4 ms·

At the pace and modality we're moving, we'll be creating powerful and destructive hybrids first (also known as computer-aided mega corporations) and long before

by desdiv 12y ago

At the pace and modality we're moving, we'll be creating powerful and destructive hybrids first (also known as computer-aided mega corporations) and long before a self-contained AGI becomes viable. Advanced chess[0] is the perfect example of this in action right now. The best advanced chess teams, i.e. computer-aided humans, are stronger than humans alone or computers alone. <tinfoil hat> I suspect that these "human vs AGI" discussions are just bread-and-circus tactics used by our computer-human-corporation-hybrid overlords to distract us from the real danger of the hybrids.</tinfoil hat> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

Udo 12y ago
I think in the short term, human-AI corporate hybrids are especially dangerous because they're ruthless optimization engines with great power, no legal boundaries, and a few simple goals. Unlike true individual intelligences, they're absolutely free of more complex considerations, including ethics. And yes, while I'm not actually getting out my tinfoil hat just yet, I do find it interesting that the public charge against AGI is apparently being led by some captains of industry right now. Maybe they feel threatened. Maybe they have seen one AI dog & pony show pitch too many. Maybe they know something we don't. Maybe what they're most afraid of is some new phenomenon coming in and leveling the playing field. Maybe AGI will replace the word "terrorism" as an excuse to get anything you want. Maybe these AI polemics are a prelude to a war on general computing. One can only speculate. The only thing clear right now is that public discourse is steered in a direction that portrays an utter lack of understanding of the subject matter, and at least to me it seems that no workable solution is actually being proposed aside from hinting at draconian and short-sighted measures to prevent the rise of non-humans, which by all indications is not a real thing yet. Whenever the public message can be distilled into "you should be afraid, very very afraid", it's time to at least consider ulterior motives - though I have to admit this thought does not come naturally to me when looking at people like Elon Musk.
- Animats 12y ago
  "I think in the short term, human-AI corporate hybrids are especially dangerous because they're ruthless optimization engines with great power, no legal boundaries, and a few simple goals. Unlike true individual intelligences, they're absolutely free of more complex considerations, including ethics." That's a real near-term worry. It's quite possible that, in the near term, programs will be better at making capital allocation decisions than humans. They are already better in some areas of finance. It's not that we need to fear killer robots. We need to fear a computer-run Goldman Sachs.

by desdiv 12y ago

Udo 12y ago

I think in the short term, human-AI corporate hybrids are especially dangerous because they're ruthless optimization engines with great power, no legal boundaries, and a few simple goals. Unlike true individual intelligences, they're absolutely free of more complex considerations, including ethics. And yes, while I'm not actually getting out my tinfoil hat just yet, I do find it interesting that the public charge against AGI is apparently being led by some captains of industry right now. Maybe they feel threatened. Maybe they have seen one AI dog & pony show pitch too many. Maybe they know something we don't. Maybe what they're most afraid of is some new phenomenon coming in and leveling the playing field. Maybe AGI will replace the word "terrorism" as an excuse to get anything you want. Maybe these AI polemics are a prelude to a war on general computing. One can only speculate. The only thing clear right now is that public discourse is steered in a direction that portrays an utter lack of understanding of the subject matter, and at least to me it seems that no workable solution is actually being proposed aside from hinting at draconian and short-sighted measures to prevent the rise of non-humans, which by all indications is not a real thing yet. Whenever the public message can be distilled into "you should be afraid, very very afraid", it's time to at least consider ulterior motives - though I have to admit this thought does not come naturally to me when looking at people like Elon Musk.

Animats 12y ago
"I think in the short term, human-AI corporate hybrids are especially dangerous because they're ruthless optimization engines with great power, no legal boundaries, and a few simple goals. Unlike true individual intelligences, they're absolutely free of more complex considerations, including ethics." That's a real near-term worry. It's quite possible that, in the near term, programs will be better at making capital allocation decisions than humans. They are already better in some areas of finance. It's not that we need to fear killer robots. We need to fear a computer-run Goldman Sachs.