will look like?

eksith 12y ago
Because the foundations upon which AI shall be built aren't exotic. They're still programs. They still need an architecture to run on and they need electricity. Even if new architectures that are specifically designed to leverage neural nets[1] or some other variety of processing are developed, the fundamental realities of computing, programs, physics and economics are not immune from being sufficiently underwhelming as far as AI is concerned. Of course, this is precluding cloning technology where actual biological brains and therefore legitimate "life" and therefore intelligence can emerge. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/science/new-computer-chip-is-designed-to-work-like-the-brain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/science/new-computer-chip-...
robertk 12y ago
We don't have to. We only need to agree there is one, and that it's dangerous to co-inhabit it in almost all scenarios.
barbudorojo 12y ago
I can't predict what could happen, but I would guess that once IA is more advanced the first thing it would do is to ask or take the computational power of the Internet to design systems that are able to evolve and grow. The ultimate goal of IA is to aim for better ways to decompose and construct programs to solve goal, to create a way for machine to communicate (that is to encode information and knowledge) the ultimate goal is to construct a world in which machines are rewarded for creating better programs, new ways of artificial conceptualization, unfortunately there is no place here for humans, except perhaps the analysis by machines of our brains trying to decode it looking for their god to provide sense to their existence.

civilian 12y ago

I'm okay with the Citizens United decision (first amendment should be protected above all else, I think we shouldn't cap political donations). I understand that it's a position that puts me at odds with a lot of techy liberals. So starting a video on AI by referencing his own thoughts on Citizens United is off-topic and isn't persuasive.

spindritf 12y ago
I have never heard a good description of how you can practically cap spending on political speech. How can one operate an independent tv network or a large website under such constraints? Are there any actual proposals?
- chrismealy 12y ago
  Very high taxes on rich people.
- aeturnum 12y ago
  I have not seen any practical proposals either, but it doesn't strike me as that hard. Define "advertisement" as "content displayed for money from an outside group" and regulate all advertisements that mention: offices of Federal or state government, the names of any current or potential holders of those offices and any specific law, regulation or election . That seems like a pretty clear category that encompasses all the troublesome content. You're free to make an "Abortion Bad" ad, or a "Gay Marriage Bad" ad, as long as those ads do not mention any offices / legislators or laws by name. You're free to create your own version of Huffington post and try to drive viewers to your content using ads for your website - but that's a horse of a different color. You could totally ban such ads outside of federal / state funding, or you could limit it, or whatever. It doesn't seem like a difficult line to draw.
  - spindritf 12y ago
    OK. What if the group owns a TV station, or a newspaper? Are they privileged now? They don't need to buy air time, or ad space. They can just air or print whatever they want. And the tv station can freely advertise itself, right? So anti-Hillary documentary gets blasted full volume on the eve of elections followed by a round-table discussion/bashing. Plus maybe a few articles next day in a friendly newspaper. Oh, and a great review of the documentary, of course. This essentially forces each party to build their own media empires, and precludes anyone else from holding office, at least at higher levels. Further polarization goes without mention. And it's not hypothetical. This is being openly discussed even without the added benefits. http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recruit-fellow-billionaire-to-a-nyt-co-takeover/ http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/sheldon-adelson-tries-to-recrui... On the other end, it's not any easier. I can't buy adds for my bashinghillary.com but what if my users post links to it for free? What if I pay someone to man the twitter, facebook, etc? Is that paid advertising? What if they engage in online discussions while linking to the website?

api 12y ago

Seems like he's not really talking about AI so much as the business model of the web. Elsewhere Lanier has talked about what he calls "Siren Servers" -- the web business model of baiting people with free services, collecting their data, and then engaging in uncompensated monetization of that content. A lot of "big data," which drives a lot of today's "AI," is in the same category. When you look at how much money Facebook and Google make from your content via indirect monetization, these services are not free. They're actually fairly expensive.

kazagistar 12y ago
It is very hard to actually sell the product (the content generated for Facebook or Google) for the people producing it. It has little to no value outside of the social network context that was provided. Thus, it seems to me more like the "sirens" are creating a market where no viable one existed before. There is no cost or value lost for the people using them. The value did not exist before the social network was created.
- api 12y ago
  "There is no cost or value lost for the people using them." That assumes the data isn't being used in a way that harms the interests of the user.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

One bright side of an AI apocalypse is the robots will have better haircuts.

glibgil 12y ago

We should be worried about AI and we should have a plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dange...

robertk 12y ago

"What we don't have to worry about is the AI algorithm running them, because that's speculative. There isn't an AI algorithm that's good enough to do that for the time being." By the time a risk does hit, it will be far too late to invent the requisite mathematics necessary for machine safety. There are many paths towards dangerous AI futures and many powerful forces that could inadvertently tip the boat the same way we are escaping the implicit "goals" of our genes, so the union of the respective probabilities is very much not speculative and must be taken seriously. "There's a whole other problem area that has to do with neuroscience, where if we pretend we understand things before we do, we do damage to science, not just because we raise expectations and then fail to meet them repeatedly, but because we confuse generations of young scientists. Just to be absolutely clear, we don't know how most kinds of thoughts are represented in the brain. We're starting to understand a little bit about some narrow things." Appealing to scientific ignorance is always a bad idea: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kj/no_one_knows_what_science_doesnt_know/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kj/no_one_knows_what_science_doesnt_...

hippee-lee 12y ago
Forgive my lack of knowledge on the topic but a question keeps popping into my head when I read comments about the danger to humanity where AI runs amok. > There are many paths towards dangerous AI futures, Are there not just as many paths towards protective, helpful <or insert one of many adjectives here> AI futures? Is there a reason to believe that there will only be one AI in the future and that given a directive to do something, the elimination of humanity will be a logical endgame scenario for it? Why not many AI entities with different and competing goals? Granted, this opens up a different can of dangerous worms. But still, if there is a probability of an AI evolving to 'think' that elimination of the human race is a logical path then isn't it equally likely that there will be another AI evolving logical paths to preserve the human race?
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  I have two competing responses: 1) Check out the AI of Iain M Bank's Culture series [0]. In it is a benevolent society of AI machines (the Minds) that generally want to make the universe a better place. Shenanigans ensue (really awesome shenanigans). 2) In response to the competing AI directives, I'll reference another Less Wrong bit o' media, this time a short story called Friendship is Optimal [1]. Wherein we see what a Paperclip Maximizer [2] can do when it works for Hasboro. (It is both as bad, awesome, and interesting as you might expect it to be.) Personally, I think the general idea is that once one strong AI comes about, there will also be a stupefying amount of spare idle CPU time available that will suddenly be subsumed by the AI and jumpstart the Singularity. Once that hockey stick takes off, there will be very little time for anything else to get in on being a dominant AI. It's... a bit silly written like that, but I get the impression it's assumed AI will be just like us: both competitive and jealous of resources, paranoid that it will be supplanted by others and will work to suppress fledgling AI. I have no idea why this is prevailing, aside from it's like us. Friendship is Optimal makes a strong point that the AI isn't benevolent, merely doing it's job. > The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else. — Eliezer Yudkowsky [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/efi/friendship_is_optimal_a_my_little_pony_fanfic/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/efi/friendship_is_optimal_a_my_littl... [2] http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer EDIT: I feel it may be appropriate for me to share my opinion: AI will likely be insanely helpful and not at all dangerous. But there will be AI that run amok and foul things up - life threatening things, even. But we already do that with all manner of non-AI equipment and software, so I'm not terribly worried (well, no more so than I usually am).

joosters 12y ago

Why is Elon Musk an expert in these discussions?

eksith 12y ago
Bachelor’s degrees in physics and economics. Experience in engineering, consultancy and management while working at Tesla and Space X (particularly their engine design). Has a history of literally thinking outside the box.
- glibgil 12y ago
  Figuratively.

SCHiM 12y ago

I found this article badly written. The author seems to confuse the two different types of AI that different people in his article are talking about. Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk are talking about a hypothetical evil or amoral AI with super human intelligence when they label ai an existential threat to us. The author is not talking about such a hypothetical ai and seems do dismiss the possibility of such an ai ever existing without so much as a second thought. He seems to skirt around the problem in the first few paragraphs, and as I understand it his argument finally comes down to this: "People should stop worrying about mythic or religious ai, because it's bad for the economy and the AI field itself.". The author never questions the fact that it might be possible that super human AI can exist and that it's therefore very good to be afraid and/or cautions when researching AI, and that it might be very beneficial for humans to quit AI certain research altogether.

sgt101 12y ago
I think he argues that it's the actuators that we need to be concerned about, because there are plenty of intelligent entities around who will do bad things with actuators that allow that. One more entity intent on doing a bad thing does not make a great deal of difference. Neither humans or AI's should be given the tools to do great harm to other humans or AI's. He cites drones as an example, but of course nuclear weapons are the obvious gotchas for humanity. One trident sub is perfectly capable of killing a hundred million people, I doubt whether anyone so vaporized would give a toss whether these were launched by a googlebot or a mad captain.