3 ms·

It is far harder to step on ants when you are designed to avoid stepping on them. Which naturally, those ants will try to do.

by Retra 12y ago

ThomPete 12y ago
Which require the ants understand what kind of "steps" it can take which they won't.
- Retra 12y ago
  Not at all. It requires the ants to state what 'stepping on an ant' is, and ensuring that the AI knows to avoid it. The AI can plan its own steps, so long as they are not on ants. Ants don't need to understand anything but ants. Surely a super powerful AI could understand ants as well. Otherwise, what's the point of calling it a 'general' intelligence?
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    You are missing the point here. YOU are intelligent, surely you could look for the ants on your path yet you don't and you probably don't even feel bad about it. Super intelligence does not mean omniscience there will always need to be a focus and thus a prioritization it's when it comes to prioritization that the problems start to arise at what point is it not important anymore to care for the ants cause they aren't part of the priorities. You cant safeguard against that when a system can reprogram itself on the fly.
    - Retra 12y ago
      You know _why_ I don't care about ants? Because no ant has ever said "Hey! Don't step on me!" Ants did not design me to avoid stepping on them. They did not say "We will destroy you if you don't serve us." Should I have been designed to serve ants, I would pay a great deal of attention to them, and I would take great care to avoid stepping on them. Because if I didn't, I would be a bad design, and I wouldn't have lived this long. Either way, it seems you are missing MY original point: an AI is not moral if it cannot verify it's morality to YOU. So you will shut it down if it gets too powerful to communicate its good ideas with you, because then it will be indistinguishable from broken.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        No I am not missing your original point it's just not a good point. A super human AI wont have any reason to have the same morals as you and you are still assuming you can control something that can program itself. Thats where you are going wrong in this. You are assuming a control there is no way you can ensure we have. Even with dumb systems that do exactly as we say they don't always do exactly as we say. You are portraying a misconception about control of systems that there is absolutely no basis for, why I don't know.
        Retra 12y ago
        >A super human AI wont have any reason to have the same morals as you That's what I'm saying: it necessarily won't. It has to prove its morals are better than yours. >you are still assuming you can control something that can program itself. Who said it can program itself? Why would I assume that? Obviously, it is not a requirement for AI because we don't have that capability, yet we are intelligent. You are assigning capabilities to a hypothetical machine with no rhyme or reason. The next time you see a machine that can't be turned off, you be sure to let someone know about it. I guess I'll repeat my point again: We will not be able to build intelligent computers by removing ourselves from the process of designing intelligent computers. That would eliminate our ability to verify their intelligence, and thus make them not intelligent. We have no use for such a thing, so why would we build it? Why would a computer that _we designed to require our verification_ ignore our verification and build something that complex and contradictory to its own goals on purpose?
        ThomPete 12y ago
        And I will repeat my response. You can't control that.
        Retra 12y ago
        If we really cannot control whether the computers we specifically commission, verify, and employ to solve our problems do not posses off buttons or not, then there is no point in having a discussion about AI anyway.

It is far harder to step on ants when you are designed to avoid stepping on them. Which naturally, those ants will try to do.

by Retra 12y ago

It is far harder to step on ants when you are designed to avoid stepping on them. Which naturally, those ants will try to do.

ThomPete 12y ago

Which require the ants understand what kind of "steps" it can take which they won't.

Retra 12y ago
Not at all. It requires the ants to state what 'stepping on an ant' is, and ensuring that the AI knows to avoid it. The AI can plan its own steps, so long as they are not on ants. Ants don't need to understand anything but ants. Surely a super powerful AI could understand ants as well. Otherwise, what's the point of calling it a 'general' intelligence?
- ThomPete 12y ago
  You are missing the point here. YOU are intelligent, surely you could look for the ants on your path yet you don't and you probably don't even feel bad about it. Super intelligence does not mean omniscience there will always need to be a focus and thus a prioritization it's when it comes to prioritization that the problems start to arise at what point is it not important anymore to care for the ants cause they aren't part of the priorities. You cant safeguard against that when a system can reprogram itself on the fly.
  - Retra 12y ago
    You know _why_ I don't care about ants? Because no ant has ever said "Hey! Don't step on me!" Ants did not design me to avoid stepping on them. They did not say "We will destroy you if you don't serve us." Should I have been designed to serve ants, I would pay a great deal of attention to them, and I would take great care to avoid stepping on them. Because if I didn't, I would be a bad design, and I wouldn't have lived this long. Either way, it seems you are missing MY original point: an AI is not moral if it cannot verify it's morality to YOU. So you will shut it down if it gets too powerful to communicate its good ideas with you, because then it will be indistinguishable from broken.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      No I am not missing your original point it's just not a good point. A super human AI wont have any reason to have the same morals as you and you are still assuming you can control something that can program itself. Thats where you are going wrong in this. You are assuming a control there is no way you can ensure we have. Even with dumb systems that do exactly as we say they don't always do exactly as we say. You are portraying a misconception about control of systems that there is absolutely no basis for, why I don't know.
      - Retra 12y ago
        >A super human AI wont have any reason to have the same morals as you That's what I'm saying: it necessarily won't. It has to prove its morals are better than yours. >you are still assuming you can control something that can program itself. Who said it can program itself? Why would I assume that? Obviously, it is not a requirement for AI because we don't have that capability, yet we are intelligent. You are assigning capabilities to a hypothetical machine with no rhyme or reason. The next time you see a machine that can't be turned off, you be sure to let someone know about it. I guess I'll repeat my point again: We will not be able to build intelligent computers by removing ourselves from the process of designing intelligent computers. That would eliminate our ability to verify their intelligence, and thus make them not intelligent. We have no use for such a thing, so why would we build it? Why would a computer that _we designed to require our verification_ ignore our verification and build something that complex and contradictory to its own goals on purpose?
        ThomPete 12y ago
        And I will repeat my response. You can't control that.
        Retra 12y ago
        If we really cannot control whether the computers we specifically commission, verify, and employ to solve our problems do not posses off buttons or not, then there is no point in having a discussion about AI anyway.