astrofinch

10 ms·

31.
by astrofinch 9y ago
http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/openai-makes-humanity-less-sa... Personally, I think making AI tech broadly available could be a bad idea if AI tech changes warfare so that offense works better than defense: https:/&#x
32.
by astrofinch 9y ago
Yep: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-shouting-clas...
33.
by astrofinch 9y ago
>The counterargument to the dangers of social media has been “look at Arab Spring”. My impression of the Arab Spring is that most countries emerged in worse shape than they started in.
34.
by astrofinch 11y ago
My response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11295675
35.
by astrofinch 11y ago
The point is that humans have been able to destroy animal ecosystems to fit their own various ends without an in-depth understanding of those ecosystems.
36.
by astrofinch 11y ago
>Not just that computers will fail to consider whether to be nice to humans, but also that computers must therefore be explicitly told how to be effective in every particular way. A correct implementation of a list sorting algorithm does
37.
by astrofinch 11y ago
>We don't call people geniuses because there really good at following orders. If I order someone to prove whether P is equal to NP, and a day later they come back to me with a valid proof, solving a decades-long major open problem i
38.
by astrofinch 11y ago
>I would suggest that a computer is not 'super intelligent' until it can modify it's goals. This is a purely semantic distinction. Thought experiment: Let's say I modify your brain the minimum amount necessary to mak
39.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Part 2 is when the AI reaches the point where it's smarter than it creators, then starts improving its own code and bootstraps its way to superintelligent. This idea is referred to as "the intelligence explosion" https:&#x2
40.
by astrofinch 11y ago
"Yes, the UFAI will be able to solve Friendliness Theory. But if we haven't already solved it on our own power, we can't pinpoint Friendliness in advance, out of the space of utility functions. And if we can't pinpoint i
41.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Computers do what you say, not what you mean. If I write a function and name it quickSort, that's no guarantee that the function is a correctly implemented sorting algorithm. If I write a function called beNiceToHumans, that's n
42.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Important distinction: children get their genes from us and share many of our values by default. Computers do not share many of our values by default. Instead they do what they are programmed to do. But the problem is that computers do wh
43.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Yes, I agree. My point is that as soon as you are giving your AI "real world" problems, where the AI itself is a stone on its internal go board, you have to start worrying about these issues.
44.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Self-preservation falls out of almost any other goal you give an AGI. If I program my AGI with the goal of making my startup succeed, and the AGI thinks it can help, then me shutting it off is a potential threat to my startup's succes
45.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Superintelligent AIs, like all computer programs, will do exactly as they're programmed to do. The problem is that computers do what you say, not what you mean. (Hence bugs.) So if you were to try to program a computer to "make
46.
by astrofinch 11y ago
"Experts had predicted it would take another decade for AI systems to beat professional Go players." http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/have-we-hit-a-major-ar...
47.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Right. Skynet and Terminator are science fiction, but the slippery, unpredictable reality of how computers actually behave is right in front of your eyes as a programmer every day. Sometimes I wonder if science fiction writers do more har
48.
by astrofinch 11y ago
>Well first you were saying programmers may hesitate to create an AI singularity because it may cost them their job. The line about programmers fearing automation only once it affects them was actually an attempt at a joke :P The argumen
49.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Sorry, I found that a bit difficult to follow... it sounds like you think human programmers will beat AIs because we can make mistakes? Well here's my counter: mistakes either make sense to make or they don't. If they make sense
50.
by astrofinch 11y ago
"But don't worry it isn't happening anytime soon in the form of singularity." Probably not soon. Worth noting that the Go victory happened a decade or two before it was predicted to though. (To clarify, I was not trying
51.
by astrofinch 11y ago
It sounds less weird if you think: "AI has automated some jobs, and eventually it may automate away most of them, in the same way (pending AlphaGo victory) it's now automated winning at most board games... So what happens if the
52.
by astrofinch 11y ago
There's also the fact that some of the unexpected moves were apparently more about solidifying against a loss than increasing the magnitude of a win. Which has its own kind of eerie implication: since AIs (like all computer programs)
53.
by astrofinch 11y ago
So given that this victory seems to be happening a decade or so before experts predicted, how likely are we to see similar acceleration in reaching other AI milestones? (Especially given that AlphaGo is using the same algorithm that won th
54.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox
55.
by astrofinch 11y ago
It sounds to me as though you believe that because religious nuts have prophesied doomsday since forever, we can rule out any doomsday scenario as "almost certainly false" (a very confident statement! Prediction is difficult, es
56.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Argument by this kind of loose analogy is generally not a very solid way make predictions about things. Consider: "We already have a world awash in civilization. This civilization is, of course, termite colonies. Termite colonies ar
57.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Algorithms are tricky to regulate--it'd be like trying to stop music piracy. Regulating chip fabs seems more feasible. It's also a way to cut down on the potential for AI to automate jobs away.
58.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Did you have thoughts on the FLI research priorities document? http://futureoflife.org/data/documents/research_priorities.p...
59.
by astrofinch 11y ago
>That is, in fact, a topic on which no one speaks with authority. Agreed. >Nor do I think that the impossibility of predicting the future of AI is, in itself, a reason for undue caution. Sure. >Bostrom is performing a sort of Pasca
60.
by astrofinch 11y ago
Your core claim seems to be that the future of AI is impossible to predict for anyone, including Bostrom. If that's the case, it seems like that should inspire more caution, not less. (There's also some DH2 http://paul

More ›