4 ms·
I'm not sure why human cognition is the exception in a world of machines that can emulate anything. My grandfather would never have believed that we have cars t
by drzaiusapelord 12y ago
I'm not sure why human cognition is the exception in a world of machines that can emulate anything. My grandfather would never have believed that we have cars that drive themselves. Many baby boomers I work with are still wowed by the basic AI of Siri/GNow/Cortana, or even google search. Common sense and philosophical musings just isn't enough to figure out if something is feasible.
Thinking isn't that hard of a nut to crack, imho. Enough of a ruleset/branch logic is thinking. We don't need to emulate a person perfectly, the same way we don't have self-driving cars losing their tempers or tailgating people out of spite. We just need to distill the intelligence we want and voila, you have AI.
AI isn't just a HAL-like character. Its a lot of things. In fact, it surrounds us. There's expert systems, fuzzy logic, etc controlling pretty much the entirety of our technological lives. I have no idea what drugs Musk is on, but its dangerous for him to piss on AI publically. I imagine, from a practical pov, spreading FUD about AI makes sense for him economically. For someone who wants human spaceflight, talking down about robots and AI is a means to an end. Now the public doesn't want a cheap-ish robot mission on Mars with some guy in Houston wearing an Oculus-like headset. Or autonomous robots on the moon. They want a meatbag on the surface, for their own emotional and philosophical needs, price be dammed. "Price be damned" in spaceflight makes Musk a very happy camper, considering he's going to get a lion's share of that money.
There's something really neo-luddite about human spaceflight. Its like we can't admit to ourselves that machines, AI, etc just are a better fit for it. Anyone else notice that about three months ago there's been endless anti-AI sentiment in the press? Where is this stuff coming from? Who is funding it? I really think Musk and others see it as a major threat to their companies and social capital and are trying to change the narrative to suit them and their goals. I don't think we typically appreciate how one wealthy person or organization can easily astroturf the web and the press.
Personally, I think the more feasible futurist path is actually taking the environment seriously, pushing the path to peace politically, trying to bring in a post-scarcity world via cheap replication, and using AI the same way we use all tools -- for our benefit. Fleeing to some other planet or moon without fixing life on Earth first guarantees we bring our terrible politics and baggage to this new destination. Let's fix things here first and then worry about moving to Mars. "Fixing things" more than likely involves strong AI implementations in various parts of our lives.
- happyscrappy 12y agoWhat happens when AI reaches provably better decision outcomes whose chain of logic is opaque to mere humans? Now you have a trusted black box that cannot be audited by humans.
- drzaiusapelord 12y agoHow many people can figure out what's going on in my Toyota's on-board computer? Even Toyota's techs had trouble reading their own code when the stuck accelerator issue happened. We're already in this black box hypothetical. I don't think its such a big change. I mean, can you audit the code in google's self-driving car? Who can?
- enoch_r 12y ago> using AI the same way we use all tools -- for our benefit Musk and others are concerned about very different things than "we'll accidentally use AI wrong." And they're not concerned about the AI we already have, and they're certainly not "pessimistic" about whether AI technology will advance. The concern is that we'll develop a very, very smart general artificial intelligence. The concern is that it'd be smart enough that it can learn how to manipulate us better than we ourselves can. Smart enough that it can research new technologies better than we can. Smart enough to outclass not only humans, but human civilization as a whole, in every way. And what would the terminal goals of that AI be? Those are determined by the programmer. Let's say someone created a general AI for the harmless purpose of calculating the decimal expansion of pi. A general, superintelligent AI with no other utility function than "calculate as many digits of pi as you can" would literally mean the end of humanity, as it harvested the world's resources to add computing power. It's vastly smarter than all of us put together, and it values the digits of pi infinitely more than it values our pleas for mercy, or our existence, or the existence of the planet. This is quite terrifying to me. A good intro to the subject is Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies[1]. One of the most unsettling books I've read. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199678111 http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-N...