2 ms·
That exercise was not research, it was a counterexample to a single specific security claim: that we can "choose not to release the AI," so we don't have to wor
by Retra 12y ago
That exercise was not research, it was a counterexample to a single specific security claim: that we can "choose not to release the AI," so we don't have to worry about them being dangerous.
You don't need to research a counter-example, you just produce one. He did so by exhibiting a relatively weak AI that couldn't be contained.
- meepmorp 12y ago>You don't need to research a counter-example, you just produce one. He did so by exhibiting a relatively weak AI that couldn't be contained. Well, no. He showed that a person pretending to be an AI could convince a person to let it out of the box. Sometimes. It's not really a meaningful counterexample. Everyone involved with the event knew that the AI wasn't real and that there are zero consequences for letting it out. You'd have to concoct a much more involved test as a decent counterexample.
- Retra 12y agoA person pretending to be an AI is surely easier to contain than a super-powerful AI that is smarter than all people. A failure to contain the former -- a strictly easier task -- is a perfect example of a failure to contain the latter.