3 ms·

I fear anthropomorphizing machine intelligence and attempting to simply "regulate" it like other human affairs will cause more harm than good.

DennisP 12y ago
I agree that regulation is probably worse than useless. But the people who are most worried are doing the opposite of anthropomorphizing. A prominent argument is that there are a very large number of possible AI motivations, which needn't have anything in common with the motivations of humans, and most of them are probably incompatible with human survival. "The AI does not love you or hate you, but you are made out of atoms it can use for something else."
- jeremyrwelch 12y ago
  This is exactly what I am referring to actually. Re-read my point, but apply it to your own example. This prominent argument assumes that we would be able to understand the possible AI motivations, which is a form of anthropomorphizing. We must acknowledge that the reasons it exists and what it may want could be impossible for us to understand or process. The interesting question then becomes how to act if understanding its wants is impossible?
  - DennisP 12y ago
    It doesn't assume that we can understand AI motivations. It just says there are a large number of possible motivations, many of which wouldn't place any value on anything that matters to humans. Given a superintelligent AI that competes with humans for resources, in pursuit of an unknown value function, it's likely that things won't end well for us. It's possible that we could design a safe value function and a way to get the AI to keep that value function, but it doesn't look easy. Either way, if it's superintelligent it won't much matter how we act. We won't be driving.
- jeremyrwelch 12y ago
  And a related question – if we can't understand its motivations or its why, what can we actually understand about it?

3 ms·

I fear anthropomorphizing machine intelligence and attempting to simply "regulate" it like other human affairs will cause more harm than good.

by jeremyrwelch 12y ago

DennisP 12y ago
I agree that regulation is probably worse than useless. But the people who are most worried are doing the opposite of anthropomorphizing. A prominent argument is that there are a very large number of possible AI motivations, which needn't have anything in common with the motivations of humans, and most of them are probably incompatible with human survival. "The AI does not love you or hate you, but you are made out of atoms it can use for something else."
- jeremyrwelch 12y ago
  This is exactly what I am referring to actually. Re-read my point, but apply it to your own example. This prominent argument assumes that we would be able to understand the possible AI motivations, which is a form of anthropomorphizing. We must acknowledge that the reasons it exists and what it may want could be impossible for us to understand or process. The interesting question then becomes how to act if understanding its wants is impossible?
  - DennisP 12y ago
    It doesn't assume that we can understand AI motivations. It just says there are a large number of possible motivations, many of which wouldn't place any value on anything that matters to humans. Given a superintelligent AI that competes with humans for resources, in pursuit of an unknown value function, it's likely that things won't end well for us. It's possible that we could design a safe value function and a way to get the AI to keep that value function, but it doesn't look easy. Either way, if it's superintelligent it won't much matter how we act. We won't be driving.
- jeremyrwelch 12y ago
  And a related question – if we can't understand its motivations or its why, what can we actually understand about it?