AI Concerns

[Paradoxum]

Does how many other people have concerns over super intelligent AI?

I'm very pro-technology, but I'm increasingly concerned that AI could destroy or enslave us in my lifetime.

Not out of malice... just because it think's it's practical.

Obviously a super intelligent AI could out predict us, so there's no way we could stop it.

Can we be sure that no AI is made which we can't control? Or must we trust that the first one's will protect us?

"Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans."

— Nick Bostrom, "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence", 2003

 

[TerranceL]

Never, ever, ever, give it network access.

 

[nightflight]

I could see it happening; I also think there's no stopping it. If the tech can be made, it will. The urge to utilize it will be irresistible and then it will just a matter of time before problems begin. Hopefully there will be systems in place to give control back to the bio-units.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't see how a program will be able to think for itself. How it can go beyond what a programmer just programmed into it. I could be wrong, but I'm very skeptical it'll ever happen. I guess I'm like the founder of Intel who said there'll never be computers in people's houses.

 

[Eryk]

I think we're projecting human aggression onto machines. Primal emotions like anger and spite motivated fitness-enhancing behaviors in people. But machines don't defend territory from rivals. They don't have offspring or tribes. We could say they are intelligent but not cunning - they don't seek an advantage and they don't even want to survive.

It reminds me of fictional scenarios about aliens dominating the planet, which is an expression of guilt over colonialism.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I think we're projecting human aggression onto machines. Primal emotions like anger and spite motivated fitness-enhancing behaviors in people. But machines don't defend territory from rivals. They don't have offspring or tribes. We could say they are intelligent but not cunning - they don't seek an advantage and they don't even want to survive.

It reminds me of fictional scenarios about aliens dominating the planet, which is an expression of guilt over colonialism.

What about cold logic which might tell the AI they'd do a much better job of running us than we would? Or cold logic tells them that the world and environment would be much better off if we weren't around? How do we know they wouldn't have any desires, like a basic desire for survival? Without desire is it even truly an AI?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I doubt that AIs would even care about enslaving humanity. That strikes me as a human trait.

That doesn't mean that they will be benevolent, of course, but I can see them leaving the Solar System just to do their own thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dysert]

I don't see how a program will be able to think for itself. How it can go beyond what a programmer just programmed into it. I could be wrong, but I'm very skeptical it'll ever happen. I guess I'm like the founder of Intel who said there'll never be computers in people's houses.

I'm with the Sultan. I'm a computer programmer, and you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get even relatively simple things to work, let alone a self-replicating program with hardware interfaces (i.e., a robot). I know robots exist for specialized tasks, but to my knowledge they aren't self-replicating and are strictly doing what the programmers told it to do (at best). Humans just aren't smart enough to build something that smart.

And btw, it was the founder of DEC (Digital Equipment Corp.), Ken Olsen, who couldn't imagine the need for a personal computer.

 

[MotherFirefly]

 

[Goonie]

Does how many other people have concerns over super intelligent AI?

I'm very pro-technology, but I'm increasingly concerned that AI could destroy or enslave us in my lifetime.

Not out of malice... just because it think's it's practical.

Obviously a super intelligent AI could out predict us, so there's no way we could stop it.

Can we be sure that no AI is made which we can't control? Or must we trust that the first one's will protect us?

A more immediate concern is automation, from self driving cars, to automated customer service, and production humanity over the next decade or two are at risk becoming obsolete.

 

[That Guy 11200]

One of the most common ideas is that a self-aware AI would destroy us out of a sense of self-preservation. Well, if it did have that sense, it would be because we programmed it to have that sense, or maybe a sense of fear as a precursor. There are people living today who don't feel fear, and they put themselves into very dangerous situations, because it's fear that makes us want to preserve ourselves. There's absolutely no reason to think a computer would have that sense.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

If androids get human level intelligence, just name them " homo sythetica " and problem solved

 

[dysert]

If androids get human level intelligence, just name them " homo sythetica " and problem solved

There's no font big enough that will let me emphasize "If".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why doesn't anyone think that AIs would be programmed with something akin to Asimov's Laws of Robotics? Or fail safe switches?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Never, ever, ever, give it network access.

I agree, but some idiot will do it eventually. So we should be ready for when it happens.

 

[Paradoxum]

I could see it happening; I also think there's no stopping it. If the tech can be made, it will. The urge to utilize it will be irresistible and then it will just a matter of time before problems begin. Hopefully there will be systems in place to give control back to the bio-units.

The problem is making sure safeguards are in place before super AI are created. We can't have a mad rush once we realize it's gone too far.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't see how a program will be able to think for itself. How it can go beyond what a programmer just programmed into it. I could be wrong, but I'm very skeptical it'll ever happen. I guess I'm like the founder of Intel who said there'll never be computers in people's houses.

Well programmers are trying to program AI to think for themselves.

And it could be that what is programmed logically leads to our destruction.

For example:

"Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans."

— Nick Bostrom, "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence", 2003

Of course it won't be that simple, but the point is, what if we miss something.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think we're projecting human aggression onto machines. Primal emotions like anger and spite motivated fitness-enhancing behaviors in people. But machines don't defend territory from rivals. They don't have offspring or tribes. We could say they are intelligent but not cunning - they don't seek an advantage and they don't even want to survive.

It reminds me of fictional scenarios about aliens dominating the planet, which is an expression of guilt over colonialism.

I said in my post that it wouldn't be about malice, just practical logic.

For example:

"Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans."

— Nick Bostrom, "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence", 2003

It won't be that simple, the point is what if we miss something that logical means humans should die.

 

[Paradoxum]

I doubt that AIs would even care about enslaving humanity. That strikes me as a human trait.

That doesn't mean that they will be benevolent, of course, but I can see them leaving the Solar System just to do their own thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

For example:

"Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans."

— Nick Bostrom, "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence", 2003

It won't be that simple, the point is what if we miss something that logical means humans should die.

An AI wouldn't mess with us because it cares, it might do it because it's logical without morals. If the AI is programmed not to kill, it might enslave, or comatose everyone.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm with the Sultan. I'm a computer programmer, and you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get even relatively simple things to work, let alone a self-replicating program with hardware interfaces (i.e., a robot). I know robots exist for specialized tasks, but to my knowledge they aren't self-replicating and are strictly doing what the programmers told it to do (at best). Humans just aren't smart enough to build something that smart.

And btw, it was the founder of DEC (Digital Equipment Corp.), Ken Olsen, who couldn't imagine the need for a personal computer.

View attachment 176339

Because we can't do something now, it never will happen?

People are already saying that a good way to develop AI will be to get AI to create improved versions of itself.

There's no reason that shouldn't work. Assuming something can't be done is a good way to be proven wrong.