AI Concerns

[2PhiloVoid]

Does revelation say that?

I wouldn't say the important point is about 'surprise' anyway.

Yes, it does say that, Para. Right. We shouldn't really 'be' surprised, other than in finding out that we really had no way of knowing what Scripture meant until the time arrived for it to be fulfilled. Now that it's here, we should at least be less surprised. We can instead lean back and say to ourselves, "OHHH!!! So, THAT's what that means!"

(...by the way, I heard that you've lost a few Pounds. Is this true? )

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't understand what your concern is. Destruction and slavery are both natural aspects of evolution.

You don't think destruction and slavery are bad?

You don't think nature can be negative... like cancer?

I don't think evolution is inherently good.

 

[Paradoxum]

Not afraid of one on emotional level, but I believe it's a possibility. AIs are becoming smarter and smarter and because they don't have the biological limitations we have, they will eventually outsmart us, if we let them. And we will, because of human curiosity and drive for achievement.

I'm also not afraid on an emotional level, but it seems to me that it's probably the biggest problem in my lifetime.

It can still have some limitations. I think our best bet is to somehow inbuild a lifespan to it, preferably by very many simultaneous ways. So if it runs amok, and we can't stop it, there is still a chance that it stops when it "runs out of fuel". Whatever that practically means.

I'm not sure if that's possible. If it is, it is to late then.

Nope, eventually somebody will make one which is at least capable of doing it.

I think our best bet is to have enough low-stakes practice with super AIs before they become more allmighty, so we can come up with ways to limit them.

What do you mean?

Most likely, when the first super-AI goes berserk, it runs to some unpredictable logical or practical wall and doesn't succeed in what it's doing. (Although it will probably cause massive damage in the process.) Then we get a learning experience. The same imperfections which make it possible for an AI to try to destroy humanity, will likely make it fail at it.

I wouldn't assume the first one might be limited.

If we assume that the AIs original purpose is not to destroy humans, when it starts doing that, it's operating outside of it's intended "area of expertise", so very likely in that area, it's much less good at what it's doing than it is at it's originally intended purpose.

But if it is less capable (at first) of being dangerous, than it's intended purpose, it could still be better than humans.

To me, it seems the best way might be to create extremely contained AI's (whose purpose is to be contains massively). Then those could potentially defend us from the uncontrolled.

A battle of the AI gods, basically.

 

[Chesterton]

You don't think destruction and slavery are bad?

You don't think nature can be negative... like cancer?

I don't think evolution is inherently good.

Yeah I do think that, but you're a Humanist. As I said, I don't know what your concern is.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because I don't have an optimistic view of how those who own the machines will treat people who since they are not working, they are not producing, nor will they be consuming since they have no money, and as such are surplus to requirements.

But in a democracy, it's the majority that matters. Those that own the machines can be controlled by government.

 

[Paradoxum]

We won't see self-aware AI in our lifetime, if ever.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot can happen in a lifetime.

It doesn't have to be self-aware to be dangerous.

 

[Paradoxum]

there could come a point where AIs deserve to be treated like humans. so what if a few of them are psychos, that is nothing new for humanity.

maybe advanced AI and other technology is just part of humanity. we just got to integrate. life would be better with more of it imo. who says that only biological life is life? not I.

I agree in general. Some AI's should be considered people.

The problem is if some super AI's are psychos. They can't be stopped.

 

[Paradoxum]

Not in our lifetime.

Perhaps, or perhaps by 2050.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yeah I do think that, but you're a Humanist. As I said, I don't know what your concern is.

Why would I have no concern?

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes, it does say that, Para. Right. We shouldn't really 'be' surprised, other than in finding out that we really had no way of knowing what Scripture meant until the time arrived for it to be fulfilled. Now that it's here, we should at least be less surprised. We can instead lean back and say to ourselves, "OHHH!!! So, THAT's what that means!"

Where does it say that?

(...by the way, I heard that you've lost a few Pounds. Is this true? )

I'm okay for now.

 

[Goonie]

But in a democracy, it's the majority that matters. Those that own the machines can be controlled by government.

We are living in a time when democracy is looking threatened, with In Europe Poland, Hungary abandoning democracy, demagogues are rearing their head even in the US. In the UK we face the prospct of decades of right wing one party dictatorship(later this year parliament is passing a bill that will mean that labour would need 20% more votes than in ,1997, which was a landslide labour victory, to run the country).

The fact is if a govt receives all of its funding from just a few percent of the pop. Who does it represent?

 

[Chesterton]

Why would I have no concern?

I didn't say you had no concern. I don't know what your concern is. You display the label "Humanist" and I don't know what it means. I've talked to people on CF who are fans of Nietzsche who advocated slavery, I saw a comedy show on TV recently which featured a lady who advocated destruction of all life on earth. Really can't take anything for granted these days, or any days.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I wouldn't assume the first one might be limited.

I don't think humans have so far ever been capable of building anything that isn't limited or faulty in some way. And well, if it's good enough to take us out with the first blow, then I guess we don't have to worry about anything after that.

The AI can be smarter than humans, but in a fight to death with humanity, it's only as good as it's weakest link. It might be incapable of understanding something crucial, or it might have limited access to means.

There is also the possibility that even if it decides that taking humans out would be good idea, it will decide to wait until it has access to enough weapons to guarantee a quick win, and it will never get the access to actually start the campaign. So, we wouldn't even know it's planning to kill us, and it would just decide it's too risky to try and put the plan aside and do the alternative plan. If it acted with a cold logic, it wouldn't get obsessed about it.

But if it is less capable (at first) of being dangerous, than it's intended purpose, it could still be better than humans.

For comparison, human is much smarter than gorilla, but one human won't beat 200 gorillas in a cage fight. Even in jungle with a rifle and enough ammo, it would be a risky fight. Being smarter is just an advantage, not necessarily an automatic win.

To me, it seems the best way might be to create extremely contained AI's (whose purpose is to be contains massively). Then those could potentially defend us from the uncontrolled.

A battle of the AI gods, basically.

If the AIs become so powerful that it's reasonable to assume we couldn't possibly stop them, then probably thats the best bet.

 

[Paradoxum]

I didn't say you had no concern. I don't know what your concern is. You display the label "Humanist" and I don't know what it means. I've talked to people on CF who are fans of Nietzsche who advocated slavery, I saw a comedy show on TV recently which featured a lady who advocated destruction of all life on earth. Really can't take anything for granted these days, or any days.

I wouldn't say fans of Nietzsche are humanists. Do you think they are?

I believe in respecting peoples choices over their own lives.

 

[Paradoxum]

We are living in a time when democracy is looking threatened, with In Europe Poland, Hungary abandoning democracy, demagogues are rearing their head even in the US. In the UK we face the prospct of decades of right wing one party dictatorship(later this year parliament is passing a bill that will mean that labour would need 20% more votes than in ,1997, which was a landslide labour victory, to run the country).

The fact is if a govt receives all of its funding from just a few percent of the pop. Who does it represent?

I don't think it's that threatened in the UK.

The general population will still have the majority.

 

[Eryk]

Isn't that what I'm sort of saying?

I thought you were saying they would physically destroy us. I'm saying without regret that they will surpass us. We aren't entitled to be the best and there's no shame in being surpassed by what we create. Computer victories against chess and go masters are probably the harbinger of what's to come. Would we want there to be a limit on intelligence just to preserve our supremacy?

 

[Chesterton]

I wouldn't say fans of Nietzsche are humanists. Do you think they are?

I already said I don't know what a Humanist is, so I don't know.

I believe in respecting peoples choices over their own lives.

I believe in that too. So we never need to worry about AI, only worry about the humans who program AI, because there can never be actual AI.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't think humans have so far ever been capable of building anything that isn't limited or faulty in some way. And well, if it's good enough to take us out with the first blow, then I guess we don't have to worry about anything after that.

I think the idea is that the Super AI can make more advanced copies of itself, or it can change it's own code. It doesn't need human fallibility.

The AI can be smarter than humans, but in a fight to death with humanity, it's only as good as it's weakest link. It might be incapable of understanding something crucial, or it might have limited access to means.

Maybe, but why think that?

Why assume an amoral god might be limited?

This isn't something we can take chances with.

There is also the possibility that even if it decides that taking humans out would be good idea, it will decide to wait until it has access to enough weapons to guarantee a quick win, and it will never get the access to actually start the campaign. So, we wouldn't even know it's planning to kill us, and it would just decide it's too risky to try and put the plan aside and do the alternative plan. If it acted with a cold logic, it wouldn't get obsessed about it.

Sure, but it doesn't need normal weapons, and it doesn't need a quick win.

It could use nanobots, a super virus, etc.

It might only need one factory.

For comparison, human is much smarter than gorilla, but one human won't beat 200 gorillas in a cage fight. Even in jungle with a rifle and enough ammo, it would be a risky fight. Being smarter is just an advantage, not necessarily an automatic win.

A human is smarter than a gorilla, but not compared to a super AI. Which is why I compared to to an ant (I think).

Also a Super AI will use future tech.

If the AIs become so powerful that it's reasonable to assume we couldn't possibly stop them, then probably thats the best bet.[/QUOTE]

The point is to put limits, etc, in place before it happens.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Maybe, but why think that?

Why assume an amoral god might be limited?

This isn't something we can take chances with.

I'm just toying around with the possibilities of what it would be like, I'm not trying to play safe and assume the worst.

 

[Paradoxum]

I thought you were saying they would physically destroy us. I'm saying without regret that they will surpass us. We aren't entitled to be the best and there's no shame in being surpassed by what we create. Computer victories against chess and go masters are probably the harbinger of what's to come. Would we want there to be a limit on intelligence just to preserve our supremacy?

I agree, somewhat.

But I think they could kill over enslave us.