13 ms·

I'm enthralled by the philosophical aspects of AI/AGI development at the moment. Particularly interesting is the reaction from laypeople, such as those on Reddi

by borgia 12y ago

I'm enthralled by the philosophical aspects of AI/AGI development at the moment. Particularly interesting is the reaction from laypeople, such as those on Reddit, to technology leaders expressing their worry over the future of AI. Without having read into the matter at all, the mass seems to be comfortable with writing off Musk, Gates, Hawking, etc. as wringing their hands unnecessarily, and besides they're not AI experts so why should we care anyway? There seems to be a gross misconception with what AGI would be and what it would mean for us, and an apathetic view to the cautious approach many are advocating regarding its development on grounds such as: i) They'll never make a machine as intelligent as a human. Even if they do, we can still program it to do what we like. ii) Anything developed to have the intelligence of a human will come to love our species or can be taught to love our species. iii) Any artificial intelligence developed will be single task orientated and will not go outside of those boundaries. iv) Artificial intelligence will be developed by eccentric enthusiasts and will therefore not be developed to do wrong. Bostrom, in Superintelligence, has said that AGI is will be the last great challenge of our species. If we get it right, we will win, if we get it wrong we are doomed. The problem there being we will not know if we have got it right until it is too late to do anything about it regardless. With that being said, if we are to develop something that is: i) Objective ii) Purely logical iii) More intelligent than our species combined iv) Has free access to the complete knowledge we have produced Then I simply cannot see a way that it will not go against us. If we were to observe a species acting in the manner we as a species do on this planet - to our own species, to other species and to the planet/environment/ecosystem as a whole - I cannot see how we would not categorize that species as a disease, a cancer, something to be eradicated. Combined with the fact that the actors that will be involved in AGI - capitalists, the government and the military - I cannot see how it works out well for us.

kmnc 12y ago
How can we (if your criteria is true) even begin to imagine how it would see us? If we got everything right it might just understand us. I share your pessimism though because a poor implementation of any one of your criteria leads to potential disaster. But do you really believe humanity's fate is to advance so far as to create something that will tell us we are the problem and vanquish us? Wouldn't it be smarter then that?
- borgia 12y ago
  With regards to understanding, we have a reasonable understanding of why cancer cells do what they do. Why diseases spread. Why HIV is so hard to deal with, etc. but we still don't accept what these things do, and we seek to eradicate them. I believe that anything that viewed our species objectively would conclude it's bad for the planet and any other species currently here. When that agent viewing us objectively wants resources we use for its own ends, be they natural or indeed those created by us (such as money, manufacturing hardware, whatever), I think the combination of the two does not bode positively for us. There are many species on the planet who are using resources - trees, land, etc. - for their own interests currently. Although they're not a threat to us, our species still goes in and takes those resources from them for our own use. I can't see why something more intelligent than us, with knowledge of our behaviour, wouldn't do the same? Something with its own task or goals to accomplish, that requires resources we hold, or use, would be right in seeing us as an obstacle, if not a threat outright, would it not? I believe our only real hope is that something that we created that evolved to superintelligence would treat us as its creator and show us mercy, and I think that's quite a long shot at that as it relies on a level of emotion that may never be developed in AI.
- DanAndersen 12y ago
  I think the point is that getting everything right is a Really Hard Problem, and if it's even a little wrong it all ends up terrible. Is there a reason to put stock in destiny to save humanity from its own extinction, and not any of the 99% of all species on Earth that are now extinct?

by borgia 12y ago

kmnc 12y ago

How can we (if your criteria is true) even begin to imagine how it would see us? If we got everything right it might just understand us. I share your pessimism though because a poor implementation of any one of your criteria leads to potential disaster. But do you really believe humanity's fate is to advance so far as to create something that will tell us we are the problem and vanquish us? Wouldn't it be smarter then that?

borgia 12y ago
With regards to understanding, we have a reasonable understanding of why cancer cells do what they do. Why diseases spread. Why HIV is so hard to deal with, etc. but we still don't accept what these things do, and we seek to eradicate them. I believe that anything that viewed our species objectively would conclude it's bad for the planet and any other species currently here. When that agent viewing us objectively wants resources we use for its own ends, be they natural or indeed those created by us (such as money, manufacturing hardware, whatever), I think the combination of the two does not bode positively for us. There are many species on the planet who are using resources - trees, land, etc. - for their own interests currently. Although they're not a threat to us, our species still goes in and takes those resources from them for our own use. I can't see why something more intelligent than us, with knowledge of our behaviour, wouldn't do the same? Something with its own task or goals to accomplish, that requires resources we hold, or use, would be right in seeing us as an obstacle, if not a threat outright, would it not? I believe our only real hope is that something that we created that evolved to superintelligence would treat us as its creator and show us mercy, and I think that's quite a long shot at that as it relies on a level of emotion that may never be developed in AI.
DanAndersen 12y ago
I think the point is that getting everything right is a Really Hard Problem, and if it's even a little wrong it all ends up terrible. Is there a reason to put stock in destiny to save humanity from its own extinction, and not any of the 99% of all species on Earth that are now extinct?