4 ms·

I don't know much about the philosophy of AI and I'm only familiar at a basic level with modern AI algorithms. From what I have been exposed to I don't see any

I don't know much about the philosophy of AI and I'm only familiar at a basic level with modern AI algorithms. From what I have been exposed to I don't see any reason to think AI is any more than a set of statistical frameworks. Is there any reason to believe that these statistical frameworks are comparable to biological intelligence? Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

harshreality 12y ago
It sounds like you're talking about the kinds of AI in use today? That's not what the cautions are about, since current "AI" however good at reading individual words or flying drones is not yet capable of human-level thought. The cautions are about trans-sapient AI, which doesn't exist yet. Even if it's simply a beefed up "set of statistical frameworks" linked in the right way to get a computer behave like a human, humans develop and use nuclear weapons, humans go on shooting sprees, humans decide to go to war...
- faizshah 12y ago
  I see, I didn't think about that. So you mean AI that are not necessarily intelligent or conscious but are just more integrated in our lives, for example in the military or law enforcement? I can see how a bug in those kinds of systems could cause things like that without necessarily being conscious or intelligent.
  - Swizec 12y ago
    The implication is that humans are just statistical algorithms. We have so far not found any evidence to the contrary.
unseraphim 12y ago
No, you are not thinking about it the wrong way. Neither Hawking nor Musk is an expert in AI; their only contribution to the discussion is their fame. Curbing research into AI at this stage is like banning rock smashing research in the Palaeolithic Era because it could lead to uncontrolled fission. The "leading experts" in AI are not so leading and not so expert. It is simply our ego, self-focus, and arrogance that allows the notion that AI research could be anywhere near posing a danger. We're not all that, and it is self-flattery to have this discussion in 2015 at more than the level of mild curiosity.
marvin 12y ago
In this context, the term "Artificial Intelligence" refers to a man-built emulation of the physical process that allows humans to reason and shape the world around us in pursuit of our goals. This hasn't been achieved yet, but humans are proof that it is physically possible. (And through evolution, which is not a strongly guided process). Unless you believe there is something inherently special and unique about humans that make it impossible for this physical phenomenon to be replicated artificially, there is absolutely something to worry about here.

harshreality 12y ago

It sounds like you're talking about the kinds of AI in use today? That's not what the cautions are about, since current "AI" however good at reading individual words or flying drones is not yet capable of human-level thought. The cautions are about trans-sapient AI, which doesn't exist yet. Even if it's simply a beefed up "set of statistical frameworks" linked in the right way to get a computer behave like a human, humans develop and use nuclear weapons, humans go on shooting sprees, humans decide to go to war...

faizshah 12y ago
I see, I didn't think about that. So you mean AI that are not necessarily intelligent or conscious but are just more integrated in our lives, for example in the military or law enforcement? I can see how a bug in those kinds of systems could cause things like that without necessarily being conscious or intelligent.
- Swizec 12y ago
  The implication is that humans are just statistical algorithms. We have so far not found any evidence to the contrary.

unseraphim 12y ago

No, you are not thinking about it the wrong way. Neither Hawking nor Musk is an expert in AI; their only contribution to the discussion is their fame. Curbing research into AI at this stage is like banning rock smashing research in the Palaeolithic Era because it could lead to uncontrolled fission. The "leading experts" in AI are not so leading and not so expert. It is simply our ego, self-focus, and arrogance that allows the notion that AI research could be anywhere near posing a danger. We're not all that, and it is self-flattery to have this discussion in 2015 at more than the level of mild curiosity.

marvin 12y ago

In this context, the term "Artificial Intelligence" refers to a man-built emulation of the physical process that allows humans to reason and shape the world around us in pursuit of our goals. This hasn't been achieved yet, but humans are proof that it is physically possible. (And through evolution, which is not a strongly guided process). Unless you believe there is something inherently special and unique about humans that make it impossible for this physical phenomenon to be replicated artificially, there is absolutely something to worry about here.